Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Randfontein advocated that officials of the Post Office should be freed from the Public Service Commission. I want to inform the hon. member that I have already, during the introduction of the Post Office Readjustment Bill, stated my opinions on this matter clearly, and that I have nothing to add to that, except perhaps to say that the hon. member will realize that the Post Office will not be able to do this on its own initiative, but that the Government will have to take a resolution in that regard.

The hon. member for Berea voiced complaints in regard to the delivery of post. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Post Office is making continual attempts to eliminate all avaoidable delays, and that any complaints from the public will be thoroughly investigated. Owing to the shortage of suitable staff for delivery services, the Post Office is in many places being compelled to restrict the service to one deliyery per day. In the business centres in cities, and in many country towns, two deliveries per day are made, and it is the aim of the Department to make this service generally available where the quantity and times of mail received justifies such a step.

The hon. member also complained about the express post. The hon. member is obviously labouring under a misconception of what precisely the express delivery service or express post, as it is commonly called, of the Post Office entails. This does not mean that such articles are transported more rapidly than other articles from one centre to another. The articles, in the same way as other post, are sent by surface or air-mail, depending upon the amount of postage paid. The service is in fact a rapid delivery service, as the name express delivery service indicates. If such an article is handed in at Cape Town for delivery in Cape Town, it is delivered by telegraph messenger, and if it is sent from here to Pretoria, it is delivered there as soon as the mailbags are opened, by special messenger. Articles addressed to private boxes and private bags are put into them as quickly as possible. The cost of the service is 10c over and above the normal postage per article. This fee consists of 5c sorting costs and 5c delivery costs. Over delivery distances of more than a mile an additional delivery fee is payable.

The hon. member for East London (North) spoke about our postage stamps and the role of ambassador which they can play in the remote corners of the earth. I do not know whether all stamp experts and stamp collectors would agree with the hon. member that our postage stamps compare unfavourably with those of other countries. Postage stamp production is a specialized undertaking, and I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that we are continually endeavouring to issue postage stamps of a high quality. A special* postage stamp design committee, on which authoritative stamp experts and eminent artists serve, is responsible for the selection of stamps, and they are people who fulfil their task with great responsibility, in all earnestness, and in as well-balanced a way as possible. The Government Printer is responsible for printing our stamps, and here too, an attempt is made to maintain the highest possible standards. South Africa is traditionally very conservative as regards new issues of postage stamps. This ensures that our postage stamps are much sought after both at home and abroad, and retain their popularity for long periods. This also ensures that postage stamp collectors here and overseas are not being exploited in that they are always having to invest considerable amounts in order to ensure that their collections are complete. In general, special postage stamps are only issued in South Africa on occasions which are of national importance for the country. In this regard I should like to thank the hon. member for Waterkloof for his suggestion to the effect that a postage stamp or postage stamps should be issued to commemorate the first heart transplant in the world. Other people have also put forward this suggestion, and we agree that Professor Barnard and his team have won great fame for South Africa and that this deserves local recognition. We shall give further and thorough consideration to this matter.

The hon. member for Waterkloof also discussed postal deliveries by postmen on mopeds. This method is at present being tested. But the hon. member will agree with me that it can only be of service in suburban areas; it will be entirely unpractical for deliveries in the metropolitan area. I should also like to thank the hon. member for the suggestion that delivery points for two dwellings should be constructed on the boundary between the two premises so that postmen can make their deliveries more easily and more rapidly. This matter will be gone into fully.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) complained about the promotion of technicians. He is absent from the House now and I shall return to him later.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark made inquiries about the results of the experiment conducted in Vanderbijlpark where women were used to deliver post. I want to tell the hon. member that the results are very favourable. Recently, when I held discussions with the Post Office Association, this was one of the matters to which attention was given. Consideration is being given to the increased utilization of women in the delivery and sorting of post.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) complained about the promotion of technicians. The procedure followed in the Post Office in regard to promotion has been improved and adjusted over the years, and has in fact withstood the test of time. Out of the thousands of officials who are annually subjected to determination in advance, the Department receives very few complaints from people whom it has not been possible to promote. The main thing is that merit and personal qualities are of decisive importance. All the staff associations have repeatedly trumpeted out their full confidence in the merit system of the Post Office. Consequently the system enjoys the general confidence of the staff.

The hon. member also stated we should rather supply new telephones than modernize services. Surely it is obvious that the telephone system as a whole must be expanded as one makes more and more telephone services available. More services entail larger exchanges, more cables, more main lines, and the automation and modernization of the system to ensure that it can carry all the traffic. Of the 59,000 waiting applicants, 80 per cent are in urban and densely populated areas where automatic exchanges already exist, and only 20 per cent are in the rural areas. Where we can provide a good service by means of a manual exchange in a rural area, money is not being spent unnecessarily on automating such an exchange, and capital is being used instead to supply telephones to persons who have not yet been supplied with services. This has always been the policy of the Post Office, and the Post Office official Jo whom the hon. member spoke was apparently referring to this. In other words he merely confirmed what is already being done by us in this regard.

The hon. member for Port Natal raised certain matters in regard to the proposed takeover of the Durban telephone service from the Durban Corporation. I want to inform him that this matter is under discussion and consequently I do not think it is advisable for me to refer to it at this stage. The matters he raised here will in fact enjoy the attention they ought to receive.

The hon. member for Houghton requested that the telephone tariffs which apply on Sundays should be decreased in order to reduce the pressure on telephones during the week. I want to inform the hon. member that in cases where main-line calls are put through by operators it is not advisable to do away with the present high Sunday tariffs, in the first place because the Post Office does not only have to pay higher overtime rates on Sundays, but also wants to give as many operators as possible a rest on Sunday. As the system of direct dialling between exchanges expands, the increased Sunday tariffs will fall away because long distance calls, according to that system, are registered automatically as counted units, according to the standard tariff for call units.

Can personal calls be booked according to this system, or is it only possible to dial a number?

No, I do not think one can place a personal call according to this new system.

The hon. member for Houghton referred here to England and America where this is being done. I just want to remind her that they have achieved a more advanced stage of automation of telephone services than is the case here.

The hon. member for Rustenburg asked for sea-ting facilities for pensioners when they draw their money at Post Offices. I want to ensure him that this is in fact our policy. At the erection of new Post Offices the requirements of the public are taken into consideration very thoroughly. Even at old Post Offices where additional facilities are supplied, they are being supplied according to the available space in the Post Office, and in accordance with the needs existing there.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked for the micro-wave system to be used in his constituency to prevent telephone delays owing to heavy deposits of snow. I want to tell the hon. member that when I referred to that last night, I meant that the micro-wave system would be used for main-line routes. A microwave system is extremely expensive, the oosts run into millions of rand, and if can only be economically utilized on major main-line routes. The use of such an expensive and complicated system cannot possibly be justified in rural areas specifically, where the telephone traffic, and therefore the relative income, is limited. The bon. member also asked for a statement on the delivery of mailbags in rural areas, and he said that he hoped that there would be no curtailment of die service. In many of the remote places of the country, the Post Office is maintaining small post offices which do not pay. The Post Office also maintains the transport of post to those post offices and the transport of private mailbags of farmers on the route along which the post is transported on an uneconomic basis. On 3rd May, I told the House I was of the opinion that in respect of post office services, inter alia, in the rural areas and particularly in the remote areas, we should as far as possible follow the principle that it is “in the national interests”, and that each one of these services does not necessarily have to be a paying service on its own. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that it will not be my policy that these services should either be paying services or will otherwise be abolished. It is obvious that we will have to be careful with the expansion of such uneconomic services. The Post Office will always take the interests of the remote communities into consideration very carefully as far as the maintenance of existing uneconomic services is concerned.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) asked for the establishment of a radio studio at Port Elizabeth to be expedited. Now the hon. member knows that the S.A.B.C. is an autonomous body and I do not like to interfere in the domestic matters of the S.A.B.C. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that the planning of the new studio building in Port Elizabeth is being expedited, and that a start will be made on the construction next year. In addition I can also inform the member that the Radio Good Hope service will be expanded to Port Elizabeth, East London and King William’s Town in August of this year. The hon. member for Albanie asked me for something which was just the reverse. What he asked for was that the service should not be taken away from Grahamstown, or that the service should be kept and that another service in Port Elizabeth be introduced. I have been informed that the Bantu service of Grahamstown has been moved to King William’s Town in order to bring it closer to the Xhosa ethnic unit. That is in fact what the hon. member pleaded for. I would just like to inform the hon. member that most of the contributions in the Eastern Cape come from Port Elizabeth in any case, while the contribution from Grahamstown is in fact very small.

What I did ask the hon. Minister was whether the headquarters are going to be moved from Grahamstown.

According to my information, they will not be moved. However, the hon. member for Albanie realizes that the S.A.B.C. is an autonomous body. I want to ask the hon. member to explain this fact to the hon. member for Orange Grove, so that the hon. member can understand it. The hon. member for Orange Grove said last night, inter alia, that in the past the Minister had first to append his approval when an immigrant was appointed by the S.A.B.C. He said that this was no longer the case however, and that it was no longer necessary to obtain the Minister’s approval. This statement is incorrect; it is not correct. In denying yesterday that the licence had been amended in regard to the requirement that the employment as staff in a specific category of persons, who were not South African citizens, should not be approved by the Postmaster-General, I was referring to something different to what the hon. member was referring.

You said that the licence had not been changed, but had been altered. Here I have the reply.

Let me explain to the hon. member. The hon. member must not be so hasty.

You are trying to get out of it.

Who is trying to get out of it? I was speaking about the contents of the relevant provision in the licence, and the hon. member was speaking about the wording of the provision. [Interjections.] Wait a minute; listen. The hon. member must not be so hasty. The meaning in the contents has definitely not been changed, but the wording has been adjusted in order to prevent a possible incorrect interpretation. The question put to me by the hon. member on 7th June was whether the licence of the S.A.B.C. had been amended since 1st January, 1964, in regard to the employment of persons who were not South African citizens. I then replied to him that the licence had in fact been amended in this respect, and quoted to him the old and the new wording of the relevant clause. The adjustment of the wording of the licence did not entail an amendment of the requirement which has applied since the new licence was issued on 1st January, 1964. All it did was to state the requirement more clearly. The provision refers to “broadcast stations”. By that is meant the technical transmitting stations, and not studios and other non-technical divisions of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. But the old wording was nevertheless open to the interpretation that it affected staff and other sections. It would have resulted in a cumbersome procedure if it were to be applied to all members of staff. That was never the intention of the provision. In fact, I can inform the hon. member, and then it will perhaps be clearer to him, that before this amendment to which he referred, the appointment of officials of the S.A.B.C., other than technical officials, was never submitted to the Postmaster-General for approval.

That was an omission on the part of the S.A.B.C.

The hon. member will just have to go and read through my speech again and see whether he cannot understand it. I can do nothing more for him.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also requested that I should make more use of my own powers under the Act itself in order to see to it that the S.A.B.C. is and remains an impartial body. If I use those powers, the hon. member for Orange Grove will be the first person to accuse me of dragging party politics into the radio services of South Africa. I know the hon. member only too well; he will not deceive me in that way.

The hon. member also stated that all departments were working a five-day week, but not the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Surely the hon. member knows that this is not the case. Is the hon. member not ashamed to make such statements, which simply are not true?

[Inaudible.]

Wait a minute. The hon. member must listen so that I can tell him what happened. Why can the hon. member never stick to the truth?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that the hon. member never sticks to the truth?

Yes!

Order! The hon. Minister may proceed.

I am really sorry that I have to spend so much time on the hon. member for Orange Grove. But the hon. member makes so many incorrect statements in one speech, and he made quite a few speeches, that I have to spend a great deal of time on him. I now want to inform him that when a five-day working week was introduced into the Post Office, it was done on the understanding that services to the public would not be curtailed or impeded as a result. In many divisions of the Post Office it was in fact possible to exempt staff members from working on Saturdays. But in other cases, for example sorting sections, telegraph offices, telephone exchanges, postal delivery sections, and telephone maintenance sections, this was of course not always practical. Where it is in any way possible officials working in such sections are granted concessions on week days in order to make up for their services on Saturdays. In many cases even such an arrangement is not possible without suspending services to the public on Saturdays. If the concession of a five-day working week were to be applied throughout,, such offices would have to close on Saturdays, and then the hon. member and other hon. members on the opposite side would complain about it.

In other words, the five-day working week is not being applied throughout?

No really, I do not think I must say anything further in regard to this matter. [Interjections.] I stated emphatically that the five-day working week was introduced in the Post Office subject to certain understandings. Where possible, some people will be exempted. In that case one may just as well state that the five-day working week has not been introduced on the Railways. Or one can just as well state that the five-day working week does not apply in regard to certain Government Departments which also have to make certain services available on Saturdays.

In addition the hon. member referred once again to the compulsory deposit for the provision of a telephone service. The aim in charging these deposits is not to obtain additional revenue, but to prevent the loss of revenue owing to non-payment when services are terminated. The charging of deposits to prevent ultimate losses is an accepted business practice, and is often levied by the suppliers of services such as water and electricity. The fact that the Post Office has now been placed on a business basis makes it all the more essential that this service should also be run on a business basis.

The hon. member also referred to reputed complaints among officials in regard to salaries and wages, and in that regard he saw fit to refer to certain resolutions adopted by certain staff associations. Let me inform the hon. member at once that the staff associations are quite capable of looking after their own affairs —they definitely do not need the help of the hon. member for Orange Grove to do that. In fact, they do not want it because they know that if he helps them he is merely going to make a hash of things. But the question I want to ask the hon. member is, why does he quote the statements of two of those staff associations who have not yet been to see me? Why does he not refer as well to the statements of those staff associations to which I have already granted interviews? I shall now do so for the hon. member’s benefit. Mr. Van Niekerk, the Secretary of the Postal Association, stated (translation)—

This the hon. member for Orange Grove did not read out of course—after all, it did not suit his purpose as party political propagandist.

The hon. member also referred to the printing of the telephone directory for the Western Cape, and alleged that the lowest tender for this work had been rejected and the highest accepted. In a subsequent speech he alleged that the oontract had been given to subsidiary of Dagbreek and Die Vaderland, namely Hayne and Gibson. What is the actual position? The printing of this telephone directory is undertaken by the Government Printer on behalf of the Post Office so this matter actually falls under another Vote, but I shall try to lead the hon. member out of the blind alley he has blundered into. The position is, and the hon. member has this information, that three tenders were received for the work: Two from Messrs. Hayne and Gibson for R117.33 per page and R125.27 per page respectively; and one from Cape and Transvaal Printers for R133.85 per page. The lowest tender, namely that of R117.33 of Hayne and Gibson was unacceptable because the paper which was to have been used, did not comply with the requirements. But their tender of R 125.27, that is the second-lowest tender, was accepted, however. Apart from the fact that this tender was not the highest, it was also regarded as the most suitable and the most acceptable tender for the work. But it seems to me the hon. member for Orange Grove simply does not want to pay any heed to the truth; he simply disregards the information supplied to him, for this information was furnished to him. But apparently he is a person who has no respect for the truth.

After I had made a statement here yesterday with reference to the shortage of telecommunication services, the hon. member rose immediately afterwards, and stormed in like a wounded and infuriated rhinoceros bull, without having had the opportunity of making a thorough study of a very long statement, which was 14 pages long. I think the hon. member acted in an extremely irresponsible way. He seized upon three points in that statement, and tried to base his case on them. These points were, firstly, that I had said that the shortage of telecommunication services was the greatest problem being experienced at present by my Department; seoondly, that the quality of the service had deteriorated over the years, owing to the small capital appropriation; and thirdly, that I admitted that our main line system was in an unsatisfactory condition. On the basis of these admissions of mine the hon. member tried to play me off against other hon. members on this side, against the “backbenchers” as he called them. Hon. members on this side realize of course what the problem is—in fact, there is not one member who is not aware of them. And let me inform the hon. member that I receive more complaints from hon. members on this side of the House in regard to telephone services than from hon. members on the opposite side. That proves that hon. members on this side are always willing to look after the interests of their constituencies and do not deem it sufficient merely to kick up a fuss here, as the hon. member for Orange Grove does.

Hon. members on this side of the House are reasonable people and they understand the conditions prevailing there, and they know that everything possible is being done to place the service on a better basis. Unlike the hon. member for Orange Grove, they at least display appreciation for what is being done, and they accept that in future things are going to be tackled in all earnestness. But what did the hon. member try to intimate in his speech last night? In effect he said to the postal staff that regardless of how much capital was pumped into the Post Office, they, i.e. the Post Office officials, did not have the ability to make up the backlog. That, in effect, is what the hon. member said.

You are missing the point.

Of course the hon. member for Yeoville will say that; he is too much of a party-political propagandist to admit it.

But I know the Minister.

Let me say again that one thing, and one thing only is responsible for the shortage of telecommunication services in the country, i.e. the inadequate capital appropriations over the past few years. This made it impossible for the Post Office to undertake long-term planning.

But who appropriates the capital?

The Government of course. Surely that is a stupid question to ask me, because the hon. member ought to know the answer. In the forties it was the United Party Government on the other hand who were not appropriating sufficient funds for the provision of the necessary services. In any case, because we realized the problem, my predecessor began to exert himself in 1959 to bring about the independence of the Post Office. Last night, when I alleged that we did not have the support of the opposite side in that regard, I found it interesting to see how the hon. member for Yeoville immediately sprang in with the assertion that it was not true. What is the record of the United Party in this regard? I think it is essential that we make this clear. In 1940 the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Accounts advocated a financially independent Post Office on the same basis as the Railways. Members of the United Party were in the majority on that Select Committee because the United Party was then in power, but they did nothing about it. In 1947 the Centlivres Commission found that the Post Office was in effect a business undertaking, and recommended that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Accounts in 1940 be implemented. But now we come to 1959.

Twenty years later.

Now we come to 1959; that was the time, according to the hon. member for Yeoville, when the United Party gave us such wholehearted support in regard to this matter. I want to quote what the hon. member for Constantia said in 1959. He said—

Then I want to quote what the then member for Drakensberg said on that occasion—

And then they made her a Senator.

Yes. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) said at that time (Col. 7072)—

In other words, as the United Party viewed this matter, and nobody repudiated that hon. member on that occasion—

Where are the hon. members now who at that time sought to bring about the independence of the Post Office? It has happened on more than one occasion in the past that the National Party began to advocate a matter, and when the matter was effected, the United Party followed after and demanded the credit, claiming that they had advocated the matter. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I want to deny firmly that the United Party had any share in the independence of the Post Office. On the contrary, they did everything they could to make our task, and the task of my predecessor, as difficult as possible.

Normally I would not have replied to the hon. the Minister, but there are a few points which most definitely call for a reply, and I shall be as brief as possible. I do not think the hon. Minister’s attitude and language are suited to a person in a responsible position.

They are suited to you.

He is concerned about the gossip.

First of all I want to refer to the Minister’s repeated denial, three or four times, that any alteration was effected in the licence issued to the S.A.B.C. by the Postmaster-General.

To the meaning and the contents.

Let us get the facts and then we can judge for ourselves whether the alteration is a significant one. This is what he said recently—

Sir, if one understands English, this means only one thing, and that is that no person can be employed at any broadcasting station without the approval of the Postmaster-General. I then asked the hon. the Minister—and he gave me the reply on Friday—whether any alteration had been effected to the licence in this connection since 1st January, 1964. You will remember that he said that no change had been effected. I repeat: I asked him whether any alteration had been effected to the licence in that connection since 1st January, 1964, and here are his words: “(2) (a) Yes.” Y-E-S yes”.

I have admitted it in my speech now.

The previous provision was replaced in its entirety by a new provision, and the reason for that is that it was found out that the S.A.B.C. had in the past failed to comply with this provision of the licence. To ensure that they will be even less restricted now and that they can proceed on their own in an unbridled way, this new provision was inserted. Mr. Chairman, there are further points, but I shall not go into them now. I will most certainly reply to the hon. the Minister in this connection on a later occasion.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 6,—Transport, R34,175,000, and Loan Vote L,—Transport, R159,000:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister will take charge of this Vote.

I should like to bring two little matters to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister. One is in connection with an announcement made by the National Transport Commission some time ago in regard to a proposed coastal road from Gordon’s Bay along the Southern Cape coast to Mossel Bay. Since the details of that route were announced, quite a number of contradictory statements have appeared in the Press, and I should like to draw his attention to it. Some of the statements came from the highest authority of the Province, and there seems to be considerable opposition to this idea. There are quite a number of interests involved in this matter. It affects many local authorities. Future planning has to be done and there is a considerable amount of confusion and uncertainty about what is going to happen in this connection. Therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to make use of this opportunity, if he deems it fit, to make a statement in order to clarify the matter.

Another matter I want to raise, because it has caused quite a stir in the Peninsula lately, is the question of the introduction of a larger measure of apartheid on buses in the Cape Peninsula. As a result of representations made by the National Party of the Cape Peninsula in 1954, the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Sauer, appointed a commission of inquiry. As a result of the work done by that commission, partial bus apartheid was introduced in the Peninsula, and we were under the impression that the bus apartheid would be gradually extended. Unfortunately matters have not developed in that direction. I think the time has come for us to take note of the fact that the public of the Peninsula can no longer put up with the present situation. It is much easier to-day to introduce total bus apartheid in the Cape Peninsula, because very great progress has been made as regards the group areas for the different races. The various races are now to a large extent living in their own group areas, and it is much easier now than it was at that time to introduce bus apartheid on an economic basis. Sir, two representatives of the various bus companies served on the commission the Minister of Transport appointed at that time. The bus companies co-operated with the Government commission. The Cape Town City Council was also asked to serve on the commission, but they refused to co-operate. They refused to co-operate for two reasons, firstly, because the Cape Town City Council is full of United Party supporters who have no intention of doing anything towards implementing the Government’s policy of separate development. On the contrary, they are doing everything in their power to force integration upon the public of Cape Town and the Peninsula.

I am saying that this is the first reason, namely that the United Party supporters on the Cape Town City Council refused to cooperate in implementing the Government’s policy. But there was another reason why they refused to co-operate, and that is that the Cape Town City Council has been making money out of these bus companies all these years. The provision of bus transport to the public is a basic task of the local authorities, and instead of undertaking this basic task all these years, the Cape Town City Council has left it in the hands of a private company. While other urban areas throughout the country are incurring heavy losses every year, losses which the taxpayers have to make good, in providing a basic transport service to the public, Cape Town is making money out of the matter. I just want to mention that last year Johannesburg incurred a loss of R1,076,000 on its transport services, Durban R558,000, Pretoria R400.000, East London R202,000, Benoni R155,000, and Boksburg R130,000. These large municipalities all incurred enormous losses because they are rendering the basic service of separate transport services to the public. But instead of rendering this service, the Cape Town City Council is having a couple of private companies pay for the privilege of rendering these services. Do you know what they are doing. Sir? They are having the private bus company pay R1.26 per head for each person transported. Even if that person does not have a seat in the bus and has to stand, the bus company has to pay R1.26 for the transport of those persons. In this way the City Council receives R35.364 per annum. They levy a charge of R20 per bus on the companies, for each bus. R7,850 is obtained in this way. They charge R1 per head for all conductors, which brings in R 1,035, and they charge 75 cents per head for all drivers. In this way the Cape Town City Council collected R44.765 from the bus companies last year, while these buses operate not only in the area of the Cape Town Municipality, but also for miles and miles through the municipalities of Parow, Goodwood, Bellville, Milnerton, Durbanyille, Kraaifontein and the area of the Cape Divisional Council. If these other municipalities should do what the Cape Town City Council does, what would happen to the public?

But this is not all. Until the year before last the Cape Town City Council went further and demanded 7½ per cent of the bus companies’ net profit each year. In other words, they made a milch-cow of the bus companies. Through the bus companies they are indirectly collecting money from the inhabitants of Parow, Goodwood and other places for their own purposes. I warned against this position in the Provincial Council as far back as 1955, and said that the Province should not allow a city council to have a share in the profits of a private company, because it led to corruption. As far back as 1955 the City Council obtained R54,000 from the bus companies in this way, and as the profits of the companies increased the City Council received more and more. They have collected millions of rands from the bus companies. After representations had been made to them, they simply refused to renounce these profits, with the result that the companies eventually went to court, and the court decided that the City Council was no longer entitled to this share of the profit which it was making out of the public through the bus companies.

I say that this is a basic service which the City Council should provide to the Mother City. In the first place they should be compelled to co-operate in implementing the policy of the Government and to render these services. Secondly, they should be prohibited from obtaining these large amounts from the public every year without returning one penny of it to the public.

There is the question of finances in this matter. The bus company says that if it had to implement total apartheid, it would mean an additional cost of approximately R59,000 per annum on the route from Sea Point to Wynberg. On the Cape Town-Kuils River route it would cost approximately R76,000 extra per annum. They say they would lose approximately R 135,000. ‘The company’s profits were R216,000 as at 30th June last year, which is a reasonable profit, but the company cannot do this alone. They are a private undertaking and they cannot bear this burden alone. The Province must do its share in this connection as far as the Mother City is concerned. The Province is receiving R250 per bus per annum from the motor vehicle licence moneys they are collecting from the bus company, which amounts to more than R 100,000 per annum. I think the Province should also be asked to contribute a share in respect of these possible losses, although I do not think that these losses will be so fantastically high. If total apartheid is introduced on the buses, the public of the Peninsula will find it more pleasant to travel by bus, but the people cannot tolerate the present conditions. I think the loss will be minimal if this matter is tackled properly.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to discuss matters of general policy under the Minister’s salary on this Vote, as the work of the Marais Commission has not yet been completed. That Commission was appointed after representations had been made to the hon. the Minister from this side of the House, and perhaps from the other side of the House as well. We are all looking forward to the report of that Commission on the co-ordination of transport services in South Africa. It will not be of much use to try to anticipate it now, but I think I am entitled to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what progress is being made with the work and when we may expect to receive either an interim report or a complete report from this Commission, and what progress is being made with the work in general.

Then I think we can also make use of this opportunity to bring a few matters to the attention of the Minister briefly, because the time is very limited, and to ask him to inform the House and the people. The first matter which I want to raise is one of the utmost importance, and it concerns the question of the allocation of funds from the National Road Fund to local authorities for the construction of urban freeways. We should very much like to know what the present position is, and what the attitude of the Government and the Department is towards the construction of these freeways and the financing thereof, since the Minister announced in April that the payments from the National Road Fund to local authorities would be discontinued after the present obligations had been met.

The National Road Fund, which obtains its money from the duty on petrol, makes an enormous contribution to the construction of roads and to the improvement of our public communication roads in South Africa. I notice from replies to questions put to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Salt River on 14th May, that in 1960-’61 the Road Fund paid R19 million to the provincial authorities for the construction of roads. This amount rose to R58 million in 1967-’68. On the same day the Minister gave us information on what was being paid to local authorities for the construction of freeways. These figures are worth looking at. In 1961-’62 R2.3 million was paid to Durban and Johannesburg for this work, and in 1967-’68, after Port Elizabeth and Cape Town had been added, this contribution amounted to R3,088.000, and the Road Fund is committed to pay local authorities very large amounts for the next four or five years. In the case of Johannesburg they are committed for an amount of R15 million until 1971-’72; in the case of Durban for an amount of R10 million until 1972-’73; in the case of Port Elizabeth for an amount of R5 million until 1971-’72; and in the case of Cape Town for an amount of R8.5 million until 1972-’73. Although the dates in respect of Pretoria have not been fixed, it is an amount of approximately R4 million in this case. I should like to know from the Minister whether he thinks that the speedways to be constructed in terms of the present programme of subsidization by the National Road Fund will be able to solve the enormous problems of traffic congestion in our cities by these dates. My information is that this plan is merely part of more extensive plans still to be completed. Or is it the considered opinion of the Minister and the Government that these freeways are not the answer to the problem? We have had a statement by Mr. De Villiers, the chief engineer of the National Road Rund; in his opinion experience in America has shown that freeways are not the answer to the problem of congestion in the cities. However, this is a matter of opinion. There are other experts who are perhaps as qualified to judge and who have a different opinion in regard to the matter. Interestingly enough, Dr. Morris, the City Engineer of Cape Town, who has certainly given South Africa an example of what can be done with freeways in this city in which we find ourselves at present, where the problems have been solved and where the detrimental effects feared by critics have not materialized!—for example, we do not have an air of desolation in the central part of the city—believes that freeways are indeed the answer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not getting up to react to the few questions which the hon. member for Yeoville put to the hon. the Minister. There are two little matters which I respectfully want to bring to the Minister’s notice. Firstly,. I want to refer to the very praiseworthy attitude adopted by the Minister during the discussion of his Vote in this House in 1965 in respect of the support, morally and otherwise, of civil aviation. He said that he was going out of his way to encourage these people and that he had also recommended to his colleague that further concessions be granted in respect of income tax paid by the owner of a private aircraft when it is sold. There was also the question of further concessions by the hon. the Minister of Finance in the form of a rebate in the duty on petrol in respect of civil aviation. Concessions have since been granted in respect of income tax, but not in respect of the fuel used by these people. I respectfully want to bring this matter to the Minister’s notice. We want to express our appreciation and gratitude for the concessions which have been made so far and for the sympathetic ear he has for the people who are in my opinion rendering a very important public service in terms of traffic, emergency services and the training of pilots in this country. In view of the conditions under which we are living at present, and our present circumstances, this is perhaps a good psychological moment to give attention once again to this important matter.

I also refer to an anomaly which exists in this regard. The Minister of Finance has already agreed in principle to grant income tax concessions in respect of engine and machine replacements in our shipping. We should like to see this policy extended to our civil aviation as well when it comes to the purchase of new, and the sale of old aircraft.

Order! The hon. member is discussing another department now; he is not discussing Transport matters. Any matter relating to taxation falls under the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid this is an aspect which affects Transport out and out. I now come to another matter, and that is the possibility of an inquiry by local road transportation boards into the position of privately controlled non-White buses operating within a radius of approximately 50 miles around our urban areas. We accept that the original intention was that they should render a public service to our Bantu population. They would use the buses for the purpose of visiting the cities to do shopping, to undergo medical examinations, etc. My constituency includes a large urban area, and my experience is that this facility is rapidly developing into a major public evil. The buses are being used to circumyent certain regulations in regard to Bantu labour. The local farming community is subsidizing the local authority’s Bantu housing scheme for nonWhites who work in the cities and who live on smallholdings. I am sorry I have to admit that most of these smallholdings are not under white control. Bantu who work unlawfully in the cities, in commerce and in industry, are living on these smallholdings, and they are transported by these buses daily. I think this matter is of very real importance, and it will be appreciated very much indeed by the public of these areas if the Minister would instruct local road transportation boards to make a survey, when they receive applications for renewal, of what the actual position is and how matters stand in regard to the present as well as the future licensing of these buses. It is our considered opinion that these bus services are playing a different role at present than was intended originally, and that they have become an evil as regards the control over Bantu workers in our peri-urban areas. We would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister, would consider having the necessary investigation instituted.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, the authorities differ about the value of freeways, but I think we can agree about one point, and that is the following. It is becoming imperative that we in South Africa should take time ous steps to deal with this congestion of traffic, particularly during peak hours, in our large cities. Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, are fortunate. In Port Elizabeth they had the coastal area and in Cape Town the courses of the Swart River and the Liesbeek River which made the construction of freeways possible. These favourable circumstances do not exist in Johannesburg and Pretoria, and something has to be done. I am speaking from personal experience—and a million other people are probably experiencing the same conditions— when I say that the position in Johannesburg is becoming unbearable, and that the city is being stifled as regards business and other activities. With the enormous increase in motor traffic no one can predict what conditions will be there in four or five years’ time. If the Department of Transport is of the opinion that freeways are not the answer, and if this is the reason why the subsidies have been discontinued, then the hon. the Minister should tell us what alternatives he has and what is being done to implement those alternatives. Are they thinking in terms of underground railways such as we find in Europe? Are they thinking in terms of railway lines in the air, perhaps monorails? What does the Department have in mind? I really cannot believe that the National Transport Commission would discontinue this subsidy for frivolous reasons, or because they might not like a certain municipality or city. I cannot believe that they did that because they think freeways are not the answer, without having alternatives in mind. Therefore it would be greatly welcomed and it would be in the public interest if the Deputy Minister would give us a full statement on what his point of view is, and what his Department’s point of view is, in regard to finding a solution for the congestion of motor traffic in our large cities. This congestion is becoming worse by the day.

I want the hon. the Minister to report to us, by way of an interim report if necessary, how the new motor vehicle insurance fund and the consortium of 16 insurance companies which are doing the work for the Department are progressing. I want to know whether the experiment is a success. I would be glad if he would reply to the following questions in particular. Is it possible at this stage to say that the fund as constituted at present meets the needs of third party motor vehicle insurance in South Africa? Is the fund actuarially solvent? Is it already possible to determine whether it will be necessary to increase insurance premiums further? In the light of my first question, and these two questions must be related to it, will the Minister justify to us the increase in third party premiums in the case of rural motor car drivers at the beginning of this year? It amounted to an increase of approximately 45 per cent when all farmers and country people were asked to pay the same premium as city dwellers. On the basis of what statistics was this done? Is enough information available about the position of the Fund to justify such an enormous increase in the premium for people living in the rural areas? These people are having a hard time these days as a result of droughts and other difficulties.

The hon. the Minister should also tell us whether he is satisfied that the payment of a gross commission of 25 per cent to these 16 insurance companies is justified. It is a net commission of 20 per cent where the work is done by sub-agents and they receive 5 per cent. When this Act was under discussion, we wondered whether this was not very high. I think that if the hon. the Minister had enough information at his disposal in order to increase the premiums in the rural areas he should, at the same time, have the necessary information to be able to tell us what profits are being made by these companies. We do not want the hon. the Minister to deal with these questions superficially or hurriedly. He should give us the figures at length. We want to know what the total revenue of the Fund is, what its expenditure has been so far and what its future commitments are. The latter, of course, cannot be determined exactly, but we would be glad if we could get an indication of those by way of an estimate. We also want to know what portion of the revenue of the Fund has been paid out to the 16 agents of the Fund. I am a little concerned that we may find it to be an excessive amount. In this connection I should also like the Minister to justify to us the new suggestions which came from the management of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund in connection with the handling of claims under the Act. I want to mention very briefly what they recommended, since my time is very limited. It was stated that in cases where claims would probably amount to less than R5.000, the full investigation that was made by attorneys and assessors in the past, should no longer be made. I should like the Minister to satisfy the Committee as regards this new suggestion that was made to the 16 companies. What struck me particularly about the letter is that it was stated that the companies should carry out the suggestion immediately. They were instructed to accept the suggestions immediately. They were left no choice. I should like to know whether the Minister can satisfy us that such action cannot cause the Fund to suffer irreparable losses, because in such cases evidence tends to become dated. Evidence gets lost. Unless one acts immediately to investigate the damage and the circumstances in order to determine liability, one can be faced with a situation where it may become necessary to defend a case and where the best evidence is no longer available. The hon. the Minister must inform us fully in regard to this matter.

In conclusion I just want to ask the Minister something in connection with Jan Smuts Airport. I see that on the Loan Estimates provision is made for an amount of R16 million for the construction of a new terminal at Jail Smuts. It is now being increased to R19 million. Firstly I want to know why it is being increased by R3 million. May we assume that this will be more or less the final figure, or should we expect further increases? We know that the advent of the giant aircraft, the Jumbo jets, is at hand, and that it is therefore necessary to reorganize Jan Smuts Airport completely. This would have been necessary to a certain extent even without the coming of the Jumbo jets. Now, however, the matter is imperative. One feels disappointed to know that it was pointed out in the report of the Department of Transport as far back as 1963 that these improvements were urgently necessary. Only now, five years later, have we been told that the planning of the new terminal building has reached an advanced stage. Why must we be told, five years after this was realized to be necessary, that the planning has only reached an advanced stage now?

When last were you there?

I go there virtually every fortnight.

You should take a look at what they are building there already.

Yes, but I should like to know what progress is being made there. I can see a great deal, but it is impossible for me as a layman to see what has been completed as compared with all the work that has to be done. The hon. the Minister has given me a good suggestion now. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us how much of the R19 million has been spent, so that we can judge whether the progress referred to by the Minister is really so enormous. What portion of the R19 million has been spent, and what percentage of the total work has been carried out? This will be very interesting information.

This building is being erected by the Department of Public Works.

But I take it that in this case the Department of Public Works is acting as the agent of the Ministry of Transport. Or is the hon. the Minister so irresponsible that he is leaving this task entirely to the Department of Public Works, while it is in fact his responsibility? Is the worka being done on the basis of the planning and the appropriations of the Department of Transport? Why does this matter appear on the Loan Estimates?

Under which heading?

It appears under the heading “Public Works”, but in the sense that the Department of Public Works is acting as the agent of the Department of Transport. However, my time is extremely limited, and I want to ask the rest of my questions. I have already asked whether we may take this R19 million as being a final estimate. We should like to know whether the work which is scheduled this year, only represents work on the existing buildings. We also want to know whether the new terminal building has already been commenced with, or when it will be commenced with. How far can we hope this matter will have progressed by the time that the new aircraft come to South Africa? May we also enquire from the hon. the Minister on which date he expects this work to be completed?

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport that there is countrywide dissatisfaction about the new zoning of third party areas.

Oh no!

I make no apology for doing so. It is my duty and privilege to tell the hon. the Minister this. I want to add at once that this dissatisfaction may probably be based on uncertainty as a result of the fact that this system is perhaps not clearly understood at this stage. I want to say that we fully appreciate the importance of third party insurance. We are aware of the necessary protection it affords to the public. In January, however, it was announced that new zones were to be introduced for third party insurance and that the tariffs would be levied on a different basis in those various zones. Therefore I consider it my duty to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister in a friendly spirit that there are objections to the new tariffs which have been introduced in the various zones as they have now been classified.

I am going to mention two examples in this regard. Firstly, I am going to deal with the example of the third party premiums on light delivery vehicles and tractors. Now the position is that there are border zones, and we get objections from all sides in cases where farmers have to pay R2 for a tractor, whereas another person just across the borderline has to pay R7 for a tractor because he falls in a different zone. The farmer in that area now feels that he is being discriminated against.

[Inaudible.]

I submit this matter to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. Mr. Chairman, I can put my case and the case of my constituents without dragging in politics, and without the assistance of the hon. member for Yeoville. He is welcome to put his case and I shall put my case and the needs of my constituents in this Committee. I should very much like to bring this to the notice of the hon. the Minister, and to ask him to give attention to this. I shall make a recommendation which can be investigated, unlike that hon. member, who never offers an alternative. I refer to the case where R4 has to be paid for a light delivery vehicle which has been registered in a certain zone, while R20 has to be paid in a neighbouring zone. This we consider to be quite out of proportion. I am aware of the problems the Department has to deal with, and I am aware of the problems the hon. the Deputy Minister has to cope with, namely that a line has to be drawn somewhere. These lines have been drawn, but it has been done in such a way that there are two different registration areas in the same agricultural area. The one registration area then falls in one zone and the other registration area in another zone. The persons concerned then have to pay different amounts. In my constituency I have a case where two persons are farming virtually next to each other, but one has to pay R18 in third party insurance for his light delivery vehicles and tractors, and the other has to pay R75 for the same number of light delivery vehicles and tractors. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the possibility cannot be investigated of making the lower-zone insurance applicable to light delivery vehicles and tractors which have to be regarded as means of production and which are used as agricultural implements. This is what I want to suggest and I want to ask whether the advisory committee, which went into these matters very thoroughly and made the recommendations, cannot reconsider the matter so that where a light delivery vehicle or a tractor is used as a means of production for agricultural purposes, it can be classified under the lower tariff. We are all aware that it is imperative that food be produced in this country, and that we cannot discriminate between farmer and farmer. Therefore I address this kind request and these kind representations to the hon. the Minister to go into this matter and to see whether we cannot get the necessary finality. It will then not be necessary to discriminate, and it will then be possible for all implements used for agricultural purposes to be placed on the same basis.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad made a speech in regard to the adjustment of third party premiums and for relief as far as the farmers are concerned. I do not profess to be an insurance man or anything like that, but wherever you are the risk is the same. These insurance premiums, I understand, are fixed on an actuarial evaluation and it would be wrong for one section of the population to have to subsidize the other section. If the farmer himself has to pay certain rates for fire insurance on his farm, one will probably find that he pays the same rate, or even higher because of the lack of water, that the townsman pays. There is no adjustment there, and it is fixed on an actuarial evaluation. There are anomalies, I agree with him, and they could be straightened out.

I want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Parow when he was talking about apartheid in the buses in the Cape Town municipal area. I think that we have previously reminded that particular hon. member that the bus service in Cape Town is run by a private company and not by the municipality. The municipality does not dictate to the company how it should run its buses. This is done by the National Transport Commission through the National Transport Board, in other words, the Government. If the Government felt that there should be total apartheid on the buses in Cape Town, they would naturally say so and give those instructions to the bus company. It has, however, nothing to do with the Cape Town Municipality.

Do you think so?

They do not interfere at all and it has got nothing to do with them. The same bus runs through where that hon. member lives. What about the Bellville Municipality? It has got nothing to do with the Cape Town Municipality and this bus service also runs through Goodwood, Somerset West, Stellenbosch and Paarl. It is the same company.

Your City Council is only making money out of it.

That hon. member must not forget that he is now asking for an increased fare for the white bus user. The moment one brings in complete apartheid, the bus company will require a subsidy which the white bus user will have to pay. That is what that hon. member is asking for.

We want the same here as in Johannesburg and Durban.

Who pays for that? This is a private company. It is entirely different. Why should the taxpayer have to subsidize the policy of this Government?

I would like to get back to the point made by the hon. member for Yeoville about the subsidy for urban freeways. I think it came as a shock to all local and provincial authorities when the hon. the Minister made his announcement to the effect that they were not going to subsidize urban freeways in future. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, there was some doubt expressed as to the value of these urban freeways. Of oourse that is a matter of opinion. But the world-wide concensus of opinion is that there is no point in building a national road system without these urban freeways. It is like laying a five-inch pipeline into a city and extending it by means of a two-inch pipeline. One will find that one cannot draw off the water. Motor traffic is very similar to the reticulation system of water. The National Transport Commission itself does not build roads. It would be interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister whether, in view of the statement made by the Minister’s predecessor, there is to be a change in policy in that the National Transport Commission will start building roads? Up to now there has been a very close liaison between the Central Government and the provincial authorities with regard to the building of our national roads. The former Deputy Minister considered that there was a certain amount of wastage but of course that is not so. There has been a very close liaison between the National Transport Commission and the provincial authorities.

When one talks about cutting off the subsidies to local authorities for their freeways, one wonders where the money is to come from to build these freeways in the cities. Because the Government at the present moment derives indirect taxation of something like 13 cents on every gallon of petrol, and a similar amount of diesel fuel. There is a certain rebate as far as commercial use of diesel fuel is concerned. That is what the taxpayer pays, and 5.35 cents per gallon of that is paid into the National Road Fund. But if one considers the taxation figures, direct and indirect, for 1964-’65 paid by vehicle users and vehicle owners in this country, something like R107 million came out of the pockets of motorists in respect of customs and excise duties on motor fuels, motor vehicles, spares and accessories and tyres and tubes. They paid an average of R32 million in provincial motor taxes. That is in licence fees, and this is an addition to the actual taxation. Added to that, the inland motorist pays a very high rate for using petrol through the pipeline. The hon. the Minister might say: “Well, you want these freeways; you have to find the extra money.” The general opinion is that it should come from the Central Government and it should come from the road fund. In other countries of the world taxation paid by the motorist indirectly and directly is channelled to the road fund for the building of roads. The motorists themselves should not be called upon to pay anything more in the form of added taxation. I think it would be quite unfair if the provincial authorities and the municipalities are forced to add to the present burden of the users, when the Government itself derives this enormous amount from indirect and direct taxation from the motorists.

When I brought up this argument on a previous occasion, the hon. the Minister of Transport told me that I should talk to the hon. the Minister of Finance about it. Today I am addressing my plea to the hon. Deputy Minister of Transport and ask him to channel it through to the Cabinet and ask for some relief. Also if it is the intention of the Government to do away with the present set up for the building of national roads, i.e. through provincial and local authorities, by setting up in its stead a unit under the National Transport Commission, it should be given second thought by the Government. I submit that there is nothing wrong with the present set up. However, we all accept that we have got to have a better road system than we have at the present moment but this can be achieved with the present set up. If it is the intention of the Government to hand this work out to private contractors, it will be nothing new because the provinces do it at the moment. But provincial administrations have the technical experience and, consequently, the technical know-how for the building of these roads. The money is there. The Government receives it every year through direct or indirect taxation from the motorist.

It is estimated that by 1970 some 200,000 new cars will come on the roads in South Africa every year; so that one can imagine what colossal amount of fuel and spare parts will be necessary. With that will come a substantial increase in the amount of money which the Government will obtain from the road user, whether from the motor-car owner or from the owner of a commercial vehicle. The tendency to-day is for rail transport to take second place to road transport, and this will become more so as the years go by. The Government must not get the idea to look upon this source of taxation as a relief for other sources of taxation. When the National Roads Fund was originally formed the idea was that the taxation on fuel would go back into the building of roads, at a time when roads were in great demand. I hope that I can prevail upon the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is making his maiden appearance here in this capacity, to give this matter serious consideration. [Time expired.]

I am rising to speak about a matter which we are all concerned about. The loss of life as a result of road accidents, which is usually accompanied by disruption of family life and in some cases the total destruction of families, is one of the most deplorable social phenomena of our time. One must pay an extremely heavy price for the privilege of using modern means of transport on our roads. That is why I want to thank the Ministry of Transport very cordially for the positive attempts which are being made to prevent road accidents in South Africa. We know that millions of rand per year are being spent in South Africa in an attempt to eliminate this evil. We also realize that an annual sum of approximately R120 million is being spent on the construction and maintenance of our roads. But in spite of all these things, we find that the road accident rate increases year after year. What makes this matter even more disturbing is the fact that our accident rate is much higher than in most of the other countries of the West. According to statistics for 1965 the accident rate in South Africa was 34.7 per cent per 10,000 registered vehicles, in comparison with 6.3 per cent in England, 5.3 per cent in the U.S.A. and 6.9 per cent in Canada. A month or so ago South Africa was deeply shocked by the serious air disaster at Windhoek. But now it is depressing to note that up to the end of November last year as many people had died on our roads as would have died in 42 such air disasters. It is terrible to think that during that period, 5,442 people were killed on our roads.

I do not in the least want to pretend that I am an expert in the field of the prevention of road accidents. But I nevertheless want to venture to say that we can reduce our road accidents if we approach the entire matter on a more scientific basis and support it with a more efficient application of the Act. I concede that there are many factors which can contribute to accidents, but in my opinion excessive speed is one of the basic causes of most of the accidents in South Africa. When proposals were put forward for a 70 mile per hour speed limit, they drew forth a great deal of criticism. The impression was created that the provinces wanted to introduce that speed limit merely to irritate the public in the first place. But this proposal was put forward only after the matter had been scientifically investigated and after consultations had been held with other countries. What is the position in this regard in other countries? In the U.S.A., for example with its 90 million vehicles which is almost half the vehicles in the entire world, a maximum speed of 50 miles per hour is applicable in 20 per cent of the states, in 15 per cent of the states the maximum speed is 55 miles per hour, and in only 10 per cent of the states is it 70 miles per hour.

I derived this information from the Traffic and Engineering Handbook, of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1965, pages 534 and 537. In the U.S.A, a speed-limit was accepted in principle as long ago as 1963. In addition a further restriction applies in the U.S.A, in regard to night driving. If we review the serious extent of the problem in South Africa, I am of the opinion that at one stage or another we shall have to turn our attention to making the maximum speed-limit at night less than 70 miles per hour. In England a maximum speed of 70 miles per hour has also been introduced, and according to a publication of the British Ministry of Transport, dated 17th May, 1966, the following was found—

Let us look at what is happening in France. The Administrator (International Adviser) of the Touring Club of France, under the date 4th April. 1966, reported as follows—

From what I have quoted here, it has clearly been proved in other countries that setting a speed-limit has definitely contributed towards reducing the accident rate. Closely bound up with this aspect there is another matter which I find disturbing, and which we come across from day to day. It counteracts and nullifies every attempt to persuade motorists to maintain a safe speed. I am referring here to the advertising technique of the manufacturers and sellers of motor vehicles. There is hardly any newspaper in which an advertisement or some or other kind of vehicle does not appear, which vehicle cannot travel safely at a speed of 90, 100, 120 miles per hour and even faster. We know that the manufacturing techniques of motor vehicles are being improved daily, and we know that motor vehicles, under specific circumstances, can definitely achieve such speeds, but whether we want to admit it or not, the fact remains that the roads in South Africa are definitely not built for those high speeds. It is my conviction that the day will come when only vehicles which have been manufactured in such a way that they cannot exceed an accepted safe speed will be allowed on our roads, unless we as motorists discipline ourselves to such an extent that we obviate the need for such a drastic step.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make these few remarks in respect of this extremely important matter. I want to express the hope here that the hon. the Deputy Minister, the South African Road Safety Council and every individual, including all of us assembled here in this House will deliberately make every attempt, when we get into a motor-car, to keep our own safety in mind and to take this into account and, what is more important to me, to take into account the lives of other people who also use the roads. I hope and trust that we will in future try, in a purposeful and active way, to see to it that the road accident rate in South Africa is reduced.

I think everyone will agree with the hon. member who has just spoken about the tragedy of road accidents and the need for road safety. I do not want to deal with the details which he raised. There are differences of opinion about the causes of road accidents, differences of opinion which I do not think we in this House are competent to decide; it is a matter for experts, but it is without doubt a subject of very serious concern to everyone who is worried about the growing traffic on our roads and the growing slaughter of our people.

I want to turn to a matter which has alarmed me very much recently, and that is the shocking situation which appears to have been revealed by a court case in Durban a week or so ago, where an inspector of the Road Transportation Board was convicted of offences of bribery and various other dishonest activities, running into some thousands of rands. When you have one case where a man is arrested, tried and convicted, it may be the exception to the rule, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether certain other facts which have come to my notice are true or not. I understand that there is not just one case but that five other members of the staff of the Road Transportation Board had been arrested in the Natal and southern Transvaal system. I understand that in Durban three out of the three inspectors have all been charged or are about to be charged. I ask the Minister to confirm whether or not this is correct.

Order! Is the hon. member aware of the fact that they have been charged?

I say that there are rumours that cases are being investigated and that the people concerned have either been charged or are about to be charged.

The hon. member may proceed.

I am seeking information from the hon. the Minister as to what the exact facts are. The one case that we know about has been finalized; the person has been convicted. I have heard of one case where a senior inspector, who is due to retire in five years’ time, is alleged to have been involved in illegal activities. If this is true, then it reveals an incredible state of affairs, a state of affairs of illegal activities involving the acceptance of bribes, extortion, the obtaining of contracts for particular carriers and the pocketing of fines, things which have now come into the open and which are alleged to have gone on for years. This is not something which just happened; it is not just an isolated case. These are things which are alleged to have gone on for years, and I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister where his control is over this Department. What sort of control has been exercised if this sort of thing can go on and if, as is being suggested, it has been going on on such a large scale? I understand that there are investigations going on beyond the borders of Natal; that this has spread into the other provinces. There are even rumours that members of local road transportation boards are involved in these investigations. Sir, we were told the year before last, when we amended the Act and when we were asked for very wide, tremendous powers for the control of illegal road transport, that these powers were needed to deal with rackets. We were given an assurance that they would not be abused. We were given the assurance that although these very vast powers were being taken, even involving the confiscation of loads and the holding of vehicles, they would be used with discretion, that they would not be abused, and that they were necessary because of the rackets which were going on. Now it appears that these rackets have been taking place not amongst the public but in the Department itself, the very Department which we were told was going to eliminate the rackets in road transport. Sir, I think the hon. the Minister owes the country an explanation as to how it is possible that these things have been going on without his own senior officials knowing about them. How can it be that there has been such lack of control that people have been accepting bribes, practising extortion and influencing the granting of contracts without anyone in his Department finding out about it? These things only came to light when complaints were made and the police started to investigate. I have heard complaints that there are many carriers who pay admissions of guilt to free their vehicles rather than go through the long legal processes, when they know that they are not guilty. They do so because of the way in which they have been treated by the inspectors. Their vehicles are impounded, and it is far cheaper for them to pay the admission of guilt than to wait for two or three months for a court case or to pay the official what is necessary in order to get the vehicle released. Sir, these rumours have been circulating for a long time, rumours of preferential granting of certificates. Only this year I heard people discussing what they considered the very strange case of the transporting of guano from the Cape to Caledon. Apparently one firm could get permits and was undertaking the transport, whereas farmers were often unable to get permits to transport their own goods. Sir, these things are happening because there is a lack of control. I blame two things for this, and I want to make this suggestion here: Firstly, there is too much temptation placed in the way of the officials. There is too much temptation and too little control and supervision. I understand that many of these people who have become involved are decent people who have just succumbed to the temptation. I suggest that, firstly, the temptation should not be so great, and that control should be exercised by means of more and better supervision. Secondly, I believe that there is over-protection of the South African Railways, with the result that it even becomes worthwhile to pay a bribe because it is so lucrative to get the traffic. Thirdly, I want to criticize the system of appointment of board members. The hon. the Minister of Transport admitted in this House that appointments to transportation boards were political appointments. He admitted that in appointing people to these boards, a major factor which was taken into consideration was their political affiliation. Sir, this is the price we are paying for placing the interests of party politics above the interests of South Africa. This is the price we pay for having political appointments instead of appointments based on a knowledge of the job to be done. I want to suggest that the boards be expanded to include representatives of organized commerce and industry, a representative each from commerce and industry who will be responsible to their organizations, and who will therefore be an additional safeguard against laxity in control. I think it is entirely wrong that appointments to boards as powerful as these boards, boards which obviously do not appear to have been doing their job of controlling the officials under them, should be made purely on political grounds. I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is new to this post and who is apparently handling this aspect, to get away from these political appointments. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) as usual, tried to make political capital out of a matter which he should not have raised at all at this stage.

Are my facts correct or not?

The hon. member himself admitted that certain of these people had already been charged. My information is also to die effect that this is in fact the case. Mr. Chairman, in the circumstances I want to ask you whether we ought to discuss this matter further.

Order! If certain of the persons have already been charged, then hon. members should not discuss this matter any further.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, then I shall not discuss it any further. In addition the hon. member criticized the board in question on the one hand for not doing its work, and on the other hand he mentioned the fact that certain people had in fact been prosecuted, which, in my opinion, only goes to prove that the boards are doing their work.

Was it the boards who brought the charge, or was it the police?

I would also like to say a few words in regard to third party insurance, a matter which has already been brought up for discussion here. In the first place I want to express my appreciation to the Department concerned for the fact that since 1965, when the Minister in question refused to agree to a 20 per cent increase, a saying of R15 million has gone into the pockets of the public as a result. Arising from a question asked here by the hon. member for Yeoville I want to say that I represent a rural constituency and that in general the rural areas accept the increased premium of R17 for motor cars because it is realized that these people also travel about in urban areas with their vehicles. But the areas which previously fell under the Y category, have been hard hit as a result of the disappearance of that category, and the inclusion of these areas under the Z category. What it amounts to is that with the inclusion under the Z category they in fact have to pay higher premiums in respect of a variety of vehicles; inter alia, they have to pay considerably more in respect of tractors, trucks and passenger vehicles. It therefore means that the farmer in these areas is hard hit, and they have not exactly had a very good year. In future the user of passenger vehicles in the area concerned are also going to have a difficult time of it.

Therefore I want to advocate strongly now that the entire matter of the inclusion of areas in the Y category in the Z category should once again be the subject of an intensive Departmental investigation, with a view to possible concessions. Specifically I want to ask, with a view to such an investigation, whether the following are not anomalies as far as the new arrangement is concerned. Firstly, a farmer in these areas which have now been included under the Z category now has to pay R20 per pick-up, whereas he only pays R17 on his motor car. The argument is put forward that he has to pay a considerable increase in respect of his motor car because he also uses it in urban areas. Generally he does not do much travelling in urban areas in his pick-up, the fee of which was previously R8 but which is now R20. Secondly, the farmer is being heavily taxed in respect of his tractor because the tractor falls under a general group, i.e. group 15. If we consider group 15 we see that included in this category are tractors, sanitary and refuse removal vehicles, cleaning vehicles, water vehicles, bulldozers, road sweepers, mobile cranes, excavators and haulage vehicles, etc. I think it is a fair request to ask that consideration should be given as to whether a separate group should not be introduced for tractors used for farming purposes. I am certain that it will lead to reduced claims in respect of such a class, and consequently it will also be an accommodation to the farmers.

Lastly, I want to mention that included in the former Y category were large urban and semi-urban areas. Now they are being classified together with urban areas. That is not my objection, what I am really objecting to here, is that certain areas falling under the X category, and which also have comparable large urban and peri-urban areas, are still classified as category X areas, and do not fall under the Z category. In my opinion this gives rise to unreasonable discrimination, and it is my courteous request that attention be given to this matter as well. I do not think it is a valid argument if it is said that statistics are not yet available for certain areas which ought to fall into the Z category. I find it unreasonable discrimination if certain areas for which statistics are in fact available are being classified, and other areas are not classified under the Z category simply because the statistics are not yet available. That is why I want to request courteously whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would not be prepared to have this entire matter, and particularly the points I have mentioned, investigated again by a Departmental committee, which will give rise to general satisfaction in these rural areas. It is clearly recognized that exceptions cannot be made which are not based on merit, and that is why I am simply asking the Minister to institute an investigation so that the matter can be properly motivated and so that only those concessions which are based on merit are made.

Last night on the road between Cape Town and Stellenbosch an incident occurred involving a motor vehicle and another vehicle on the road, which accentuated what I had intended raising under this Vote to-day. I had the experience last year when travelling as a passenger in a car between Riversdale and Mossel Bay that the driver of the car in which I was perceived a vehicle on the road ahead of us, judging from the rear lights and reflectors. There were cars travelling in the opposite direction and he dipped his lights, and when he raised his lights again to overtake we were very nearly involved in a fatal accident because it was a very heavy gooseneck trailer with a bulldozer on the trailer with the blade overlapping about three feet on either side. We saw that ourselves the next day when we again passed it on the road in daylight. Last night one of our colleagues and a Deputy Minister nearly lost their lives. Now, we have provincial traffic police and municipal traffic police, and we have divisional council traffic police, but what I cannot understand is that this sort of thing is not being brought to the attention of the authorities. When you find a pantechnicon on the road at night, it is a high vehicle, about as high as a double decker bus, and it is festooned with rear lights and reflectors right up to the roof. But these low, heavy vehicles with loads like bulldozers or heavy road equipment at the back are only illuminated by powered rear lights or reflectors barely three feet above the ground, and it is a very dangerous thing on the road. I wish to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that something be done about this. Those vehicles should either at night be off the road, or the overlap should be indicated by powered lights and not by reflectors, because reflectors are most undependable. I am not the only one who has had the actual experience, nor are the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Stellenbosch the only ones who have had the experience; I have heard of this sort of thing from many people and I have seen it myself. I think this is a very dangerous phenomenon that we find especially on our country roads. Fortunately in this case there were no lives lost, although an expensive Government car was wrecked, but are we going to wait until there is some fatal accident as the result of this sort of thing, or are we going to do something about it timeously?

As regards this too prevalent phenomenon that a dangerous situation is encountered on the road and nobody, including the patrolling traffic police, does anything about it, until there is a fatal accident I wish to refer to an instance a few years ago when a regular coach service bus of the S.A. Railways was involved in an accident between Citrusdal and Piketberg. The driver of the bus obviously saw a bright light in front of him. He took that of the light of a vehicle approaching in his direction and he veered to the left and collided with a tractor just off the field with its bright rear light on. Since then something has been done about it, and that is now illegal; a tractor must now have a red light at the back. But it was only after a fatal accident had happened that something was done about it and it was made subject to a provincial ordinance and the traffic regulations. Only a week or two ago, we had the instance of an accident at Pool Siding, just beyond Piketberg, where a heavy vehicle on a level crossing collided with a goods train. Now, way back in 1928 when I was a very small boy, I was a passenger in a vehicle which at Kalabaskraal nearly went into a goods train crossing the road. Motor-car lights were not as powerful then as they are to-day, and vehicles did not travel so fast in those days, but where those tarpaulin-covered trucks cross the asphalt road they are completely camouflaged and you are on them before you know where you are. Especially at this time of the year in these days in which we are living it is nothing unusual, in travelling through the Western Province, and especially the Swartland and beyond, to see lights in the distance on the fields through which you are travelling on the national road, and it was the national road I was talking about a moment ago which crosses the road at Pool Siding. They are the lights of tractors ploughing. I do not want to prejudice what a court of inquiry might find, but a goods train, as you know, has only one solitary light. You do not see the little red light at the back; you only see the headlamp in the distance and you can very easily mistake it for a tractor. The point I am coming to is that, apart from the fact that the Municipality of Piketberg has electricity, die Escom power line is not very far distant from that level-crossing on the national road. We know that it is very expensive to build railway bridges at level-crossings, but I wonder whether it could not be investigated that where it is feasible, even if it is a farm road crossing a railway line, power should be laid on and warning lights installed at those level-crossings. I have not the statistics before me, but the Department can very easily find them and go into the matter as to how many people, even on farm roads crossing the main line to the north, have died in accidents, because it is possible to mistake the lights of a train for the lights of some other vehicle or mechanical device or implement that might be used in the vicinity. I wonder whether more attention should not be paid to the fact that it might be possible to lay on the power to instal warning lights at these level-crossings. I wish to refer especially to level-crossings where the national road to the north along the west coast or to South West Africa crosses a railway line. We know passenger traffic has been reduced on that line and buses are being used mostly, but goods traffic is still passing there at night I therefore wonder whether a greater degree of safety cannot be provided as a result of the installation of warning lights at level crossings.

There is another matter which I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention. We have municipality after municipality, including the complex of municipalities of the Cape Peninsula and environs, we have further local authorities like the Divisional Council and then we have the provincial traffic authorities. From place to place you find traffic policemen in uniforms of a different colour. We do not know where we are, we do not know what sort of uniform we are seeing. If one goes to Port Elizabeth the traffic policemen there wear black or semi-black uniforms. If one goes to nearby Walmer one sees a traffic policeman with a green uniform. On the provincial roads the provincial traffic officers wear blue uniforms. The next officer wears a khaki uniform, and so I can go on. We have a central traffic depot here in Cape Town where traffic policemen from all over are trained. One goes up Adderley Street and one sees a uniform one has never seen before. Most probably it is a trainee traffic officer who is being trained at this depot and wearing the uniform of the municipality which sent him here for training. Could all traffic officers not wear identical uniforms with the municipality they serve indicated either by a badge or a monogram worn on the epaulettes, or both? Then one will know one is dealing with a traffic policeman who is about his lawful business. I hope the hon. the Minister will take note of my representations and perhaps something can be done by the Department of Transport through the provincial administrations so that we will be able to distinguish between traffic policemen and other police officers and be able to see at a glance what the man actually is. As I said, the officer’s municipality could be designated by a badge with the coat of arms of that local authority and the monogram on his shoulders, like the South African Police have.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat mentioned quite a few matters. Some we can give attention to, others not. As far as the question of making our roads safe is concerned, I should be very glad if in our future planning of roads we would introduce a separate lane for cycles, namely a cycle lane, beginning about five or ten miles from the nearest town. Many accidents occur near cities in which bicycles travelling on the road are involved.

The hon. member for Kroonstad put the farmers’ case in respect of third party insurance. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we farmers are very grateful for this form of insurance. I agree with the hon. member for Kroonstad that there is possibly discrimination. I also want him to be aware that we farmers could have been ruined in the past had it not been for third party insurance. We want the Minister to realize that we are not dissatisfied with that type of insurance; we are merely asking that this discrimination be eliminated.

There is another matter which I want to raise here to-day and which I am ashamed about. It is a matter which is adversely affecting me and I should be glad if I could just receive a reply in this connection to-day. I have been engaged in correspondence about this matter since 1966. I am speaking about the bridge which dates back to the days of President Kruger, the well-known Kruger bridge over the Vaal River at Standerton. I have often made representations about the bridge, and I am being sent from pillar to post. The road, which is a beautiful one, runs to Durban, and the only bottle-neck on the whole road is this single-lane bridge at Standerton. I resolved never to raise a matter concerning my constituency here in the House, but rather to rectify it with the department concerned. Neither am I lodging any complaints against anyone to-day. But, Sir, I am disheartened. I should so much like a reply in this connection, but I am told every time that there is a Road Transportation Commission and there is this and there is that; I am sent to the Provincial Administration and to other bodies. The Transvaal Administration offered to pay half of the costs of the bridge and the Road Transportation Commission offered to pay the other half. After that the Standerton Municipality offered to contribute R 10,000. Subsequently the objection was raised that a by-pass was to be built. Even if a by-pass is built, the road to Vrede must still link up in the town; they must still use that road. The existing road has been aligned as a double carriageway; everything is in readiness for a double carriageway.

Mr. Krog, the Director of Roads in the Transvaal, said that the bridge did not do the Province and the country any credit. I now ask whether special attention cannot be given to this bottleneck. The Province asked whether planning in this connection could not be proceeded with in the meantime, but the Road Transportation Commission said no. Such planning easily takes two years. I shall be old and grey, and this matter will not yet have been settled. I have no enemies, but this matter is going to cause trouble.

The other matter about which I want to speak, is the South Rand road. I hear of roads which are going to be built along the coast, of great developments which we are proud of. I want to join hon. members from the East Rand, who have been pleading for years for a road to serve the South Rand, in asking to-day that such a road be constructed. There are 290,000 Whites living on the East Rand, of whom 100,000 are industrial workers. This is the second largest industrial concentration in our country after Johannesburg. The road from Johannesburg to Delmas is a very devious one.

Where is Delmas?

Delmas is a fantastic place in the Eastern Transvaal. Seventy per cent of Johannesburg’s fresh milk comes along that road through the urban areas. Seventy-five per cent of Johannesburg’s potatoes come along that road, as well as 60 per cent of the vegetables. This road is essential; it is urgently needed. Over a period of three weeks, 14,000 tons of sweetcorn go through these urban areas, through the residential areas, to the canning factories. Large lorries are used for the transportation. A survey was made and it was found that over a period of 12 hours 14,072 vehicles entered Springs on one side, while 14,105 entered on the other side, the Johannesburg side. 236 of those vehicles carried large loads of coal. I can quote many figures to justify this matter. I am only pleading for these two matters. Firstly, there is the bridge at Standerton. Secondly, I ask for either a special road or a national road to replace the present South Rand road, which leads to the larder of our country. We have heard here about the Tugela Basin and what a fantastic place it is. I am now speaking about the larder of our country there in the Eastern Transvaal, from Springs to the east and down to Nel-spruit and Standerton. I respectfully ask that attention be given to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parow made reference here, in the first place, to the national road from Cape Town to the east, i.e. to Port Elizabeth and Mossel Bay. He wanted to know what the position was in regard to this road. That route has already been accepted by the National Road Transport Commission, but the location has not been completed as yet, and that is probably the hon. member’s problem. Representations can therefore be made now in regard to the location of that road, but the route, i.e. to the east, has already been decided upon.

As regards apartheid on the Cape Town buses, I can tell the hon. member that I agree with him that the problem arises because we have a private undertaking here. This business should operate on a profit basis, for nobody will invest money in an undertaking if he is not going to derive a profit by doing so. That company is struggling to make a profit. The fact of the matter is that they must fend for themselves, and if they do not receive other assistance, they simply have to increase their tariffs. I want to agree with what the hon. member said, namely that in our other major cities public transport was being provided by the municipalities. They subsidize that service heavily. When they suffer losses, they recover them from their taxpayers. Such losses are set off in part by means of increased tariffs, and if losses still occur, they recover them from the taxpayers. However, the Cape Town company does not have taxpayers and can only recover its losses by means of increased tariffs. I want to mention certain figures in this regard. In Johannesburg the municipality subsidizes public transport to the tune of R1 million. In Pretoria it costs the municipality more than R400,000 and in Durban R558,000. In numerous other cities it is also the case that the municipalities make contributions towards providing public transport. If such a company is not to increase its tariffs considerably, it is reasonable to expect that a contribution should be made by these other bodies and persons. For instance, if that company were to go bankrupt, who would then have to provide public transport? The City Council would then have to shoulder that responsibility. In that case they would have to bear those losses. I think that in view of the fact that it is being provided here by a private company, the City Council ought to be approached to see whether it can make a contribution. In Cape Town these companies are not granted exemption from their licence fees, for instance. And those companies pay an annual amount of more than R100,000 to the Provincial Administration. I think an attempt should be made to see whether it is not possible for us to get the various bodies and persons together and to hear from them whether they cannot accommodate one another. An attempt has been made to introduce apartheid on Cape Town buses. Hon. members are aware of that. Certain buses are being used for Whites and others for non-Whites. Use is also being made of buses which have reserved seats for Whites and others for non-Whites. But according to my information this scheme does not function satisfactorily and there are always problems. It seems to me as though we only have one alternative, i.e. to introduce total apartheid. We have already had talks at which the representatives of constituencies in this area and my Department as well as other bodies and persons were present. After we had also discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister, it was decided that the National Transport Commission would have talks with the Cape Town City Council and with the municipalities of the suburbs in this area, that the Secretary for Transport would act as chairman of that commission, and that they would also approach the Provincial Administration to see whether it would not be possible for us, when we put our heads together, to grant assistance to that company in such a way that it would be able to do its work efficiently and satisfactorily, without their having to effect an unnecessarily high increase in tariffs and without their having to go bankrupt. We must therefore wait until those talks have taken place. The Secretary for Transport is abroad at the moment, but as soon as he returns to South Africa we shall ask him to arrange those talks between him, as chairman, and the National Transport Commission, together with the bodies and persons we consider to have an interest in this matter. I must point out that the public cannot expect to be provided with that facility without paying for it. The possibility of an increase in bus tariffs at some stage or other, is therefore not ruled out.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the Marais Commission. I am only too anxious to receive that report myself, for, as the hon. member rightly said, it is almost impossible to discuss the Transport Vote before that investigation has been completed. I want to say that I wonder how many hon. members who are sitting in this House, know precisely how the Department of Transport is constituted. I have now been dealing with this Department for a few months, and in practice I have not yet been able to make contact with it. In spite of all the time I have devoted to studying the operation of this Department, I still do not know all its ins and outs.

Just do your best.

Yes, I am doing my best. I can state that the draft report of the Marais Commission has now been drawn up in its entirety. In the course of a meeting held on 3rd and 4th June, 1968, the first four chapters were finalized. These are now ready for translation by the Language Services Bureau. The Commission will hold further meetings in the near future so that the remaining chapters may be discussed and finalized.

Will they be published singly?

I do not know. It depends on how much progress has been made in regard to the second part. I think that if they have made a great deal of progress, it would be better for them to publish the report as a whole.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the Third Party Insurance Fund. Earlier on this year the hon. member for Port Natal made a statement to the Press. Some time ago I promised him that I would furnish him with a reply when the Transport Vote was being discussed. I said that I would also reply to the speech he made during the Budget debate. It links up with what the hon. member for Yeoville asked. Therefore I shall simply deal with the whole matter and then, I think, we shall have clarity in that regard. I think the hon. member for Port Natal did not understand the position quite correctly. When he made this statement to the Press, he did so pursuant to questions he had put to me and the replies I had given him to those questions. But he made a mistake in this regard, i.e. that of comparing the total revenue of the fund in the course of three years and the total expenditure of the fund in the course of three years, firstly, in respect of claims that had already been met and, secondly, in respect of claims that had been lodged but not yet met. Then he subtracted those two totals from each other, and claimed that that fund was making a large profit. He expressed himself in rather biting terms in the newspapers about the large profits these companies were allegedly making, and so forth. But that is not file correct way in which such calculations should be made. They must be calculated year by year. I took the trouble to obtain these figures. I now want to mention these figures, and they link up with the reply I gave to the hon. member at the time. I shall furnish the figures for the various years. The hon. member forgot about the provision in the Act for a period of superannuation. From the moment an accident takes place, one has two years in which to lodge the claim in respect of that accident. The hon. member left that out of account. The hon. member did not bear in mind that there could still be thousands of outstanding claims, which had not become superannuated as yet and which could still be lodged. If we take that into account, the matter is a different one. I shall now furnish the figures year by year. The total premium revenue earned by the companies in the consortium in 1964-’66, i.e. the first year, was just over R7,625,000.

Is that the gross revenue?

Yes. The amount of the claims that had been met at the time the question was put to me, came to R3½ million. These calculations were made in November last year. The estimated amount in respect of claims lodged but not yet met, was R5,140,000. The expenditure therefore amounted to R8,626,831, whereas the revenue was only R7,600,000. At that stage already there was a loss of more than R1 million and there were still five months outstanding before the claims would have become superannuated for that year.

Am I correct in assuming that a large part of this is an estimate?

Part of this is an estimate. However, this makes the position even worse, for if one relies on estimates and then proceeds to make deductions, even greater mistakes will be made. I must say that the loss suffered that year, according to the figures we have at our disposal, was 13.12 per cent, and that at that stage there were still five months in which claims could be lodged. As regards the second year, I do not want to furnish all the figures, but at that stage the loss amounted to R 1,138,000 and there were still 17 months left in which claims could be lodged. I am now referring to the position one year later. At that stage the loss was 6.2 per cent. In respect of the third year, there was a profit, but that was the case because very few claims had been lodged at that stage. The amount in respect of settlements was only R214.000 at that stage, and the gross revenue was R19 million. The estimated amount in respect of claims that had been lodged, was R9 million, which meant a total expenditure of R9,222,000, in round figures. That is a profit of R10,293,000. However, by that time the claims in respect of that year had not been received at all, and amounted to only R214,000. There were still 29 months left in which claims could be lodged, i.e. the five months for the period November to the end of April plus another two years. Only then can one see, if one analyses the matter properly, that the figures indicate that there was a loss in respect of each of those years and that there could not have been a profit. Therefore, if the fund had not made a profit, the companies alone must have made one out of their 25 per cent allocations. Inquiries were made, and the information we obtained was that in the case of two of the large companies, which at that stage had already made a cost calculation on the basis of the statistics they had, one had shown a profit of 0.6 per cent and the other a profit of 1.2 per cent.

On what?

On their allocations. Twenty-five per cent of the premium revenue is being allocated to them. Twenty per cent of this is being used for administrative purposes and 5 per cent for their agents They could, therefore, only have made their profit out of that 20 per cent for the specific period for which it applied. According to their calculations their profits were only .6 per cent in one case and 1.2 per cent in the other. The hon. member said that the consortium did not serve its purpose and, “They are making excessive profits.” [Interjections.] No, it was not the hon. member for Yeoville who said so, but the hon. member for Port Natal. We must look back to see what the position was before. I do not want to repeat the whole history of third party, for you may perhaps know it much better than I do, since you have been in this House much longer than I have. However, we know that its history goes far back. Third-party insurance started in 1935; during the war it was quiet, and after the war there were motor accidents again. In 1945 there was a premium calculation, and subsequent to that premiums were increased every now and then. This gave rise to a considerable increase in premiums over the past few years. Then the Government stepped in, feeling that this matter should be investigated. When these companies asked for another 20 per cent increase, the Government refused. Subsequent to that these companies virtually went on strike, which made it difficult for the buyers of third-party insurance to obtain insurance. It became clear that the Government would have to take action. What I want to ask now, is that if those companies had supposedly been making large profits, why did they ask for that 20 per cent increase? It proves to us that they found themselves in difficulties. They could no longer make ends meet, for the revenue derived from their premiums were no longer adequate. That was why they asked for another increase in premiums in 1965. At that time the Minister refused, and subsequently the consortium was established. We do not have any complaints at present about the work done by the consortium. We do not hear of anybody whose claims are not being met, nor do we hear of companies which are not in a position to meet claims. I think that this matter is being handled properly, and we are satisfied that it is being done properly, because the Department also exercises proper control over this matter. There are inspectors who visit the offices of these companies from time to time, who examine their books of account and who also visit their agencies and ensure that the work is being done properly. I know that some time ago there were complaints to the effect that third-party insurance was simply being sold at green grocers and over the counter at general stores, but this has been eliminated. The person who acts as an agent for the company, is required to have a properly furnished office and to do the work properly. Regular inspections are carried out to ensure that those people do their work properly. The hon. member for Yeoville also wanted to know whether the fund was solvent and whether it was in a position to go on. At the moment we are still going on, but it is after all obvious that in view of the increase in accidents and the larger claims lodged as a result of the more expensive accidents, and adjustment will have to be made at some time or other. Cars are becoming more expensive, the investigations into accidents are becoming more expensive, and the same applies to the courts cases. Four or five years have already elapsed since an adjustment was last made. I do not know whether the hon. member referred to the Y area which had been eliminated.

I also made inquiries in regard to the increase in premiums in respect of the rural areas.

Yes, that is correct. Quite a few hon. members made reference to the elimination of the Y area, and I now want to deal with this matter. Third-party insurance of motor vehicles was divided into three areas, i.e. the X, Y and Z zones. The X zone is the rural areas zone, the Z zone is the urban zone and the Y zone is the semi-urban zone. The whole country was divided into larger cities, medium-sized cities and then the rural areas. In 1960 the Danie du Plessis Commission recommended that these Y areas should be eliminated and that there should only be two zones, namely the X and Z zones. There should, therefore, only be an urban and a rural areas zone. At that time the Minister did not want to accept this recommendation, and he said that he first wanted more statistics in regard to the matter. The Y zone was not eliminated then, but recently the matter was raised again. Consequently the premium committee investigated the matter again. A great deal of statistical data was subsequently collected, and these statistics confirmed what the Danie du Plessis Commission had recommended. By 30th September, 1967, the claims experience of the Y area, as a whole, was already 115.75 per cent. That means that for every R100 received in premiums, an amount of R115.75 had already been paid out in the Y areas. At that stage there were still 19 months left as a period of superannuation in which accidents could be reported. I must tell hon. members that the indications are that the premium claims are still showing a regular increase. As I said, the premium committee did not refer to individual classifications when the recommendation was made that the Y area should be eliminated, but they applied the principle that the one class had to help to support the other class. If individual classes were reviewed and the tariffs were determined on that basis, the age-old principle of joint risk would have been rejected and a new principle would be created in terms of which each class has to support itself. As I understood hon. members, they want us to introduce that principle in respect of farm work. If we were to do that, it would give rise to the following increases, namely that classification 1 (c), in respect of hire and self-drive vehicles, would have to be increased from R50 to R126. The increase in respect of public buses would be from R60 to R295. These are the premium claims that were received. In respect of hearses it would have to be increased from R6 to R24.

Who is injured on such a vehicle?

People on the roads. The increase in respect of tractors would be from R2 to R8.40.

That is impossible.

Yes, these are the figures.

For what period?

In respect of trailers the increase would be from R2 to R2.19. That was the position when the summary was made on 30th November, 1967. It must be remembered that at that stage there were 19 months left—up to 30th April, 1969 —in which period further claims could be lodged, which would make these statistics appear even worse. I am only furnishing hon. members with the figures I have. It is said that figures do not lie. It is an acknowledged fact that as far as insurance is concerned, volume is required for determining any trend in respect of premium structures. The representations made by certain bodies and persons point to the fact that apparently they do not want to acknowledge the principle that the one has to support the other. Consequently repeated attempts have been made at justifying the adjustment of the Y area to the Z area on a classification basis. This is a dangerous principle, for then those in the Y area, whose risk is lower than their premium, could after all also insist on a reduction in their premium, which would create nothing but chaos. On 30th September, 1967, the risk in respect of light delivery vans, tractors and public buses in the Y area, was as follows: On public buses the premium was R60 and the risk R294. On light delivery vans the premium was R8 and the risk R5.55 (less than the premium). In that case they would be able to say that we should grant a rebate. But on tractors the premium was R2 and the claims risk R8.40. The general composite revenue and expenditure figures in respect of these three groups, are as follows: In respect of buses the revenue was R32,338 and the expenditure R 158,000. In respect of light delivery vans the revenue was R.40,700 and the expenditure R28,122. In that category the expenditure was less. In respect of tractors the revenue was R 15,879 and the expenditure R66,327. The new tariff in respect of tractors is R7 instead of R2, whilst the claims risk has already exceeded the R8 mark, and there is still a period of 18 months left in which claims can be lodged. I merely want to remark that if hon. members want us to go into that matter, we can do so, but I think they will be the losers if they ask us to assess agricultural implements separately. Who is to bear the losses? To-day these losses are borne by the other categories of insurance. But who will bear these losses if we were to insure them separately? They would have to bear their own losses. I can assure hon. members that, according to the figures we have at the moment, it would entail a considerable increase. But it is quite in order to ask the premium committee to go into this request and to submit a report to us. Then we can see where we stand.

I do not know whether there are other matters than can be discussed in regard to insurance. At a later stage we can discuss these matters again.

The handling of claims.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Yeoville is perhaps referring to an article which appeared in the Sunday Tribune recently and which dealt with the handling of claims. The position is that some companies use assessors for investigating nearly all accidents that are reported. I can tell hon. members that this entails a tremendous delay. One would think that it would expedite the handling. However, my information is that 50 per cent of the claims referred to assessors, had become superannuated before the claims were lodged. Other companies only use assessors or attorneys by way of exception. Their own officials undertake the investigation. But the executive of the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund considered this matter, and they would rather see a standardization of policy taking place. The article published in the newspaper actually creates a wrong impression. They took a certain decision, and I just want to read it out—

But they say that the suggestions should be implemented at once.

That is the recommendation they made. They are not going to prohibit it, but they would like to see that it is standardized, that use is made of assessors in serious cases and that for the rest companies should use their own officials to investigate the matter.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised the question of the jumbo jets.

At the Jan Smuts Airport.

Yes. From his bench the hon. the Minister replied that the speeding up of the building operations was really a matter for the Department of Public Works. The Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works co-operate in respect of planning, but when it comes to the implementation, the Department of Public works is responsible for speeding up that process.

We do not want another Bethulie bridge.

Yes, I hope not.

As regards the Boeing 747 aircraft, according to present indications South African Airways will put these aircraft into service on international routes as from January, 1972. Of the foreign air carriers only the British Overseas Airways Corporation has indicated so far that it will put Boeing 747 aircraft into service on flights to and from South Africa, and this will be done by April, 1972. As regards the South African Airways—and this also applies to the other foreign air carriers—the Boeing 747 will only make regular use of the Jan Smuts Airport, and it will use the Hertzog Airport in Bloemfontein and the Louis Botha Airport as airports for diverted aircraft. The question that arises is whether our airports will be able to meet the requirements of these huge giants of the air. This is my reply: Firstly, there is the safety aspect, and here one thinks of the physical characteristics of and the navigational aids at the airports in question. I can assure the Committee that the length, width and the basic carrying capacity of the taxiways and runways at Jan Smuts Airport are undoubtedly more than adequate to accomodate those large jet aircraft. In addition, all the indications are that the aircraft, when they may occasionally be diverted owing to weather conditions, will not require higher standards in respect of the physical characteristics than those maintainted at the Louis Botha and J.B.M. Hertzog Airports. We are increasing the thickness of the surface by six inches in the middle sloping down to 2 inches at the edges. These large aircraft will only land there occasionally, and that is why we cannot enlarge the buildings in order to accommodate the people. As regards the navigational aids it is a fact that these giants of the air fortunately do not require more facilities than those that exist at present or are being planned.

The second aspect is concerned with the handling, and here the apron and the terminal buildings are specifically affected, and in this respect these giants of the air are undoubtedly setting new requirements. This is something which creates problems all over the world to-day. But in order to be able to keep pace with the rapid development in the sphere of civil aviation in general and with the ever-increasing volume of air traffic to and from South Africa in particular, large-scale improvemens were effected to the Jan Smuts Airport complex a considerable time ago. It is therefore not only because of the introduction of the large Boeings, but also because of the growing needs that arise in general, that those improvements were effected and planned. This planning, as I have said, is being done jointly by the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works, and is then carried into effect by Public Works. There is continuous consultation between these two Departments. It is estimated that the new terminal building complex, which is already under construction at Jan Smuts, will be completed by June, 1972. This complex includes separate terminal facilities for handling passengers on international flights, and special attention is being paid to the specific handling problems which will be created by the Boeing 747. For instance, provision is being made for the handling of 1,100 incoming and outgoing passengers per hour, with room for a 50 per cent increase. Adequate facilities are also being planned for the luggage division which includes advanced techniques, such as conveyor belt systems and luggage containers. Weighingin scales and counters are designed in such a way that there will be sufficient room for the speedy handling of Boeing 747 passengers and their luggage on arrival. Due allowance is also being made for the anticipated increase in our air freight, which goes hand in hand with the increase in services, and close liaison is being maintained with the air carriers concerned. Together with the building, the apron will be enlarged considerably to make room inter alia for the Boeing 747 aircraft, and at the same time new access roads and more parking space is being planned.

I think that this is more or less the information the hon. member wanted. I could elaborate more, but I do not think it is necessary. Then the hon. member inquired about urban freeways and what the Department was prepared to do. He had heard that the Government was not prepared to grant any more additional subsidies.

I heard that from the Minister.

The Department of Transport accepts full financial responsibility for the construction and the maintenance of all national roads and bridges. It contributes 70 per cent towards the construction of special roads, and it partly finances urban freeways. In terms of this the National Transport Commission has undertaken to provide funds from the National Road Fund for the construction of urban freeways in the following cities: Durban—R10 million …

Chicken feed!

… Port Elizabeth—R5 million; Johannesburg—R15 million; Pretoria—R10 million, and Cape Town —R1l million; R51 million in all. In addition to this amount of R51 million the National Transport Commission has made available roughly R131 million for the construction and maintenance of the following major projects, which are exclusively intended for bringing relief in regard to the traffic problems experienced in the larger cities and towns: Durban, in respect of the outer ring road, R25 million. Pietermaritzburg, in respect of the bypass, R3½ million; Kroonstad, in respect of the bypass, R2.3 million; Pretoria, in respect of the eastern bypass, R10.3 million; Silverton, R3.2 million; Johannesburg, in respect of the ring road, R47 million; Bloemfontein, in respect of the bypass, R5.7 million; East London, R11.3 million; Port Elizabeth, R1l million; Cape Town, in respect of the Black River Parkway, R2.7 million; and then in respect of Special Road No. 12, i.e. Bedfordview-Germiston-Johannesburg, R9 million. These amounts add up to R131 million. The National Transport Commission has committed itself in respect of these projects. The abovementioned roads avoid the central parts of the major cities, for it has been proved that urban speedways are not suitable for through traffic. To have an urban freeway running through the city centre, causes a greater concentration of traffic, more congestion. Ring roads, on the other hand, lend themselves to the development of new areas for industrial purposes. This has been proved all over the world where there are ring roads. In addition the National Transport Commission contributes from its own funds annual subsidies to the Provincial Administrations in order to help them to develop their roads. Urban highways are for the most part a local matter. The department and the National Transport Commission will meet their obligations in respect of the amounts to which they have committed themselves, but the department and the National Transport Commission are of the opinion that the construction of urban freeways cannot be justified economically, and this, is so for the following reasons.

What do you mean by a “freeway”? Do you also mean speedways which run through the city?

Yes, a road which runs through the city.

Do you mean by that a road which runs through the city to a destination beyond that city?

Yes.

I asked you what the department’s policy was in order to relieve traffic congestion in the city itself.

The construction of ring roads is one of the methods followed. Take, for instance, the ring road around Johannesburg. If one comes from Pretoria and wants to go to a southern suburb, one does not have to go through the city; one follows the ring road in either direction. The same applies here in Cape Town, as well as in Durban and in other cities.

That is very good.

We are of the opinion that it will bring major relief. The reason is that urban freeways do not meet the first requirement, namely to eliminate traffic congestion in the city centre. Nor does it meet the second requirement; in other words, it does not protect the heavy capital investments of the large buildings in the city centre. Thirdly, urban freeways are not suitable for fast-moving traffic; fourthly, it is not possible to serve central urban areas by means of speedways which only have inter-changes every two or three miles—if that is the case they do not benefit the city at all; fifthly, urban freeways are very expensive, for they entail the expropriation of large and expensive buildings and expensive pieces of land in the city centre itself, and because of these factors the National Transport Commission cannot see its way clear to accepting the financial responsibility for a larger portion of the cost of constructing freeways than the portion to which we have already committed ourselves at this stage. The hon. member asked me what my personal opinion was in regard to bringing relief here in the city centre.

Not your personal opinion, but the policy of the department.

Order! The hon. member will have another turn to speak.

He talks all the time.

Mr. Chairman, I have just stated the policy. The department believes that steps should be taken right now to keep heavy traffic out of the city centre. Public transport will have to be resorted to, so that the thousands upon thousands of motor cars can park at a specific place and the motorists can then make use of public transport to get to the city centre and then proceed further on foot, for we have so many motor cars in South Africa to-day that our city streets simply cannot cope with the traffic.

I think that I have now replied to all the questions asked by the hon. member for Yeoville. I have already furnished the hon. member for Wolmaransstad with a reply in regard to the question of the Y area. In a moment I shall return to the hon. member for Kroonstad who also asked me another question. The hon. member for Salt River also referred to the subsidies on urban freeways; I think I have replied to that. As regards the problems in connection with apartheid on buses, I think we are agreed.

The hon. member for Welkom spoke about road accidents. I must say that all of us are greatly concerned about road accidents. One merely has to drive on the roads oneself to see what is happening. If one drives along any of the roads leading out of Cape Town, one sees how people speed and try to overtake other cars. Under those circumstances accidents must take place. The hon. member knows, of course, that the South African Road Safety Council is being enoouraged in various ways to promote road safety. There is a committee which investigates the road safety aspect all the time. They co-ordinate with all the various bodies which are concerned with this matter, and for the purpose of promoting road safety, the council recently drafted and revised a comprehensive programme of action so as to include an immediate programme of action which keeps pace with the latest developments. This programme of action is being implemented with the aid of 15 regional offices, 32 road safety associations, 120 road safety committees and a large number of contact persons all over the Republic and South West Africa. The following are a few of the outstanding high-water marks which have been reached and which are in the process of being reached: The first is road safety education. This embraces a whole series of matters, which have already been tackled. The present programme in respect of road safety education includes investigation into uniform training for traffic officers, syllabuses and a text book in regard to that matter; investigation into the effective training of prospective motor-car drivers; investigation into further road safety contributions towards educational programmes for primary and high schools, as well as for post-school youths and adults, and debating competitions for high school pupils on the topic of road safety.

Then there is a legal and technical committee whioh devotes full-time attention to the various aspects of road safety which fall under it. In addition we have the research division which is continuously conducting research into all the factors which contribute to road accedents. Their present programme is aimed at making a nation-wide survey of traffic, and, secondly, road and traffic characteristics in road safety, human factors in road safety and numerous studies of road accidents. In collaboration with universities, private bodies and other individuals, a large number of projects have already been undertaken so as to make a further contribution towards stamping out this evil. Then we have the Public Relations and Publicity Committee of the Road Safety Council. They are also engaged in an extensive programme. At the moment I do not want to go into all those details, but I can assure the hon. member that that organization does very good work, and if all of us could only co-operate with them and do what they try to do, we would be able to do a great deal towards promoting road safety. Road and traffic authorities are continuously improving roads, and this also helps to eliminate difficulties, to eliminate bottle-necks and danger points and to smarten up traffic control, which is of course conducive to road safety. As you know, a 70 miles per hour speed limit was introduced in respect of roads in the rural areas as from 1st January, 1967. This speed limit is being analysed at the moment so as to determine what effect it has had. I think this answers the hon. member’s question.

Now I come to the hon. member for Standerton, who is so despondent. His hair has already turned grey; before long it will be snow white, like mine. Only, he has not been in politics long enough. The hon. member complained about the bridge at Standerton. He said that he had already written many letters, but he remained disappointed. He has been in politics for too short a time. When he has been in politics a little longer, he will find out that one has to exercise patience in order to obtain what one wants.

And one has to know one’s Government.

Yes, but this National Government takes action more promptly than did the previous Government. As far as that bridge is concerned, the position is as follows: The road that runs through Standerton and across that bridge, is a national road.

And the bridge is a national monument!

Yes, because it is one you built, and it still has to be declared a national monument; so how can we demolish it? The position is that negotiations were conducted last year—between my predecessor, Mr. Van Rensburg, and the Provincial Administration—in regard to the deproclamation of existing old national roads. The attitude adopted by my predecessor was that it was the task of the National Transport Commission to build national roads and, once they had finished building them, to hand them over to the provinces so that the latter might exercise control over them and maintain them. I understand that the National Transport Commission would be prepared to make financial contributions in this regard for a certain time. The negotiations are still in progress. My predecessor was subsequently appointed as Minister and I took over from him, but so far my time has not permitted me to take the negotiations with the Administrators any further.

The position is that if, as a result of those negotiations, that road is taken over by the Provincial Council, it would no longer be the responsibility of the National Transport Commission to build that bridge. But the idea is also to construct a major national bypass at Standerton—i.e. bypassing the centre of the town—and in that case it will not run across the bridge. A new bridge across the Vaal River would then have to be constructed, and to us it appears to be a waste of money to widen a bridge on a road which will no longer be used as a national road, only to build within a year or two a new bridge a small distance away, a bridge which will then meet the requirements of national road standards. For that reason the hon. member should exercise a little more patience. We cannot take a decision now, and it would also be wrong to do so, for if we were to decide to double that bridge now and we were to build another bridge within a year or two, people would be justified in saying: “Why did you waste that money? After all you knew you were going to build another bridge.”

The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised the question of transport inspectors. I can state that the position is as follows: one was prosecuted and sentenced, and the case against the other four is still pending. Therefore we may not discuss it. This case will be tried in court shortly. My information is that there were five of them altogether. As I am saying, four of them must still be prosecuted; one of them has already been prosecuted. I can just tell the hon. member that there is no charge or prosecution against members of the Road Transportation Board. They are appointed in terms of the provisions of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act. What is being taken into account in that regard, I cannot tell him. The hon. member also wanted to know whether there was no control over those transport inspectors.

Order! I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should rather leave that matter altogether.

I would prefer not to deal with that. I think I have now said enough for the time being.

I want to raise three matters with the hon. the Minister, all of which concern the Road Transportation Commission which falls under his portfolio. I know this is an autonomous body, or is said to be, and that the hon. the Minister cannot interfere in their decisions. But I cannot believe that the Minister is unable, through the Secretary, who is a member of the Commission, to exercise some influence on the Commission in its decisions and perhaps to persuade them to change their minds in certain respects.

The first matter I want to raise is that of taxi apartheid in Cape Town and in the Western Province generally. I know the matter has been raised by the hon. member for Peninsula with the Minister’s Department, and I am not going to go into very much detail except to try to put a humanitarian appeal before the hon. the Minister to see whether he cannot perhaps influence the decision which has already been taken in regard to these drivers. The position is that there are in the Western Cape something like 124 non-white taxi owner-drivers, and about 53 white owners, and over a number of years there has been a dispute as to whether or not these non-white owners may drive their cabs and collect white passengers. Now, quite obviously something like 80 per cent of their total income came from conveying white passengers in their cabs. They did not of course request that they be allowed to pick up passengers of different race groups at the same time, but that they carry one class of passenger at a time.

I might point out that these drivers have been operating and giving a very efficient service to the citizens, and particularly to the white citizens as well as the non-white citizens of the Western Cape, for about 35 years or longer, and over the last 15 years this dispute has been continuing. But apparently the axe fell finally this year when the demand was made that these owner-drivers should display the “Non-Whites Only” sign on their cabs. I understand that the matter has now gone further and the Commission is considering the matter again, but I would like to point out to the Minister that these people have suffered additional difficulties in regard to earning a living because of the operation of the Group Areas Act, which has meant that many hundreds of thousands of the Coloured community have been moved out of the central area to outlying areas and therefore the taxidrivers were deprived of their non-white passengers, since most of them operate in the central city area.

I would like the Minister to put his mind to this problem and see whether something cannot be done to assist these people, many of whom bought their cabs on hire-purchase and have running expenses of anything from R150 to R170 a month and will just not be able to earn a living if they are not going to be allowed to carry white passengers. I should like to point out one extraordinary anomaly which has arisen out of this whole dispute. There are, as I said, a number of white cab-owners in the Western Province. These have simply not been able to find white drivers, and so they have been permitted to engage non-white drivers for their white-owned cabs, who then operate them and pick up white passengers. So the position is that as long as one is a white owner, one is apparently given permission by the Commission or the Transportation Board to hire non-white drivers who can pick up white passengers. But if one happens to be a Coloured owner of a cab, one is not allowed to drive that cab oneself and to pick up white passengers. Sir, this is clearly discrimination.

It is not even a question of ordinary apartheid, of not allowing a non-white driver to carry white passengers, because this is allowed provided the cab is owned by a white owner; and in any case we clearly do not have driver apartheid yet in South Africa, because many white people employ African and Coloured chauffeurs. So it seems to me that this is a clear case of racial discrimination and I hope the Minister will use his influence on humanitarian grounds since this is not even a matter of apartheid per se, with white passengers and white drivers, but a question of the ownership of the cab, and not the actual operation of that cab. That is the one point.

The other point is this. As far as Johannesburg is concerned, there is the question of further transport facilities for Indians living at Lenasia—and there are something like 30,000 Indians at present—and Africans living at Soweto numbering anything up to and over 600,000. The train services are hopelessly overcrowded for both racial groups, by the time the trains reach Johannesburg. All of us know that the situation is quite impossible, both to and from Soweto.

Now I know that Putco has been trying to get permission to run an additional bus service to augment those transport facilities. The Minister has said that he was attempting to increase rail services, but this is a slow business and very expensive. The line has been doubled and more carriages have been laid on, but there is still tremendous overcrowding on these trains, and this is one of the greatest single causes of friction and discontent among the workers who travel from Soweto into the Johannesburg area every day and home again. The City Council, I understand, is supporting the plea for Putco to be able to run bus services. I do not care whether it is Putco or some other private bus service, but additional facilities must be provided.

The Indians of Lenasia have pleaded with the board for licences to augment the existing bus services which I understand consist of two buses into and two buses out of Lenasia. Then there are the trains which are, as I say, always grossly over-crowded. They have been asking for permission to run an Indian-owned and operated bus service and surely this is in keeping with the Government’s policy of each racial group serving its own people. I cannot see why the applications by Indians to run a bus service to augment this hopelessly overloaded rail service on the one hand and hopelessly inadequate bus service on the other cannot be granted. These matters I bring to the Minister’s attention as a matter of urgency because if anything is causing dissatisfaction it is the question of these highly inadequate and over-crowded transport services from Lenasia and from Soweto.

There is another matter which is something quite different again and which may or may not fall under this Deputy Minister. I refer to the rates for unaccompanied luggage for passengers travelling on the overseas airways. Formerly one could send unaccompanied luggage at a very low tariff, but it has been changed and it all has to go as air freight at considerable inconvenience to the passengers because this means customs declarations and everything else.

Order! That falls under the South African Railways.

I am referring to the facilities we used to enjoy at the airports for the despatch …

Order! Flight rates fall under the Railways and Harbours.

Not even airports? It is on the Estimates, is it not? Airports are, but apparently not this particular service. Therefore I shall leave it at that and ask the Minister to give attention to the other matters I have raised.

Mr. Chairman, I always prepare myself for the possibility of speaking after the hon. member for Houghton, and then to be able to say something pleasant to the hon. the Minister in charge of the Vote concerned, because the hon. member for Houghton is not fond of saying pleasant things to a Minister.

Professor Harry Street of the University of Manchester in England praised the Department of Transport when he said the following about motor vehicle insurance during a symposium at the law faculty of the University of the Witwatersrand—

I refer you to page 49 of the South African Law Journal. We must remember that this 1942 legislation was passed under a United Party regime, but we must also accept that since 1948 the Department of Transport has elaborated upon it. This professor specifically referred to our consortium.

The problem of third-party insurance premiums developed because we have motor cars on the roads and because the legislature accepted that it had to ensure that a person who suffered damages should be compensated for the damages suffered by him as a result of motor accidents. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad said in respect of premiums. This matter must be reconsidered. However, I want to confine myself to factors which may increase this premium. I want to make it clear that we in this House and also persons outside this House are in duty bound to put our heads together, because this matter concerns every man, woman and child in our country. It is not a political matter, but a social one.

A large number of persons are injured and die every year owing to motor accidents. In 1962 4,294 persons died on our roads: 3,131 of them were non-Whites, and 1,590 of them were pedestrians, while 640 were cyclists. Of course, none of those pedestrians or cyclists had third-party cover. We investigated the cases at one of our provincial divisions of the Supreme Court, and it was found that 58.2 per cent of the claims submitted over a period of two years were submitted by non-Whites. Yet non-Whites own barely one-tenth of the number of motor vehicles in this country, which means that they contribute barely a tenth to the premium income in respect of third-party insurance in this country.

On the basis of these figures I therefore want to make the following statements now: The non-white section of the population is a considerable factor in our third-party insurance set-up. I am supported in this by an investigation which was made by Die Vaderland. I refer to a report of 18 th April, 1968, which states the following (translation)—

Figures are then quoted in support of this statement.

A second statement which I want to make on the basis of figures which I have mentioned, is that pedestrians and cyclists are a large factor in our third-party insurance set-up. Please note that none of these two groups carries such insurance.

I want to indicate the importance of these factors by way of the following illustration: Dependants of Bantu who are killed and injured Bantu themselves submit claims, but there are also certain persons who listen with a smile to the screaming siren of an ambulance speeding to the scene of a road accident, because this means additional income for them. Those persons virtually besiege our non-white hospitals. The Du Plessis Commission said the following about such persons in their report in 1960—

My sympathies lie with these Bantu persons who contribute to our premiums being increased, and in this connection I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the following points: When compensation is paid to injured persons or to the dependants of deceased persons, the money should be paid over to a Bantu Commissioner, so that he can exercise proper control over the funds which are received, especially in connection with the cost accounts, and the general spending of money, so that the money is not spent by illiterate persons. Often ignorant mothers must handle the money on behalf of their children. In addition I want to ask that the consortium should make an attempt to bring road safety home to our Bantu.

I also want to ask that the question of third-party insurance as a whole be reconsidered, specifically for the following reason: A company is much quicker to oppose a large claim. Because so much money is involved, it would sooner oppose a large claim. On the other hand, it is not so quick to oppose a smaller claim, because in actual fact it only has “nuisance value”. Such claims are then settled much more easily. In America it was found that persons who were only injured lightly were compensated out of proportion to what they ought to have received. On the other hand, persons who were seriously injured received only 25 per cent of their economic loss. The reason is that companies sooner oppose these large claims than the smaller claims. It is all very closely bound up with the guilt element, namely whether guilt must be a condition for a successful claim. In England there is already a movement to eliminate the guilt factor; in other words, such insurance must be made available to everyone. They say that pedestrians, and persons who cannot acquit themselves of their onus of proof in court, should also be able to recover compensation. These persons are subject to relative factors such as whether the lights of the motor car were blinding, whether it was reasonably possible to foresee what was going to happen, etc. Consequently there is a movement in England to eliminate this procedure. I want to say once again that it is worth taking note of the view of this professor to which I referred you earlier.

In conclusion I also want to ask the Minister to instruct the consortium to deal with claims as quickly as possible. In some cases persons who have been injured have to wait a year or two before receiving any money. Sometimes widows with children are involved, and sometimes children alone. Through the manipulations of a clever lawyer, a court case can be prolonged for two years. After all, this is not what was intended with this legislation. The intention was that injured persons should receive their compensation as quickly as possible, because this is a social measure. I therefore, want to plead that the hon. the Minister give attention to this matter under the present Act and if the consortium is in agreement with it. If this cannot be done, I want to ask that the whole question of third-party insurance be reconsidered.

Mr. Chairman, I trust the hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) will excuse me if I do not follow the trend of his discussion. I want to return to the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the runways at the Hertzog and Louis Botha Airports. While I realize that it is necessary to provide for such improvements, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what other forward planning is being considered and undertaken with a view to these jumbo jets which are due in this country in the 1970s. We know that it is intended that they should land at Jan Smuts Airport in Johannesburg, but there are occasions when it is necessary to overfly Jan Smuts because of the weather and other factors. While the Hertzog Airport in Bloemfontein may be a suitable alternative, I suggest that when jumbo jets with 300 or 400 passengers land at Bloemfontein there will not at this stage be sufficient hotel accommodation for these people. So, from the point of view of providing an ideal alternative, I submit that the Louis Botha Airport should be considered, because Durban has sufficient accommodation to provide at very short notice an additional number of beds for people arriving at short notice. I want to point out what the President of the Durban Chamber of Commerce said recently when he critioized the existing facilities at the Louis Botha Airport. He indicated that it was only because of the efficiency of the staff that they were able to handle passengers and freight as well as they do with the present inadequate and outdated facilities. I think that that just about sums up the position there. I was standing in a queue a few weeks ago to board one of the Boeings to Cape Town When a woman turned to her husband and said, “You know, this is like the terminal at Nairobi and other small places we have been through”. I think that this is an airport quite out of keeping with the size and needs of Durban. I trust that the hon. the Minister will give some indication that at least forward planning is being undertaken in this regard, because an examination of the Loan Vote does not indicate that money is to be spent on such facilities apart from the small additions which have been provided for in the past. I submit that there is not enough seating accommoda tion and that passengers find themselves in a milling mob of sightseers. There is no privacy whatsoever and all the facilities for passengers and their luggage are totally inadequate.

Then I want to raise the question of pedal cyclists. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that consideration should be given to a regulation that pedal cyclists should be licensed in some way. There should be some control over them. I submit that at present they are a menace on our roads and an accident hazard. I have figures which I believe will indicate the serious extent to which pedal cyclists contribute to our accident rate in South Africa. We know that the drivers of all engine powered vehicles have to be licensed, including motor cyclists. We have records of the number of these vehicles on the road, but as far as I know there is no record which would indicate the number of pedal cyclists who use our roads in South Africa. I believe that the time has come for consideration to be given to this aspect. I want to quote some road accident figures and I will take the years 1964 to 1966. An average of 8 per cent of the total accidents can be attributed to pedal cyclists. It works out at over 31 per day and that is those that are reported. I appreciate that over the past few years the actual number of cycle accidents in relation to the total number has remained fairly static, but it is still a fact that the number of pedal cyclists involved in accidents is one and a half times the number of motor cyclists who are involved in accidents. When we come to the question of the number of people killed it is a very disturbing position. We find that in 1965 the number of drivers of all types of vehicles who were killed amounted to 890. The number of pedal cyclists amounted to 762. Of the total of all people killed, including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, etc., almost 15 per cent of the full total represented the riders of pedal cycles. Of the 762 cyclists killed we find that 718 or 94 per cent of them were non-White. I believe that the large number of non-Whites who are killed and injured as a result of accidents on pedal cycles is not only due to the higher proportion of them that use this means of propulsion, but that it is also due to the fact that they do not receive the necessary training in road courtesy and in the rules of the road.

I will admit that it is a difficult task to place a value on a human life, but in Britain research and statistics indicate that one fatality costs the country R5.940. The cost of a serious injury is as high as R1.540. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that, according to figures which I have from statistical authorities available to me, the number of seriously and slightly injured people who are riders of Dedal cycles is approximately 10 per cent of the total. This problem is mainly an urban one. I suggest that 80 per cent of these accidents, in terms of my analysis of the figures, occur in urban areas. As I see it the tragedy of all this is that there is nothing to stop an individual from walking into a cycle store, buying a cycle and riding off on it. He may have to comply with local authority requirements to license that cycle, but as far as I know he has to undergo no test to establish what knowledge he has of the rules of the road. I know that in other centres this problem has been dealt with, and that in America in certain areas the cyclists are not only tested regularly, but so are the cycles. I suggest that the time has come when this can be done. From what I can gather it will meet with a certain amount of support from the provincial authorities who would obviously in time be required to implement any such practice. I believe that as far as the staff is concerned, they can be found. I know that some people suggest that a shortage of staff or the inability to recruit suitably trained staff will make this scheme an impracticable one. I submit that a cycle is not a highly technical vehicle and that it would be a relatively simple matter to train non-Whites to deal with their own people by providing them with the necessary training and if necessary with a licence. This will help to satisfy the authorities that the vehicles used on the roads are in fact fit to be used. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give this matter his serious attention.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the plea which the hon. member for Randburg made here this afternoon in connection with a possible investigation into the conveyance of Bantu to urban areas by private undertakings. I want to refer to what happens in my constituency, namely that leave is granted to these conveyers to convey Bantu from places such as Kliptown and Evaton. Both Kliptown and Evaton lie on the main railway line which can carry all the Bantu who have to go to Johannesburg for purposes of employment. In the first place I want to ask why these road transportation services are established and allowed to convey Bantu in competition with the Railways there. There are many problems springing from this for us. In the first place, I want to say that in our human relationships in South Africa to-day, it is surely our object to eliminate points of friction as far as possible and not to create points of friction. For these road transportation services the Bantu are provided with termini within white residential areas and these Bantu are off-loaded there. From there they disperse to their various places of work. These alighting and boarding points have hardly been established when a bottle store is put up, which is the beginning of all the friction which is caused there. I now want to ask whether the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot at least ask the local road transportation board not to grant these exemptions and if that is not possible, whether a searching investigation cannot be made into this matter. In addition I want to say that as far as I know the Bantu township at Evaton lies outside the Johannesburg area and Bantu from the Evaton Bantu township may not work in the Johannesburg municipal area. In spite of that, they are conveyed in large numbers to the Johannesburg municipal area by bus. I ask that attention be given to this matter.

Another matter to which I want to refer briefly is the question of road safety, about which we have heard a great deal this afternoon. I want to say at the outset that I cannot associate myself so enthusiastically with what the hon. member for Welkom said in regard to the 70 miles per hour speed limit. I am one of those who believe that that speed limit contributes very little to road safety. I think that these people who crawl along the road are to a large extent responsible for accidents, rather than persons who can handle a motor car and drive faster than 70 miles per hour. I actually want to speak about these wilful and reckless people on the roads whom I myself fell prey to. I want to say that it is with much gratitude that we took cognizance of what the hon. the Deputy Minister said here this afternoon about everything that is being done, and it is also with deep appreciation that we take cognizance of what those various bodies are doing to prevent road accidents. However, it is as plain as a pikestaff that the progress which we are making is very slow and small. It is so small that you must not take it amiss of me if I say that it causes me concern. I really feel concerned about this situation, and I want to suggest that road accidents are largely caused by these wilful and reckless drivers on our roads. I just want to plead for one thing this afternoon. That is that efforts should be made to determine who the guilty party is in the case of a motor accident, that the guilty person should then be criminally prosecuted and that the onus should not fall upon the other person to prosecute him in a civil action. If such a person should be found guilty of wilful and reckless driving, his driver’s licence should not merely be withdrawn temporarily but should be withdrawn permanently, with the proviso that, if he wants a driver’s licence again, he must apply to the Administrator of the Province concerned. He must then first furnish proof that he is prepared to act responsibly when driving a car on a public road. Personal attitude plays the most important part in road safety.

The road hogs.

The moment a man ventures onto the road in his motor car and acknowledges in his heart of hearts that the other man who is also driving along in a motor car or walking along the road also has a right to be on that road, he will ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, he will not be the cause of a road accident If we cannot cultivate that sense of responsibility in people from infancy, we must do so by means of deterrents. It is no use fining a man a few hundred rands and withdrawing his driver’s licence for six months or a year. That is not a sufficient deterrent. I say that the deterrent should be that his driver’s licence is taken away from him. If he wants it back, he must furnish proof to the Administrator of the Province concerned that he is now prepared to act responsibly when driving on a public road. I believe that a drastic deterrent can contribute a great deal towards solving this matter. When a man wilfully and recklessly forced me off the road, the police officer came and asked me wether I wanted to prosecute that man and institute a civil action against him. It was even clear to that policeman that the other man was the guilty party. Why did the onus rest on me to obtain a conviction against that person in court? I believe that it is the State’s duty to determine whether a person is guilty or not. If he is guilty, he must be properly punished to prevent him from causing further road accidents.

Mr. Chairman, transport is one of the biggest problems in this country to-day. The dangers which exist as a result of the thousands of cars and lorries on our roads are a problem which is receiving the attention of the authorities. We want to thank them for what they have already done. I believe I am right in saying that the public is to-day making more use of the air service to travel from Johannesburg to Cape Town and back or to other cities because, as has been stated this afternoon, the danger and the risk on the roads are very large.

In the short time at my disposal I want to plead this afternoon that the Department of Transport should give serious attention to building an airport in the Klerksdorp area in the Western Transvaal. That area already has a civil airport, the Pelser Airport, which is named after the hon. the Minister of Justice. The Western Transvaal is developing, and for us in that area it is becoming virtually impossible to reach Jan Smuts Airport, because one gets caught up in enormous traffic because one has to travel from the Western Transvaal through the whole of the city of Johannesburg in order to reach Jan Smuts airport. If attention could be given to the building of an airport there in the future, I believe it will render a great service to that part of our country. There is the constituency of Klerksdorp, which is one of the most progressive regions in our country to-day; there is Stilfontein, the large concentration of people at the mines, the towns of Potchefstroom, Ventersdorp and Lichtenburg. I am only mentioning a few. There are also the goldfields of the Free State, as well as the constituency of Odendaalsrus. These are all constituencies with a large population and which are still developing every day. If we could have an airport at Klerksdorp it would mean a great deal to that area. I can also give hon. members the assurance that it will be a paying proposition. The Department will get the support of not only the various municipalities which I have mentioned, but also of the large mining areas. If one wants to travel by air to-day it is easier to travel from my constituency to Bloemfontein or to Kimberley than to the Jan Smuts Airport. That is why I am pleading with the Deputy Minister to give his attention to this matter. Even if they could only give us a service of one or two flights per week, it would be highly appreciated. I believe that the seven constituencies which I have mentioned will give their full support to that service and that it will be a paying proposition.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question about the survey of the proposed new national road through the Transkei. The position is that this route through the Transkei has been surveyed as far as Libode. It was done by a private firm of surveyors because, I understand, of the shortage in the hon. the Minister’s department of engineers and surveyors. The remainder of the route through the Transkei, namely from Libode up to the Natal provincial border at Port Edward at the mouth of the Umtanyuma River, has not yet been surveyed, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will agree to the remainder of that route also being done by private surveyors in order that the job may be completed.

In the second place I want to deal with the question of the provision of a further navigational landing aids at the East London and Port Elizabeth airports. This is a matter I have raised before and I know that improvements are being undertaken there. But I firstly want to ask the hon. the Minister what his department intends to do about the provision of radar, which would be a most important aid to both air navigation and air traffic control at those two airports. Do they intend to provide radar at those airports and, if so, when? Secondly, I want to deal with the provision of instrument landing systems at both Port Elizabeth and East London. I know that those are going to be provided during the course of this year. There has been some considerable delay in the provision of those systems, partly due to the fact that there were technical advances and that none of the original tenders for the equipment was accepted, due to the fact that because of the technical advances the old tubular valve equipment had become more or less out of date, and when the new solid state fully transistorized equipment became available, new tenders were called for. Sir, four firms submitted tenders: Specialized Electronics, Fuchs Electronics, Leight and Hurwitz and, lastly, Standard Telephones and Cables. When those tenders closed on the 30th June, 1967, the tender prices were made available. Sir, I do not propose to read all of them. The successful tenderer was Standard Telephones and Cables. I merely want to compare their tender prices with those of the lowest tenderer. For Port Elizabeth the lowest tenderer, Specialized Electronics, tendered R113,431; Standard Telephones and Cables, the successful tenderer, tendered R138,895; in other words, Standard Telephones and Cables tendered R25,464 more than the lowest tenderer. For East London Specialized Electronics tendered R116,001, whereas Standard Telephones and Cables tendered R180,616, and there the difference was R64,615. The total difference for the two tenders together at East London and Port Elizabeth is R90,079. I am assuming that when the firms submitted these tenders, the equipment they were offering complied with the specifications laid down in the tender documents, including, amongst other things, provisions as to delivery and installation. Sir, I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to give this Committee the reason why, particularly at a time like that when the country was fighting inflation, the higher tender should have been accepted when there was a difference of no less than R90,000, which must ultimately come out of the pocket of the taxpayer and why the contract was not given to one of the other tenderers, not necessarily the firm which I have mentioned.

What about the question of delivery?

Then there is the question of delivery. I have said that there has been some delay in the installation of the equipment and I have given one of the reasons. Sir, when I put a question to the Minister earlier this Session, i.e. on the 30th April, this year, about the delivery date, the hon. the Deputy Minister told me that the installations would be completed by the delivery date and that the date for both delivery and installation was December, 1968. Sir, that is a matter of some 18 months after the tenders closed, i.e. on the 30th June, 1967, and my information is that this other firm that I have mentioned, Specialized Electronics, was prepared to guarantee that this equipment would be installed and in operation at both Port Elizabeth and East London within nine months; in other words, that it would be installed nine months sooner than the successful tenderers will be able to instal their equipment. In the meanwhile it means that for nine months the air crews who use those two airports will not have the benefit of this landing aid. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to give us full information on this matter.

Now I want to turn to another matter also connected with civil aviation, and that is the Government civil aviation subsidy scheme. The amount available for this was reduced in 1964 from some R42,800 to R40,000, and when the hon. the Minister was questioned on this by one of the members on this side he said that it had been reduced because it was not all being taken up every year and that in fact that there was a carry-over every year. Sir, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that there must in fact be a carryover every year; it cannot be otherwise. I want to deal mainly with the subsidies which relate to the first issue of a private pilot’s licence. The subsidy is only paid after the man has completed his flying hours and after he has got his licence. It must inevitably happen that some of these people do not get their licences. They either have to give up the course for one reason or another or they are perhaps unsuitable for flying, and for that reason they are unable to obtain their licence and then, of course, they can get no subsidy on it. For that reason alone, there must be a certain amount of money every year that is not taken up. I think the main reason to-day why these full amounts are not being taken up is that the rate of subsidy is so low. This was laid down some years ago. The subsidy for the first issue of private pilot’s licences is paid as follows—and I am quoting now from the report of the Department: 161 possible units of 20 hours each at R4 per hour, that is to say, R80 per unit is made available. That figure of R4 per hour might have been quite adequate in the days when the subsidy was instituted, but the present position is that a man must do at least 40 hours’ flying before he can qualify for his private pilot’s licence. The subsidy which he gets to-day might have been adequate when the basis was laid down, but to-day it costs one at least R500 to do 40 hours’ flying, and the rate at which one can get tuition to-day is certainly not R8, the rate on which the subsidy is based. One will be very lucky indeed if one can get any dual flying tuition at all at anything less than R12. It is much more likely to be something of the order of R14 or R15 or more. This amount is completely inadequate, and I think the result of it is that in many instances the people who are taking up the subsidies to-day are not the ones whom it was perhaps originally intended to assist. The subsidy to-day is so small that the people who really need to take advantage of the subsidy cannot contemplate even trying to learn to fly at this very low rate, because they cannot make up the difference between the R80 and R500. [Time expired.]

I want to commence by referring to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Albany. The hon. member asked certain questions about the instrumentation at the East London Airport. I am surprised that he did not take cognizance of what was being done in this connection. It is perhaps necessary to explain at the very beginning that a new system of navigation is being installed throughout South Africa and that East London and Port Elizabeth will also share in it. We already referred to this in passing during a debate here last year. I am referring to the so-called Tacan, tactical aid to navigation, which is being installed throughout South Africa. Sir, it is a completely new concept. It is going to place air navigation in South Africa on a completely different basis and it is going to be a tremendous step forward for air navigation in South Africa. For that reason it is perhaps necessary that I briefly explain what the system comprises. It is an American system, and consists of ground apparatus which gives course and direction as well as distance to equipped military airoraft. If the course element is used on military aircraft, it differs considerably from that used on civil aircraft. But the distance element used in this navigation system can be introduced into South African civil aircraft and we can thus obtain what we call a vortac system, by means of which we can measure distance and direction simultaneously with the same instrument, with the additional advantage that military and civil aircraft both work on the same navigation system and that the possibility of over-density in certain areas, which is beginnnng to occur from time to time, can be eliminated since the same control system is used for military and civil aircraft. This system is an American one and the apparatus is bought from America. It is going to be installed during the next financial year, and it is hoped that East London will also have this system in the 1969-’70 financial year.

The hon. member referred to radar, but surely he is aware of the fact that the radar at Port Elizabeth has already reached the stage that is going to be installed. Long distance radar is going to be installed there, and the planning in this regard ought to come under consideration towards the end of this year or early in the new year. Therefore, as regards those problems which the hon. member raised, if he had only asked the Department or written a letter to them, he would have received the necessary answers.

I want to make a few remarks in support of some of the points which the hon. member raised in respect of the subsidy scheme. I do not think that he put the matter in perspective. The subsidy scheme for the training of pilots in South Africa is not merely for initial training, but covers a considerably wider field at the moment. Provision is made for initial training, but considerable provision is also made in the same amount for the renewal of pilots’ licences. Provision is made for the training of commercial pilots and for instrument gradings in this connection; provision is made for a subsidy for the purchasing of gliders. A subsidy is also provided for the purchasing of parachute equipment, and lastly provision is also made for a subsidy for the transportation of aircraft from one point to another. But I think that a case can be made out for increasing this subsidy. Both the demand and our needs in this country are increasing and I do not think it would be unreasonable if the hon. the Minister reviewed this amount, which is fixed at R40.000 at the moment. The hon. member is correct in saying that it has remained at this level for quite some time and that a very reasonable case can be made out for this amount to be increased, provided that it will be utilized via the correct channels.

In the few minutes remaining to me I want to make another plea. I want to plead for a national traffic policy. This argument crops up in this House from time to time, and after we listened to the speeches by hon. members this afternoon, it was clear to us once again that we are all aware of the seriousness of the situation in respect of road traffic in South Africa. Now we are looking everywhere for scapegoats and for solutions, but the solutions are not always practical. One of the first requirements is that we must have a national traffic policy in South Africa, uniform application of policy and a uniform concept in respect of traffic. It is suggested from time to time that our road system is poor and that there are other deficiencies. It is a fact that, of the 2½ million motor-cars in Africa, we have 1½ million in South Africa. We spend tremendous amounts on our road network and I want to suggest to-night that our road network is adequate provided that we make proper use of it. Between the years 1961 and 1965 we spent R600 million on our roads. We use 20,000 tons of steel for road construction every year.

The primary object of a road is to carry traffic from one point to another with the least delay. Our road building programme answers that purpose, but there is the requirement that it should take place in an orderly and a safe way. I am sorry, but I must differ with the hon. member for Welkom, who said that the 70 miles per hour speed limit was working such wonders. I just want to mention briefly a few headlines which appeared recently. There is one in Die Vaderland of 27th March. Here a British nobleman, Lord Montagu, who visited South Africa said (translation)—

Sir, is it not ironic that a British nobleman must tell us to stop imitating Britain in everything, including this farcical 70 miles per hour speed limit? We read in another newspaper what a traffic chief said—

The Hoofstad of 17th April, 1968, said (translation)—

This was a large group of journalists who write about traffic matters and have made a study of them. Die Vaderland of 16th October, of last year, said: “More accidents despite 70 miles per hour.” Then we find “Ex-racing driver’s suggestion” in Die Vaderland of 27th February (translation)—

He goes much further than that. And here is a very experienced traffic chief, the traffic chief of Pretoria, who has been attached to the traffic department for 36 years and has a great deal of experience of road safety, and he wrote in Die Beeld of 7th April, 1968 (translation)—

And he says that the speed limit of 70 miles per hour is no contributory factor to safety on our roads. Sir, I can quote you dozens of similar cases, but we have not taken the alarming factor into account, which is this. The C.S.I.R. published an article in their publication Scientiae, of March, 1966, in which they stated—

Further to that there, is an article in Dagbreek en Landstem, of which I shall just read the following (translation)—

White drivers are restricted by legislation which makes matters difficult for them as a result of the accidents caused by non-Whites on our roads because they have not been trained, made road conscious and educated. Now we all carry the stigma as drivers, while research has not yet pin-pointed the culprit.

There is one other factor. I quote from Die Vaderland of 8th December, 1967 (translation)—

Sir, I may have taken out a licence in a small country town years ago; I may drive a car in Cape Town’s traffic to-day, and I may drive it on our complicated roads, but my health may give in, and there is no limit on that. According to this newspaper article, there, are 9,000 of these people who are potentially dangerous drivers on our roads. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I still owe the bon. member for Randburg a reply. He raised the same question as the hon. member for Langlaagte did. It is in connection with the transportation of Bantu from the plots to Evaton. They asked me to have this matter investigated. I shall undertake to have that investigation made.

The hon. member for Standerton is not here yet, but he asked me a question in connection with South Rand road. Under the circumstances I shall reply for the sake of other members who raised the matter. This is actually a provincial matter, but after Members of Parliament had come to see me, the Department investigated the matter further. On 29th May the Department discussed the whole matter with the Director of the Transvaal Roads Department. He furnished the following information (translation)—

What I can do now, is to ask hon. members to approach the Provincial Administration for further assistance.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton asked me a few questions, but she is not here.

*The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) made a few very interesting points. Firstly, he dealt with cyclists and pedestrians who cause so many accidents. I may say that there is a fund, namely the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund, which has over R8,000 at its disposal, which it has granted. The consortium also granted R8,000. The combined amount is therefore R 16,000, which is specifically intended for the combating of accidents in which cyclists and pedestrians are involved. Perhaps this will help him with his problem. Secondly, I may say that a special committee has been appointed, under the chairmanship of Adv. Moll, which is at present conducting an inquiry to determine whether compensation should in certain cases be paid over to the Department of Social Welfare with a view to controlling the use of the money to prevent its being wasted in the case of persons who cannot look after their money matters themselves.

The hon. member for Stilfontein asked whether it was not possible to erect an airport in the western part of the Transvaal. This request has never before been brought to the attention of the Department so strongly. These services are usually undertaken by air transporters. If the services mentioned by him would be so profitable, there is no reason why one of the air transporters will not apply for the erection of an airport in the western part of the Transvaal. As far as the Department itself is concerned, it does not construct airports, nor does it undertake to have them built. Only when the application has been made, can the necessary attention be given to it.

In reply to the hon. member for Albany I may just say that, as far as navigation aids at the H. F. Verwoerd and Ben Schoeman Airports are concerned, I can read out a long list of navigation aids which have already been provided at these airports, or are being planned. However, I do not think this is necessary. The fact of the matter is that these airports, just like other coastal airports, are or are being equipped with all the most important navigational and approach aids. However, I just want to correct the hon. member for Middelburg’s statement about radar at the two airports. The position is that specifications are being drawn up in 1968 for long-distance tracking radar for Port Elizabeth. It is not yet certain when it will be available. It depends upon many factors which cannot be determined with certainty now. In the case of a large piece of apparatus of this nature it may possibly take two years before the apparatus can be put into service. As far as the airport at East London is concerned, there are no fixed plans as yet. I may perhaps just explain that this type of radar is used mainly for distinguishing aircraft from one another in dense air traffic, and not so much to carry out approaches during bad weather.

The density of air traffic at East London does not justify such a radar device at present. As far as the choice of the instrument landing system is concerned, the hon. member is venturing into a highly technical field. I know nothing about it, of course, but it seemed to me as if he too, was not quite conversant with these matters. The Tender Board is the authority which finally decides which tender is to be accepted. In its decision the Tender Board is of course guided by the recommendations of the Department and its technical staff. Cost is only one of the considerations in the choice of any apparatus. Where human lives are at stake, many other factors enter into it, and not only the cost. I would rather not elaborate on the insinuation and the statement which the hon. member made. I just want to affirm that I have the fullest confidence in my officials and in the Tender Board, and that the best apparatus is being purchased for this purpose.

Was there something wrong with the cheapest tender?

It is not always the best to buy the cheapest, especially when we are dealing with these instruments.

Was something wrong with it?

Only the Tender Board will be able to supply that answer.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

No. The hon. member can make a speech when the hon. the Deputy Minister has finished.

Then the hon. member for Albany asked me a question in connection with the surveying of the road between Libode and Natal. He asked whether it could not be done by private surveyors. My reply is that it can be done by a private surveyor, but that the alignment must first be carried out by the Department of Transport. Unfortunately we do not have sufficient technical staff first to carry out the alignment before we can have the surveying done. Then the hon. member also asked for a subsidy for the training of pilots. The position is that only R40,000 is allocated per year. The department, through its subsidy committee, on which inter alia representatives of the Aero Club, the Commercial Aviation Association of Southern Africa, and the Aircraft owners’ and Pilots’ Association of South Africa serve, succeeds every year in spending approximately the full amount, despite the difficulties mentioned by the hon. member. This achievement deserves praise and not criticism, but if the hon. member meant that the allocation no longer fits the circumstances, I accept it like that, and we shall give it our attention.

The hon. member for Berea asked me a question in connection with the handling of luggage at airports. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the necessary steps are being taken as far as the handling of luggage is concerned. A master plan committee, which will review the long-term planning of all large State airports, was appointed this year. Attention has been given especially to Jan Smuts Airport so far. All the other airports will receive attention soon.

Then he spoke of the airports for diverted aircraft and suggested that diverted aircraft should make use of Durban in preference to the other airports, but that is a matter of the air transporter’s own choice. We cannot tell him what airport he must use. It depends on which one proves the most suitable for him under the circumstances.

Then the hon. member also spoke about cyclists. He asked that there be better control of cyclists and bicycles. However, this is a question for the Provincial Administration and unfortunately does not concern my department. The hon. member for Bethal pleaded for a national traffic policy. I just want to say to him that there is an Inter-provincial Road Traffic Advisory Board. This board consists of representatives of the four provinces and South West Africa.

Order! Hon. members must please obey the Chair. There is too much noise here.

They are continually giving attention to road traffic and advising the Minister.

†I should now like to reply to the hon. member for Houghton. She was not present when I wanted to reply to her earlier on. She asked me whether I could not use my influence with the local road transportation board in regard to the granting of licences to non-white taxis. As hon. members are aware, this decision was taken by the Local Transportation Board. An appeal has been lodged with the National Transportation Commission and I am thus unable to discuss this matter because it is sub judice. The hon. member also asked for more transport facilities for the Indians of Lenasia and the Africans living in Soweto. I may inform her that a few weeks ago Putco applied for a bus service between Soweto and Johannesburg. The application was approved but the S.A.R. and other transport companies have lodged an appeal with the National Transport Commission and this appeal has not been disposed of yet. I think I have now dealt with all points raised here by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to this item I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what is the precise purpose for this contribution and who will be administering it?

Mr. Chairman, the amount of R 150,000 is earmarked for research and market development in respect of the wattle industry. The Wattle Bark Industry Board will determine how the amount will be used and I am still awaiting its proposals. I have however indicated that this amount must be used by the industry in such a manner that the wattle grower who re-establishes his wattle plantations derives the maximum benefit therefrom. The amount of R150,000 was arrived at by taking the amounts which the Wattle Grower’s Union will spend during the current financial year on wattle research at the Wattle Research Institute, that is R75.000 and the said Union’s contribution to the Leather ‘Industry Research Institute and the African Territories’ Wattle Industry Fund amounting also to R75,000. Should the amount of R150,000 be used to encourage re-establishment it will represent a relief to the wattle grower to the extent of 58c per ton green bark delivered.

To whom is the money paid, sir, and how is it administered? The hon. the Minister says if a wattle grower gets it for re-establishing his plantations it will amount to such and such an amount. Who will get this money? How does a wattle grower qualify for this money? From whom does he get the money? Is the money paid over to the Wattle Board or how in fact is it handled? How is it dealt with?

Mr. Chairman, in the past the Wattle Grower’s Union members contributed in the form of a levy an amount to the Research Institute and also the other two Research Institutes which I mentioned. Now this amount is being made available by the Government to the Wattle Industry Board to actually meet the levies which were paid previously by the grower through this Levy Fund and that is why there is this 58c levy saying to the grower. The whole basis of the payment is I am waiting for the formula from the Wattle Industry Control Board because they must produce a formula under which these credits must be made to the farmers in the form of a rebate of the levies collected.

You have not got the formula yet?

No. That is why I said, sir, the Wattle Bark Industry Board will determine how the amount will be used and I am still awaiting its proposals.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 42,—Industry, R 100,000:

Mr. Chairman, this Vote is of immense importance to all of us who represent seaside areas and through those who represent the seaside areas to the whole of the economy of South Africa. Questions have been put in this House and the hon. the Minister has answered them from time to time giving us certain information which is within his knowledge and which he has been able to get from his Department, I, however, want to take the position further to-night. I am not sure whether the Minister realizes the need for haste and the necessity for treating this matter as a crucial issue which calls for extraordinary application on the part of the Minister and his Department. They must give immediate attention to the problems which are arising. One of the very first questions I put in this regard was put some three months ago and it arose as the result of the near collision of an oil tanker in Durban Harbour with the quayside. It was not in the open sea, it was inside the harbour and but for the quick action of the pilot who was on the boat at the time and two tug masters who were standing by we could have had a first class smash right in the middle of Durban against the oil sites wharf. I am assured by people who know that this would have resulted in a conflagration which could have set the whole of Durban Harbour alight. The question of oil pollution carries with it the risk of fire and it carries with it the death of all our marine-life along our coastline, the fouling of our beaches, the loss of our holiday traffic. We have seen elsewhere in the world what can happen to marine-life and to visitors traffic. We have seen what can happen down here in the Cape in a very limited manner what can happen to the marine-life. I saw a report the other day about the new detergents that we used recently in connection with the leaking of oil from a Greek ship that was on the West Coast here. According to Press reports this detergent was very effective. It was used successfully and was working excellently. The oil was dispersed, and the sea was becoming clear again. As a matter of fact the whole operation went off admirably. I managed to obtain a confidential report about this a few days later in which grave fears were expressed in regard to the situation. On the ground that what was happening was that the detergent was sinking the oil and it was not being dispersed at all. It was sinking it and is now settling right down on the bottom. Thus all marine-life, animal as well as vegetable, living at the bottom of the sea was being smothered with the oil. No one apparently, not even the experts associated with the oil companies concerned, were in a position to say whether that oil would float again hereafter when we would once more have a surplus slick, or whether in fact it was poing to disperse and be finally broken up by the action of the waves. I want to submit that this thing is so fraught with loss, national loss, that it calls for a sustained and immediate effort to try and find out, first of all. what can be done in the event of us having pollution so as to minimize the effects of it. I want to plead with the Minister to tell us what is being done to find out who is going to be responsible and who is going to pay the damage. There can be millions of rands worth of damage done to a small seaside community, quite apart from the damage to our national interests because of the destruction of our marine life and so forth. I do not know for example what would happen, say with regard to our fishing boats, if they got their nets tangled up in a big oil slick. What are they going to do? Who is going to pay the damage? There must be some kind of a leaal connotation that goes with the question of the leakage of oil at sea. whatever the reason or cause may be. The more we see these big oil tankers coming round the coast, the more do we realize the risk that is being run. Every one of those tankers is a fresh risk here to the coast of South Africa. I feel that we should try and get certainty on the matter. We should know what is going to happen if there is an oil leak when a big oil shin comes ashore. What is going to happen? Who is responsible and who is going to jump to the job and see that it is done, by using the most scientific and approved methods of dealing with pollution? Who is going to be responsible? Who is going to take action to see that responsibility is brought home. You cannot get hoteliers along the coast to go and take action in terms of some legal claim against international oil companies. That is right out of the question. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us a full statement on this matter and I hope that he will make it clear that extraordinary measures are going to be taken by him and his Department to make this priority number one in seeing that we are put in a position to adequately deal with any threat of oil pollution and that the legal responsibility is going to be fixed so simply and in such a way that it can be easily established who is responsible and who is going to enforce the claims of South African citizens who may be prejudiced by such an oil leak or a slick which may come ashore.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast put a question here in connection with the pollution of the sea. This is a problem to which attention was focused recently as a result of the Torrey Canyon disaster. In the same way we also had problems here with the ships the Andron and the Esso Essen. The fact remains that attention was focused on the problem that ships transporting oil are creating a danger, not only to marine life, but also to the coasts. We recently had experience of it. As a result of this it has been decided to make provision on this Vote. This is a new sub-head which is being created here. In the first instance, provision is being made here for an amount of R 100,000. This provision is intended to cover damage which may result owing to the pollution of sea during the present financial year. As I have said, we recently had the problem with the Esso Essen, but we also had another case on the coast of South West when a Greek oil tanker, the Andron, went aground north of Lüderitz. This amount of R 100,000 is based on the cost incurred to counteract pollution along the South West coast. The South West Administration asked us for assistance, and military aircraft and other assistance were immediately provided in order to combat this problem. The following is a rough analysis of the costs incurred to counteract the pollution caused by the Andron along the South West coast: the chartering of military aircraft for the conveyance of dispersants and equipment from Cape Town to Lüderitz and Walvis Bay, R11,100; the chartering of private aircraft to carry out the spraying, R9,000; lorries, R50; and supervision and remuneration of staff, R810. The cost of the dispersant which was used amounted to R27,400. The cost of flying dispersants out from the U.S.A. to the Republic amounted to R48.100, while miscellaneous expenses amounted to R500. This means that the cost in the case of this Greek ship amounted to approximately R96.000, but this was actually an emergency case. The dispersant could not be obtained from a local organization, and the dispersant used in this case was part of the consignment which was flown to the Republic in the case of the Esso Essen. In future the dispersant will be shipped to the Republic, which will mean that the cost will be much less. The cost of air transport in this case amounted to R48,000, which was a very important factor as far as the calculation of the cost was concerned. Basically we are therefore making provision in these Estimates for a new Vote in order to combat dangers such as these.

We are also making other arrangements. We are building up an organization. The oil companies whose vessels sail around our coasts and which supply oil to us, have agreed to keep supplies of this dispersant at points which will be agreed upon. They will be responsible for the cost of distributing the dispersant. In the South West case, the cost amounted to approximately R96,000, but this will be recoverable from the South West Africa Administration. This amount has therefore been placed on the Estimates to make provision for problems such as these. I already indicated during the discussion of my Vote that we are drawing up legislation to meet this problem. Discussions have been held between the interested Government Departments, some of the provincial authorities, some of the more important municipalities in the major coastal towns, some of the oil companies and other interested parties and even lawyers, in the rest of the world, and legislation was drawn up as a result of those discussions. I already announced during the debate on my Vote that I hope to introduce this legislation during the current Session. This legislation will provide for the problems mentioned by the hon. member, namely the question of liability, the powers to be granted to port captains, and so forth. We are experiencing certain problems, because we have to deal with international shipping law governing the problem; we also have to deal with international conventions of which South Africa is a member. Therefore, there are complicated legal problems which we have to solve, but I hope that we shall be able to solve them and still be able to introduce this legislation. But I want to state quite clearly here that even if this legislation is not ready in time, we shall see to it, with the permission of the interested parties, that the necessary means are available here to combat this danger and that we build up an organization for which no legislation is needed. We are asking for the authority here to utilize funds in order to enable us to meet this problem. Furthermore, I want to mention that the various oil companies are trying at international level to find a method of meeting this type of problem. Considerable progress has already been made in this respect, and they think that they will be in a position to establish a basis for an international agreement for meeting this type of problem. I can assure the hon. member for South Coast that we are thoroughly aware of the great dangers connected with oil pollution, and therefore considerable progress has been made in the meantime in drawing up legislation, which is at present receiving the attention of the legal advisers, in order to eliminate certain international problems. We are at present making arrangements in consultation with the major oil companies in order to protect our coasts in case we have a recurrence of this type of danger. We are aware of what is being done at international level, in which we shall also play a part.

The hon. member also referred to the important aspect of marine life. In the case of the Esso Essen scientists investigated the results of the steps taken in connection with that vessel and I have in my possession a report by Mr. Stander, in which he stated—

It therefore appears that in this case, where this dispersant was used, damage to marine life was kept at a minimum, and it seems as if dispersants have been found which will not have such a detrimental effect on marine life as was the case when treatment was applied at the time of the Torrey Canyon disaster on the British coast. I can assure the hon. member that we are doing and have done everything in our power to meet the dangers with which we are threatened.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote B,—Public Works, R100,000:

This Vote provides for the purchase of an apartment for a Minister in an amount of R 100,000. I would like to know from the Minister for which Minister this apartment is being purchased, where the department is and how he can justify this sum of R100,000. Is that the cost of the apartment together with all the furniture?

The reply is that this dwelling is not for a Minister of the Cabinet, but for a Minister in the service of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and that is why the item appears in the Estimates under Rio de Janeiro. The head of the mission in Rio de Janeiro is a person with the status of Minister, and this dwelling is to be purchased for him. I may mention that there is a property in Rio de Janeiro which is registered in the name of the South African Government and in which the present occupier of the post of Minister is resident at the moment. Certain developments have taken place in that area as a result of the erection of low-grade flats which make the area unsuitable as a residential area for the head of a mission there. This particular site does have flat rights, however, and we shall be able to sell the site ait more or less the same price as the purchase price of the new flat. This flat is situated in an area in which there are much better services; it is situated not far from the Palace.

Is this a flat?

Yes, it is a flat.

Is it situated in a white area?

Order! Hon. members should remember that whatever they say here is recorded in Hansard.

I shall inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the hon. member for Durban (Point) would like to take up residence there, and that is why he wants to make quite sure that it is a white area.

Yes, but he wants to get away from Natal.

The other information which we have from estate agents is that the price at which we have been able to obtain the flats is particularly reasonable. As a matter of fact, according to the agents, we have made a bargain because flats in the same area are considerably more expensive than this one. We have been fortunate enough to come across a willing seller looking for a quick sale, and we have indeed made a real bargain.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote,—Planning, R300,000:

I am very pleased to see the hon. the Minister of Planning here, and particularly I wish to express my sympathy to the hon. member for Marico, who made an appeal for border industries in the Western Transvaal under the Minister’s Vote. The Minister of Planning then told the House that he was not responsible for the development of industry; he merely planned the development of border industries. Eventually in despair the hon. member for Marico sat down.

Order! I told the hon. member for Marico that he was out of order.

The Minister said that it was not his responsibility and you, Sir, then correctly ruled the hon. member out of order.

I want to refer to the report of the permanent committee for the establishment of border industries for 1967, submitted in January, 1968, which made reference to plans for the development of border industry in the Western Transvaal. It referred particularly to the Western Transvaal and more particularly to the Brits and Rustenburg areas, alongside which the hon. member for Marico’s constituency lies. It found that the possibilities for development were as follows—

It says there is not much chance of developing border industries. On page 3 of the report they give figures which indicate that in the seven years since border industries started it has cost R6,000 of public funds to establish each worker in a border industry. It cost R296 million to establish 49,000 Bantu. The Report says—

Then it goes on to break it down into the amounts spent by the I.D.C. on services, electricity and water, etc., and on page 6 it refers to the advantages given, the tax benefits, etc. It has cost R6,000 per Bantu worker to establish each worker in the last seven years. That is an improvement, but what I now want to psk the hon. the Minister is what this fantastic development which we are now going to have in the Chief Whip’s constituency will be? He is allowing an amount of R300.000 on this Vote, which means that they will be able to employ 50 Bantu. It is simple arithmetic, Sir. These are not my figures; they are Government figures.

The Government’s own committee for the establishment of border industries in effect says virtually that there is not much hope in some of these areas. It says there is a need to employ the Bantu, but they are not very hopeful about it. It gives figures of what has been spent, and now we have the city of Brits established as a new “groeipunt”. But there are other alternatives which are quoted on page 10 of the report. There were East London and King William’s Town. The hon. member for Queenstown pleaded earlier this session for help to those areas. The next is Queenstown itself. Then there is Kokstad. The hon. member for Aliwal (North) had something to say about that. There were Ladysmith and Colenso. The hon. member for Klip River had nothing to say about that; he was silent. This is the order that the Committee has set out. Then you have Empangeni and Richard’s Bay. The hon. member for Zululand was dead silent, zipped—not a plea or a word. Then you have Palalaborwa and Tzaneen. Did you hear the hon. members pleading for those areas, Sir? You also have Pietersburg, but the hon. member for Pietersburg did not plead for help, and then last of the Government committee’s own recommendations in this report you have Brits, Rustenburg and Mafeking. Obviously the hon. the Chief Whip has pleaded and has influenced the Government where the hon. members for Zululand and Klip River and the others have failed to do so. I think we are entitled to know what influence the Chief Whip has in establishing an industry which will employ 50 Bantu. We are entitled to know whether he has consulted the tobacco farmers, whether he is satisfied that they can spare the labour, that they have a surplus of labour there, that they can now compete with border industries in order to provide the labour required in the irrigation settlement at Brits, and whether the farmers now will be able to pay wages in competition with border industries in this new development, this new “groeipunt” alongside the city of Brits. It does not say in the city; it says alongside or nearby the city. It goes on particularly to deal with the fact that the industry considered for these areas, with Brits as the last priority, is the textile industry. I want to ask the Minister or the hon. member for Brits to tell us what textile industry he is going to establish with 50 Bantu, what sort of textiles it is going to manufacture …

Nappies for poleitical babies.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it surprises me that a member who is such a heavyweight can make statements which hardly carry any weight at all. To use the words of a great British literary genius, it was, “All sound and fury, signifying nothing”. The hon. member asked what influence I had. If the hon. member were to come to Brits with that speech, he would see into what deeds that influence will be transformed. I should like to put one question to the hon. the Minister in connection with Loan Vote H, Planning. I notice that an amount of R300.000 has been made available for the development of border industries at Brits. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us any further particulars in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reply to the sensible question of the hon. the Chief Whip and to the speech in which the hon. member for Durban (Point) blew off steam. I think one should come down to earth. The hon. member for Durban (Point) inquired about the provision of funds for Brits, and he had a great deal to say. I want to put a simple question to the hon. member.

The hon. the Minister should rather give the answers. He is not here to ask questions.

I shall give my reply. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) whether he has ever paid a visit to Brits.

Yes, I have.

I want to tell the hon. member that this question does not relate to the amount of R300,000, but to the opposition of the United Party to the development of border area industries. This is the basic difference in our approach to development which seeks to create peaceful coexistence for White and non-White as well as an ensured future for the white man in this country, something which the United Party does not want to see. That is the reason for this inquiry to-night and for the disparaging remarks in regard to the development in border areas. The hon. member pointed out that the cost of providing employment for one Bantu in a border area was R6,000. I should like to ask the hon. member what the present cost is of providing employment, residential facilities, transport facilities and everything which goes with that to one Bantu in a metropolitan area such as Johannesburg. The hon. member is prepared to pay all that, which is a great deal more, because he wants integration and because he detests separation. That is the difficulty and that is also the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. We detest integration and they detest separation between White and Black.

I should now like to reply to the question which was put to me. This amount of R300,000 relates to the development of a border area at Brits. I am pleased that the hon. member for Brits put this question to me, because it affords me the opportunity of announcing yet another step which will be crowned with success and on which I shall report in this House and to the country. We shall achieve just as much success with this development as we have achieved in the field of border area development in other parts of South Africa over the past six or seven years. Border area development has been extremely successful …

Your targets are very, very low.

I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that during the past seven years 161,000 Bantu males have become available for employment in secondary industries. In spite of all the suspicion which has been sown by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his people, no less than one-third of them have been absorbed in the border areas alone which is a wonderful achievement.

Order! I hope the hon. the Minister will now come back to this one item.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly comply with your request, and I can see how envious the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is of the success we have had. With regard to this matter I should like to make a statement. The Rosslyn industrial area was officially launched in September, 1962, and the 378 acres of industrial land have already been taken up. Provision has been made for an extension of an additional 530 acres of industrial sites of which 145 acres have already been developed or allocated. It is foreseen that the entire extension will be taken up within a short time, particularly if the control of Bantu labour in southern TransvaaL in terms of the Physical Planning Act continues to be applied as it is in fact being applied. At this stage it is not considered desirable to have further extensions of the Rosslyn industrial area. It is considered desirable to see to it that industries will go to the more decentralized border areas so that autonomous points of growth may develop in those areas. One of the new border industry areas to which industries, both new and existing industries, can be diverted from the Southern Transvaal complex, i.e. the metropolitan area of Johannesburg, is Brits. The Government has decided, in the implementation of its border area policy, that the Brits-Rustenburg area should be developed as a growth complex in view of the supply of Bantu labour there and the development possibilities of the region.

Where will the water come from?

I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that no problems whatsoever are being experienced as regards water supplies in the provision which is being made for border area development in Brits. This area will obtain its water from the Hartebeespoort Dam as well as an extension of the Rosslyn area scheme, if necessary.

Will the water also come from the Vaal River?

The water will come not only from the Vaal River but also from the Tugela Basin. During times of emergency the water will be brought from the Tugela Basin to the Vaal River, to Prieska, to Rosslyn, to Brits. I know the hon. member does not understand this, but it can work. It has been decided to develop the Brits-Rustenburg area as a growth complex, particularly in view of the supply of Bantu labour in that area and the development possibilities of the region. There are two additional reasons. The first is the repeated requests which have come from the hon. member for Brits, who is serving his constituency as he ought to serve it, as well as the co-operation and requests which I myself and other colleagues of mine in the Cabinet have obtained from the City Council of Brits. The second reason is that Brits is situated close enough, on the one hand, to the existing Southern Transvaal development complex to be able to draw industrialists and is situated far away enough, on the other hand, to ensure some degree of secondary development locally. Brits is situated approximately 20 miles from Rosslyn, 28 miles from Pretoria and 51 miles from Johannesburg.

From what reserve will these people come?

The hon. member knows this as well as I do, namely the same reserve which serves the Rosslyn area. From an inspection in loco …

What about Hammanskraal?

Hammanskraal also falls into this area. I want to tell the hon. member that he need not concern himself. The supply of Bantu labour is there and it will be possible to supply in the labour requirements of this industrial area. From an investigation in loco it has become apparent that it will be possible to lay out a suitable industrial area. The area is situated only five miles from the Bantu township which is being planned for Brits. It is a Bantu township in the Bantu homeland, in other words, an out and out border area development. It will be possible to lay out an industrial township on an area of 383 acres of which approximately 300 acres will be available as industrial sites. Seen from the point of view of all inclusive costs, this is the most suitable land for the purpose and should extension be considered necessary in the future, sufficient land which is suitable for that purpose is available in the adjoining area. The land consists of agricultural holdings, most of which are still being cultivated and which as yet are still situated outside the municipal area. But no problems are envisaged in obtaining and incorporating the land. Furthermore, as regards railway lines, it is possible to make provision for rail facilities from the railway station of Brits at relatively low costs. Water, power and a sewerage system can also be supplied at relatively low costs. Power will naturally be obtained from Escom. A considerable number of residential sites is available for Whites and more will be laid out. Estimates have been drawn up of the costs of such an industrial town and to these have to be added the estimated costs of external services. The total amount will approximately be some R1½ million.

Now I want to mention this important fact, which may be the answer to the question of the hon. member. Various industrial undertakings are interested in settling in this border area. Some of them have indicated that they want to commence development at an early date. At least two large undertakings have already inquired whether it will be possible for them to make a start there at an early date. In view of what I have already said in regard to the Rosslyn area, it has consequently become necessary to purchase the land at Brits now. The project will be developed in close co-operation with the city council, and after negotiations an agreement will be entered into with the municipality in which particulars will be embodied after the Treasury has been consulted about those particulars.

As regards this amount of R300,000, it has become essential to purchase the land. This amount is not sufficient to purchase all the land required, but it is sufficient to carry on in the meantime. In other words, the calculation made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) is completely up in the air and bears no relation to the total amount which will be spent on the development of this area.

What about the R1 million? That gives one 150 Bantu and not 50.

Let me just say this to the hon. member. Although he disparages border area industries, these industries will in years to come be South Africa’s greatest achievement in the field of industry for many a year.

Let me say in conclusion that a decentralized point of growth will be created and developed at Brits by means of establishing a border area town. In view of the fact that industrialists are already showing an interest, immediate steps will be taken as regards the purchase of land to a value not exceeding R300,000 during this financial year. In consultation with the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the city council the eventual utilization and payment of this land will be determined. Furthermore, negotiations have already been entered into with the City Council of Brits with a view to bringing also the city council into the development of the project. As regards particulars of the financial relationship between the city council and the Government, a decision will be taken ifter consultation with the Treasury, and a farther report in this regard will be given to this House.

Simply tell us about the reserve which will be established in the area.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that has any bearing on this Vote. I can assure the hon. member that the arrangements in connection with Bantu accommodation for this industrial area will be finalized during the second half of this year. Full provision will be made for accommodation. In the second place, more than enough Bantu labour will be available.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. the Minister told us, was very interesting, but unfortunately he kept quiet about many things of which this House and the nation ought to be informed. The first question I want to put to him, and I have the right to do so in view of the questions he put to this side, is the following: Can he tell us how the costs of establishing industries at Brits under this new undertaking under this new Vote compares with the costs of expanding existing industries in our cities? The Minister asked us whether we knew what the costs were of providing employment to one Bantu in a city. We know that when the Minister was sitting on the cross benches, he was known for his irresponsible questions. But I assume that those days are gone. Consequently I assume that when he put that question he did in fact know how the costs of establishing an industry at Brits compared with the costs of establishing an industry in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. I think he ought to justify this step by drawing a comparison for us tonight, based on detailed proof and carefully calculated figures, between the costs of expanding industries and providing employment in existing industrial areas and the costs of this new experiment at Brits. I want to say immediately that there should be no misunderstanding. As far as this expenditure means the decentralization of industries, it meets with our approval. It is high time we decentralized the establishment of industries in South Africa. I congratulate the hon. member for Brits on this happening to him. I want this to happen to the hon. members for Potchefstroom, Kimberley and Marico. Perhaps it will happen to them. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member for Prieska and others. I want this to happen to them as well. We do not want this to happen for ideological reasons only as in this case. The hon. the Minister says that this will be a jewel in the history of the Nationalist Party Government. It may be a jewel, because it brings about decentralization, but it will also become known as a nail in the coffin of the Government as regards its ideological foolishness.

Consequently I want to put a few other questions to the Minister. He says that we are not in favour of the principle of separation. I may not argue about that. But now I want to ask him: Will he satisfy and convince us that this measure, the establishment of industries at Brits, will bring about any real separation between White and non-White which does not exist in Johannesburg. Port Elizabeth, Kimberley or Cape Town? To what extent will there be more separation? Will these factories be in a Bantu area? Will these factories belong to Bantu undertakings? Will these factories be in White areas and will they be the property of white owners? In other words, will the Bantu work in White factories? Will the white factories be dependent on Bantu labour? That is the question. If he cannot tell us that they will not be dependent on Bantu labour, if he cannot tell us that there will in fact be Bantu factories, then I now tell him emphatically that this policy of his does not bring about separation or apartheid and I throw his allegations against us back in his teeth. This only means integration at Brits instead of integration in Johannesburg. That is all. It is very easy for this hon. Minister to tell us that we are in favour of integration. He is doing so with a view to the next election. But I want to ask: Where is the real counteracting of integration at Brits? There has never been a satisfactory reply from any Nationalist Party speaker to this simple, relevant and real question. We all know that these will be White factories with Bantu labour. No one will deny this. Or does the Minister want to deny this now?

Do you want all the Bantu in Johannesburg?

No. Does one have to reply to a question like that? Who on earth wants all the Bantu in one city?

You want that! [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member may just as well ask me whether I want all the Bantu at Brakpan. I want to put the following question to the Minister. The Minister must please reply to this question.

I shall do so.

Will he assure me that this policy will not mean a larger concentration of Bantu on the border of a White urban area than what exists there at present? Will there not be a larger concentration of Bantu in a densely populated urban area next to a White industrial city? Will that policy not tend to bring about large concentrations of Bantu, who are spread over the entire reserve, alongside and next to the White areas to a large extent, because they have to serve that white area with their labour. In what way does this differ then from the development of Soweto, from the development of a large Bantu location at Kimberley, at Prieska or at Upington? Where will there be any difference?

State your policy.

Why should I state my policy? I do so regularly. To-day I want to show up the foolishness and the senselessness of the Government’s policy as an attempt to bring about separation. There is no separation at all.

What is foolish about it?

I say it is extremely foolish and insipid of the Minister to tell a story here that this R300,000 will bring about separation between White and non-White. I say he is not treating the public of South Africa in a fair way, because this is misleading. It is untrue. He admitted, when I asked him a short while ago whether Bantu would work in white factories, that the white factories would be dependent on Bantu labour. He must admit that this will mean a larger concentration of Bantu at the white areas. He must admit that this will mean that Whites who have the necessary skill will have to move from Johannesburg and other cities and will have to settle themselves at the Bantu reserves. They will have to become the neighbours of the Bantu reserves. They will have to work with Bantu labour. They will have to employ, use and utilize Bantu labour and integrate it in the economy of that area. Why do we have to go to Brits? Why should the industries be encouraged at Brits? Why not at Prieska? Why not at Upington? There is one reason only and that is that the factories can be integrated with Bantu labour there. There is one reason only: Bantu labour is available at Brits. There is no Bantu labour at Upington. There is no Bantu labour at Prieska. Why should we play the fool with the South African nation with these bits of foolishness and these untruths? To-day one of the hon. members on this side was asked why he did not stick to the truth, and that was in order. Now I say most emphatically to the Minister that if he wants to speak of separation and if he wants to speak of integration, why does he not stick to the truth? Why does the Cabinet not stick to the truth? Why does the hon. member for Brits not stick to the truth?

Mr. Chairman, before I come to talk to the hon. the Minister. I want to say to the hon. the Chief Whip: Welcome to the Club. I see that he has now joined that select band of us who happen to represent border areas where there are industries. At least, he will be representing such an area if he wins the next election. He must win the nomination, of course, before he wins the election. He also, as has been so ably put by my colleague, is now going to take charge of an integrated constituency. I hope that the next time he comes back to this House, he is not going to fall for the trap which was set by his colleague over here in the corner—I hear he is making a noise again—about only representing Whites. He is now going to represent an integrated constituency. He is going to represent a constituency in which there are industries which are wholly dependent upon Bantu for their labour.

Now I want to come to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him quietly and sincerely, not in the way in which the hon. the Minister came at me yesterday, why this amount of R300.000 all of a sudden appears in a Vote for his department. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he did not shrug his shoulders and brush this away, and say that this amount does not belong to him, and that this amount must be spent by somebody else. This is what he has been doing, Sir. He told the hon. member for Marico in this House only yesterday that the development of border areas had nothing to do with him. Here we find, written in black and white, allocated to his department, for him to spend, an amount for the development of border areas in Brits. Now he knows all about it, but yesterday he knew nothing about any potential development in the Marico area. How does this come about? I should like to make a friendly suggestion to this Minister, and I hope he is going to take it in the same spirit in which he expected me to take his dressing-down and his words of advice yesterday. I want to say to him that he came out of his box this afternoon, and this evening again, in exactly the same manner as he came out of it yesterday. Instead of answering the questions put by the hon. member for Durban (Point), he started off by talking about “stoomafblasery” and with a personal attack on him. This is not the attitude which we expect from a Minister on that side and from a Minister of the State. We expect courtesy. He learnt nothing in London. I hope that we have now cleared the air. I thank you for the opportunity, Sir, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this in the spirit in which it is meant.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), better known as “botterbulletjie” in this House, said that the hon. the Minister wanted to get rid of his responsibilities all of a sudden. But when did this Minister run away from his responsibilities? Under whom do border area development and the permanent committee for border area development fall? Do they not fall under this Minister? Is he not the Minister who has to develop these border areas? This is what happens when we come to deal with matters of policy in this House. Here we are going to approve of a supplementary estimate of R48 million and the United Party kicks up a big fuss about the last item, for R300.000. Why do they kick up such a fuss? Because it concerns the policy applied by this party, namely the separation of the white man and the black man. That is what it is about. Let me ask the hon. member for Yeoville something. Is he prepared to apply integration throughout the Republic of South Africa? The National Party is not prepared to do that. We now want to ask: Does the hon. member for Yeoville or the hon. member for Durban (Point) and those other hon. members want us to put a stop to the industrial development in the Republic of South Africa? Do they want that? That is what they want, because they know that the growth point of Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand has an over-concentration of industries to-day. They know that, if we are to apply sound planning in the Republic of South Africa, we cannot continue allowing our industries in Johannesburg to develop further, because we have enormous problems in that regard. Now that a new growth point is being created where the Bantu labour is near at hand, and where the Bantu labour is contained in a large reserve, a big fuss is kicked up about it. The National Party is prepared to develop the Republic of South Africa all over the country, and not only at certain points. We shall develop the country according to the plan and the policy of the National Party. We shall not allow integration to be our master. The time will come that we shall develop Upington and all the other places which also have to be developed, according to our policy, but we shall not allow the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members to dictate to us. If we have to take water from the Tugela Valley in order to assist with development, we shall do so, because that water belongs to the Republic of South Africa and not only to a certain part of it. The Government assists the whole country to develop and everyone must be prepared to contribute his share. Hon. members on that side are kicking up a cloud of dust only to cover their own nakedness. They are preaching integration, and we shall always hold up this integration policy of theirs to the people. I want to tell them that the few United Party members who had still been left in Brits all became Nationalist tonight, because the National Party Government is assisting Brits.

Sir, I rise primarily to express my surprise that the hon. member for Klip River has remained seated during this debate. Yesterday, on the very same Minister’s Vote, he repeated parrot-wise some of the information that was provided as a result of the fact that the hon. member for South Coast established a town and regional planning commission in Natal, which did a magnificent survey of the Tugela Valley. Yesterday the hon. member was quoting facts to show why the Tugela Valley should be developed. To-night he is sitting still while the water of the Tugela Valley is proposed to be pumped to Brits through the Witwatersrand and the Vaal Triangle, which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said could no longer be developed because of the shortage of water.

Now the hon. member for Klip River allows the pumping of Tugela water to that area. That water is going to be taken away—and that is the point I want to emphasize—from a Bantustan, from an area where every single town is within five miles of a Bantu area; where Colenso, Ladysmith, Newcastle, Est-court, Dundee, Vryheid and every single other town is within five miles of a Bantu area, This is a natural Bantustan, and the Minister now wants to take water from that area and create an artificial Bantustan. Why? There are 2,500,000 Bantu in Natal. They are living in areas all adjacent to white towns, with services, with existing industries, with water, with oower, with everything you need to create industries. All the things required for establishing industries are there, and the hon. member for Klip River says nothing while it is suggested that the life blood of that area, the water, should be pumped away to create a artificial Bantustan in the middle of a tobaccogrowing area where there is a shortage of water. Sir, the hon. the Minister said that we had done nothing to decentralize industry.

On the conclusion of the period of 100 hours allotted for Committee of Supply in terms of Standing Order 91, business interrupted by the Chairman in terms of Standing Order 96.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account [R.P. 1—’68], Bantu Education Account [R.P. 9—’68] and Loan Account {R.P. 8—’68] and Supplementary Estimate of Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Accounts [R.P. 50—’68], reported without amendment.

Estimates adopted.

I move—

I know that hon. members do not expect me to conduct a long argument on this measure. In any case most of the provisions are not a closed book to hon. members and the few provisions which require closer elucidation can most probably be discussed to good effect in the Committee Stage. I have already elaborated at length on the provisions of clauses 5 and 6 during the discussion of my Vote, and I do not want to go into them any further now. However, there are a few other provisions which I would like to deal with briefly for the information of hon. members; the remainder we can for convenience’ sake allow to stand over to the Committee Stage.

As hon. members know, the statutory provisions in terms of which no person could convey more than two gallons of liquor in an urban area without a permit from the police were repealed in 1963. That was done in the days when we were still optimistic enough to think that since liquor was being freely supplied to non-Whites, the days of the smuggling trade were past. Promises of co-operation on the part of the liquor trade contributed further to setting one’s mind at ease. Since then, however, indisputable proof has been brought to light that the smuggling trade, unbelievable as this may sound, is flourishing to-day as it has never done before. But allow me to quote a few facts here in support of this statement. In one case the police found that on one day R425 worth of liquor was delivered to six notorious shebeens in a Bantu residential area by a certain liquor trader. In another case 1,770 bottles of spirits and 13,524 bottles of malt were found in possession of a Bantu man, while in another case 552 bottles of malt and 25 bottles of wine on the first occasion, and on a subsequent 229 bottles of wine and 882 bottles of malt were found at a shebeen. At another shebeen in the same district 196 bottles of malt on the first occasion and on a subsequent 1,062 bottles of malt were found. But this is nothing if we bear in mind that the turnover of two suspected bottle stores increased in a single year to more than R2,000,000, while the storage space of those bottle stores was such that it would have been impossible for them to store liquor to the value of that amount there over a period of one year. There is absolutely no doubt that all the liquor found its way to the black market, but effective steps to wipe out the smuggling trade are just not possible because it takes place on too large a scale, and constant observation by the police over long periods is simply not practicable.

It is well known that shebeens are the breeding place of many evils, and not only do they do harm to the liquor trade, they also create the climate for many other forms of crime. Apart from that some bona fide liquor traders have now become tired of this kind of competition on the part of a few of their colleagues and are insisting that drastic steps be taken to eliminate smuggling. In all these circumstances it is obvious that we cannot allow this sort of thing to take place in our midst. Now it seems to me, and a large section of the liquor trade agrees with this, that if one is able to effect proper control over the conveyance and delivery of liquor and can restrict it, particularly in the non-white areas, it ought to be possible to nip the smuggling trade in the bud. Those non-white areas remain the breeding ground for the smuggling trade in liquor, and special steps to combat the smuggling trade in such areas, are obviously necessary.

As you will consequently note, we are asking in clause 7 for authorization to enable us to get at the individual liquor dealer whom we know to be carrying on undesirable practices. It is not necessary to inconvenience all licence holders in white areas simply because some of them are exceeding the bounds. The provisions of clause 7 will enable us to prevent things like that and will in fact only be applied in white areas, although it can equally well be applied in non-white areas if it should be necessary to do so.

By means of clause 8, however, we are spreading the net somewhat wider because we are dealing here with the non-white areas where the smuggling trade is at its worst. There are probably a few members who think that the proposed provisions are too drastic, but I want to say to them that, apart from the fact that a large section of the liquor trade supports the proposed measures, we cannot hope to eradicate this smuggling with half measures. In any case, the proposed measures are not so terribly drastic, since it will nevertheless be possible to deliver or introduce liquor which is purchased in a white area into a non-white area, as long as it is not a licence holder, his servant or representative who delivers or introduces the liquor into those areas, and as long as the quantity of liquor is not in excess of two gallons at a time, or, if it should be more than this quantity, it must be brought into this area in terms of a permit obtained from the police. In other words, the purchaser of such a quantity of liquor can introduce that liquor into a non-white area himself, or have his servant or representative do so. Should it on occasion become necessary for an inhabitant of a non-white area to bring more than two gallons of liquor into such an area, all he has to do is obtain a permit from the police for that purpose. Licence holders making bona fide sales to the inhabitants of non-white areas need not fear that their business will suffer as a result of the proposed provisions. On the contrary, the termination of the smuggling trade can only be to their advantage. Honest liquor dealers will be able to sell as much liquor to nonWhites as before. All that we are doing is to ensure proper control.

That is the position as clause 8 states it at the moment. As a result of representations made to me by Mr. Venter, the president of FEDHASA and other undertakings, I have reconsidered the provisions of the clause and decided to withdraw subclauses (3), (4) and (5)—those are the provisions which deal with the delivery and introduction of liquor into Coloured areas. I also intend referring the matter to the National Liauor Board for investigation, and will decide in the light of the report of that body what steps should be taken. In the meantime the provisions of section 100 quin of the Act, and the powers entrusted to me by clause 7, will be used to deal with any undesirable situation which may arise.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. House to clause 21 where we are faced with a profoundly human, and in some cases, tragic problem. As you know, a wife, according to our law, acquires the domicile of her husband when she marries, and in general divorce proceedings must be instituted at the place where the parties are domiciled.

Admittedly the emancipation of women is far advanced and to-day they want to be the equals of men in every respect. However, I think I am correct in saying that the heart of a woman has, through all her development, remained just as vulnerable as that of her ancestor was, and that she loses it as easily to a Don Juan to-day as was the case with her elder sister. So we find that South African women often get married to men who are not domiciled in the Republic. When things go wrong with their subsequent married life and the former loved spouse leaves them in the lurch, it is only natural that they will return to the Republic to lick their wounds here. It is also understandable that such a woman will sooner or later want to free herself from the ties of such a marriage, and it is then that she suffers a rude awakening when she discovers that her divorce proceedings can only be instituted in the country where her husband is domiciled and at a tremendous cost. If he should, in addition, be domiciled in a country where divorce is not allowed, then a life of loneliness is her sad fate, and a second marriage beyond the limits of possibility, even though it is quite obvious that the existing marriage has failed to such an extent that it cannot be sayed.

Emancipation or no emancipation, one has sympathy with a woman who finds herself in such a predicament. Consequently I have had the matter investigated by the Law Revision Committee and can now state that I have decided, upon the recommendation of this Committee, to take pity on these unfortunate women. However, you have probably noticed that in clause 21 we have laid down certain requirements, namely that when she gets married the wife must be domiciled in the Republic or must be a South African citizen, and that she has to be ordinarily resident in the Republic for a period of one year immediately preceding the date on which the divorce proceedings are instituted. We are doing this because we do not want to make the Republic a kind of Reno or venue for convenience divorces. The only people involved here are our own, and we are not throwing open the doors of our divorce courts to all and sundry.

And then, Sir, there is another aspect of the matter to which I want to draw attention. Unfortunately there are always people who are inclined to make all kinds of deductions on such occasions as this, and I do not want to be misunderstood. We are not dealing here with the expansion of the grounds on which a divorce can be obtained. All that we are doing is to facilitate in certain respects the procedure whereby a divorce can be obtained on the existing grounds, in order to alleviate to a certain extent the distressing situation in which some women from time to time find themselves. To those who have up to now had no hope, we want to give new hope— that is all.

It is just possible that there are those amongst us who cannot see the need for the amendment which we are envisaging to clause 39. Earlier this year, as hon. members know however, we authorized magistrates for the first time to release on bail persons who had been charged with murder. However, you will understand that there can nevertheless be cases, and that there are in fact cases, where it is simply not desirable that the person concerned be released on bail. Admittedly, it is true that the Attorney-General can prevent the release of such a person in terms of section 108 bis of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the point is that, as the Act reads at present, he can only do so in cases where the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order is at stake, and is helpless if what is involved is the administration of justice. You will concede that with a view to the concessions which we made earlier this year in the question under discussion, we cannot now be expected to allow our hands to be tied and ourselves to be rendered helpless in those cases where the release of a person is not in the interests of the administration of justice. Hence the need for this amendment therefore.

With that I have in fact said what I think is necessary to say about this measure at this stage. But I believe that the significance of clause 36 is unlikely to escape anybody in this House, and that there are definitely those amongst us who would probably take it amiss of me if I remained silent in regard to the provisions of that clause. However, it is not my intention to hide the clause in question from the public eye. On the contrary. I am quite prepared to debate it with hon. members. I do not believe that there is any person in this hon. House who does not know to whom this relates. I want to give the assurance that the fate of the man on the island is to my mind not a matter which can be settled by means of a fickle resolution to the one side or the other. To tell the truth. I weighed the pros and cons in regard to what I should do in his case for a long time with both care and attention. In the final analysis, however, it was a case of choosing between the interests of one’s country and those of an individual. I now want to inform you that with the information at my disposal I would be guilty of a serious dereliction of my duty if at this stage I allowed national interests to give way before the strong human impulse to change the fate of this man as well. I know that the reproach can be levelled at me, and this will probably be done, that I can speak lightly of the national interests and individual interests, whereas I do not lay my cards upon the table so that everyone can judge for themselves what kind of game I am playing. But whether vou want to accept it in this way or not, one thing I know, and that is that more important than the public eye. more important than any suspicion that may be cast on me, is the fact that I have to answer to my own conscience, with which I have to live 24 hours a day. And let me now admit candidly to you that I am at peace with my conscience because I know that the forces seeking our downfall are mustering their strength to destroy us. and are particularly at this time seeking assiduously for a star to lend lustre to their nefarious aims. And the man who is being referred to here, would I believe, if given the chance, not hesitate to do everything in his power to make up leeway to recover everything he lost during the time of his isolation, because in his aims and aspirations he has not changed his attitude and goals one jot. Can I now in all fairness be asked to play deliberately into their hands and to afford them the opportunity of rallying round the man whom they think can organize their forces into that unity which will ultimately bring about our downfall? Would I then, knowing what I know, deliver myself and my own into the hands of those whose openly declared intention it is to annihilate and destroy us? No, Sir! On the contrary, I shall most certainly not play into their hands, and I shall hit them hard and scatter them as long as and in so far as they remain, a threat to this country and its people. With that I move the second reading and I trust that we will hold further discussions on this measure during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is right in saying that of course this is really a Committee Stage Bill. All General Law Amendment Bills are omnibus Bills and are really Committee Stage Bills. It is normal to have such a Bill at the end of every session containing all the bits and pieces from all the various departments which cannot be fitted into normal legislation, a Bill which comes every year to put right all the odd anomalies in our law which the experience of the department concerned finds necessary. It is a sort of legislative lucky dip which we have every year.

Not always lucky for some.

As the hon. member there says, it is not always so lucky for some people. We expect it therefore to come at the end of every session and we expect to have little notice of it and we expect to have it when we are really as busy as we are now and sitting for very long hours every day. That is what one expects and this is necessary with this sort of Bill.

I wonder whether the Minister does not agree that this Bill is in fact several distinct and different Bills plus the usual General Law Amendment Bill. One wonders whether this process, when one has a Bill like this with 63 clauses in it. is not abusing the scope of a General Law Amendment Bill which is introduced at the end of a session. Let us have a look at this Bill.

There are 11 clauses, clauses 3 to 13, which deal with radical amendments to the Liquor Act. Surely this could have been put in a separate Bill, a Bill to amend the Liquor Act? Liquor legislation always involves some dispute: there are all sorts of vested interests involved, and the Minister is aware of the traditional attitude adopted by this side of the House, namely that we allow hon. members a free vote on this matter. This is a matter for negotiation. This is not the time to bring before the House a Bill involving this sort of legislation. The Minister is probably being inundated with all sorts of requests for interviews and so on, and the liquor lobby is always a very active one. This is not the time to include such legislation in a General Laws Amendment Bill which we expect and which is necessary.

There are five clauses, clauses 14 to 18, which deal with the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers’ Act. These amendments are probably proposed at the request of that society and they deal with the particular and peculiar interests of the Side Bar. They concern their profession, the way in which they conduct themselves and the way in which they may qualify, private matters pertaining to attorneys. These clauses should not be in this Bill. Surely the Minister must have had notice of this before; he must have known about this, and again because of the question of consultation these clauses should not have been brought forward at this stage. It is a private matter in the sense that it is not a matter of great public importance for urgent consideration at this stage.

Then there are six amendments to the Magistrates’ Courts Act and five amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act. There are also seven amendments to the Prisons Act. I also see two amendments to the Rents Act. The two amendments to the Rents Act, clauses 34 and 35, were in the Bill which was introduced in the Other Place earlier this Session. Surely the proper way for these to have been dealt with was for the Minister concerned to remove all the other aspects of that Bill with he himself piloting the Bill through. There are opportunities for debate as hon. members know in respect of each separate Bill. This is not the opportunity when these matters can properly be debated in the second reading. You cannot have a proper debate on the second reading of this Bill as to the matters it contains. I think it would have been better for all the interests concerned in these various different matters if this had in fact been several Bills and the hon. the Ministers responsible for the provisions of the Bills had been here to speak to them during the second reading. Now it is this Minister’s responsibility.

To deal with the Bill itself, one can really at this stage only give notice of one’s attitude towards the various provisions of it. As I indicated, on this side of the House there traditionally is a free vote on liquor matters. It is a matter for the individual conscience; there is no party Whip on the matter. According to a report in this evening’s Cape Argus a Government spokesman said to-day— that the question had not arisen in Government quarters because all the Government M.P.s were in any event agreed upon support of the provisions.” It is nice for us to know that in the caucus of the Government party at least they are agreed.

Most of the Bill cleans up the various anomalies that there are in our law. This is the function of the General Law Amendment Bill and the greater part of the Bill is welcome to us. The hon. the Minister has dwelt upon the Matrimonial Causes Jurisdiction Act and we are delighted that this provision is there to provide some relief for these unfortunate women who find themselves unable ever to get married again, having been deserted usually by seamen who have married them and have never been seen again. There are also other provisions dealing with Newcastle disease and so on.

There are aspects of this Bill which we will oppose in the Committee Stage as the hon. the Minister no doubt has anticipated by the remarks he has made. Clause 36, what is now known as the Sobukwe clause, is here before us again for the sixth time of asking. It will be opposed by us and I do not propose to deal with it at this stage. We will deal with this in the Committee Stage. Then there is clause 33, dealing with an amendment to the S.A. Tourist Corporation Act. I am glad to see the hon. the Minister here. I hope the hon. the Minister will take notice that in respect of this provision which allows the board to delegate any of its powers or functions to a member of the board or an official, there will be an amendment to put things in their proper perspective so that the anomalies which can arise from the powers which could be exercised by an individual committing the board without the board having any real recourse, can be obviated.

Then we come to the second last clause of the Bill, namely clause 62. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of the Interior is not here. I believe he is not well and we are very sorry to hear that. We hope that he will be well enough to be here with us when this is debated in Committee. If he cannot be here we do hope that someone else will be able to argue this matter. This clause is a most unusual clause to say the very least. This clause validates a proclamation which is made under the Population Registration Act. In terms of the Population Registration Act the hon. the Minister is entitled by proclamation to divide the coloured people and the Bantu people into sub-groups. He does this by proclamation. And as a rule the courts are entitled—in so far as this is subordinate legislation and not an Act of Parliament—if it is unreasonable or otherwise does not comply with the normal requirements of subordinate legislation, to declare the proclamation to be ultra vires, void and of no effect. This cannot be done with an Act of Parliament. The last time a proclamation was issued under this Act it was declared in terms of the case of Arnold and Others against the Race Classification Board, which is reported in last year’s Law Reports—the hon. the Minister is probably aware of it although it is not his responsibility …

The hon. the Minister is aware of it.

He is aware of it. One hopes the hon. member for Prinshof will perhaps be able to join the debate in the Committee Stage on this matter. That proclamation was declared to be void for vagueness, because, amongst other things, it was found by the court that one could fall into several categories, several of the sub-groupings all at the same time. One person could fall into two or three of these sub-groups into which the Minister had divided them. We then had our Act last year and we validated all this. Then a new proclamation was issued in terms of the new Act. There has been criticism. There is such criticism in the May issue of the “Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg”, in which appears an article by a member of the Pretoria Bar, Mr. H. J. O. van Heerden. It has perhaps an unfortunate title. Nevertheless, he deals with the question of this proclamation and suggests that it also could be declared void for vagueness. It is a very sad reflection that presumably in anticipation of such criticism and that the court is going to declare it void for vagueness or unreasonableness—whatever cause it may be— it is being validated so that it could have the force of an Act of Parliament in which event the court cannot invalidate it. This is a remarkable stage to have arrived at. It is an admission, because as far as I am aware—the hon. Minister can correct me—there has been no court decision yet declaring this to be invalid. If this is the way we are going to legislate, that we are going to validate something that we think is going to be declared by the court to be void for vagueness or unreasonableness, or whatever cause it may be, we have arrived at a very sorry pass. I appreciate however that this hon. Minister is not responsible for the proclamation. I just wish to give notice that we will deal with the matter when it comes up in the Committee Stage.

Then lastly there is the matter which the hon. the Minister dealt with, namely the question of clause 39, in terms of which the Attorney-General may refuse bail in respect of certain offences for certain reasons. When the hon. the Minister’s predecessor introduced this provision we granted without opposition the powers of the Attorney-General to deal with the matter on the basis as it was then, namely that if it was necessary in the opinion of the Attorney-General for the safety of the public or the maintenance of public order. It is now proposed that there should also be added to that, “the administration of justice”. It is a rather vague expression. It could mean many things. This is not the time to go into it. but we intend going into the matter when we come to the Committee Stage.

As I have indicated this is a Bill like the curate’s egg—quite a good curate’s egg—because most of it is good while parts of it are bad. This is however not the time to discuss it. We will discuss it in Committee and for all these reasons we will offer no objection to the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Durban (North) has had to say and also to the hon. the Minister’s explanations on this Bill. It is true of course that this is a General Law Amendment Bill and it contains many clauses, some of which are quite unobjectionable and others of which are objectionable. As the hon. member has pointed out many of them are completely unrelated to any other part of the measure. Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, if a Bill of this nature, assembled as it is, a hotchpotch of legislation, contains any one clause which is obnoxious, I am unable to agree to the Second Reading. It contains as far as I am concerned one clause, Clause 36 which has a principle to which I am inflexibly opposed. The hon. the Minister will know this. We have had this discussion before and I have had it with his predecessor. I see no reason to change my mind. The hon. the Minister has told us that if in the light of the knowledge he has, he did anything but reintroduce this clause as he has to by law every year in Parliament, he would be failing in his duty. He said that he had to weigh up the considerations of the freedom of one man as against the interests of the country. This dilemma may very well confront the hon. the Minister. He has not told us what information he has. He did not tell us last year and his predecessor never told us on the other three occasions when this very clause was introduced. We have to just take it on trust. All I know is that this clause, clause 36, was introduced in 1963 in a great rush in order to deal with one man and one man only, and that of course is Robert Sobukwe. The clause has become known as the Sobukwe clause. There is nothing of course to stop the hon. the Minister at any time in the case of anybody else who has served a sentence for a crime falling under certain specific Acts, like the Public Safety Act or the Anti-Communist Act, etc., whichever of the acts apply, from deciding that such a person, having served his sentence, shall nevertheless be kept in gaol, because he, the hon. the Minister, is not certain that such a person has changed his views and that he may still be of the same opinion that he was when he was sentenced and that he may once again become a danger to the State. As I have said on previous occasions, this is something which can apply to any criminal, to any man who has served his sentence. It can apply to a man who has committed assault, rape and attempted murder. No one can ever guarantee that when that man has completed his sentence, he is not going to come out as a free man and recommit a crime. But the essence of law and of the rule of law is such, that until a person has indeed committed such a crime again and been found guilty in court, he shall have his freedom. This clause however re-introduces this most extraordinary provision whereby the State can detain this man.

I think it is time to remind this House that this will be the ninth year that Sobukwe will be held, for only three years of which period he in fact was serving the sentence imposed upon him by a court of law. I think it is time to remind the House what Sobukwe was sentenced for. He was not sentenced for subversion, sabotage, terrorism, conspiring against the State, treason, or any of these major crimes against the State. Sobukwe was sent to gaol by a Judge for incitement against the pass laws. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The Judge who sentenced him therefore took a reasonably light view of his offence. Three years in South Africa is not considered a very long term of imprisonment. He was sentenced, as I say, not for a very serious crime of committing an offence against the State, but for incitement against the pass laws. He is still paying for the tragedy of Sharpeville, although it was not he and the people who were protesting against the pass laws who opened fire, resulting in the death of a large number of people and the wounding of very many more, but indeed the authorities. The commission of enquiry which sat on the Sharpeville tragedy, established that.

Order! Is the hon. member not going too far now?

I am trying to establish why it is that this man is considered so dangerous.

Yes, but the hon. member is going too far. She is introducing all sorts of extraneous matters into this debate. We are only dealing with this one clause.

I will leave that, but, in fact, that is the basis for the sentence that Sobukwe has served; namely, incitement against the pass laws. Nothing else. I want to point out that the organization to which he belonged, and which he headed at the time when he was sentenced to gaol, was a lawful organization. It was a non-violent organization. Subsequent to his being put into gaol, it did become a violent organization and it became unlawful, because the Government declared it so. But there is no reason to believe that Sobukwe himself agrees with the present organization. I am not interested in resolutions passed in Dar-es-Salaam, as were passed yesterday. We all read them. Most unfortunately for Sobukwe, it happened just a day before the Minister introduced this clause again. But in fact Sobukwe can hardly be held responsible for any resolutions passed by people over whom he has no control whatever, since he is sitting on Robben Island and they are sitting in Dar-es-Salaam. Therefore I do not believe that this is a relevant argument at all. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister is going to use it.

You are anticipating my arguments.

I thought I would be anticipating his argument. It was obvious to anybody. I am also entitled to do a little intelligent anticipation, as the hon. the Minister has done in introducing the clause referred to a little earlier by the hon. member for Durban (North). Why the hon. member should be so surprised, I find rather astonishing, because we do all sorts of extraordinary things, e.g. like passing retrospective laws, in South Africa. In other words, acts committed when they were perfectly lawful become illegal acts retrospectively in terms of our legislation. Therefore, I too am entitled to a little bit of, as I said, intelligent anticipation. As I say, it will be nine years that Sobukwe has sat in gaol. He is, of course, a prisoner under rather different circumstances from other prisoners. I have visited him, as the hon. the Minister knows, and he lives in his own quarters and has better facilities than other prisoners by far. He has certain so-called luxuries such as a radio and he has access to news which other prisoners do not have unless they fall in a very special category. He is allowed to have his wife and family visit him twice a year, which is a concession I think the hon. the Minister granted last year. One is pleased that these special circumstances obtain in this particular case, but he is, after all, a very special case and I think that the hon. the Minister himself, in the very way in which he introduced this clause again to-night, has admitted that. The fact remains, however, that the man is a prisoner and that he is alone. Nine years of his life will have gone by, by the time Parliament considers this matter again. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is going to keep that man there for ever. At which stage is it going to be said of him that he has atoned for whatever crime he committed? The Government was prepared to be extremely generous to another man who has atoned for the crime that he had committed and was in fact re-admitted to the Police Force. I now refer to Sergeant Arlow who had a very grim record indeed.

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the clause.

Am I not allowed to draw any analogies, Sir?

Yes, but the hon. member is going much too far now.

Very well, Sir, I am more or less finished with what I want to say. Quite recently the Department of Foreign Affairs published a booklet called “The Rule of Law” and this booklet has been spread far and wide throughout the world by our information offices everywhere. It boasts about South Africa’s adherence to the basic rule of law. There is a chapter in it which deals with special measures needed for terrorists, and so on. My contention is that this man is not a terrorist, that he never was a terrorist and that he is not even a communist.

He is a communist. He admitted that to me personally.

I do not believe that for one moment and I challenge the hon. member for Heilbron to prove when Sobukwe ever admitted that he was a communist. I will tell him why I challenge him. I happen to know something about the African political parties in this country. [Interjections.]

Order! Just one interjection has caused all this commotion.

A very silly one, if I may say so, Sir. I happen to know a lot about the French revolution too, but I did not send people to the guillotine and I was not a member of the revolutionary movement. One studies history and one also studies events in this country. The one thing that I know is that Sobukwe broke away from the African National Congress because he felt that it was being taken over by communists. He himself left the A.N.C. and formed his own Pan African Congress, because he said the A.N.C. had become communist. I challenge the hon. member to give us facts and to prove the facts that he is going to give us, namely that Sobukwe ever admitted that he was a communist. This is not the point, however, as he was not sent to gaol because he was a communist. He is being kept in gaol under an amendment to the Anti-Communist Act, that is true, but he was never a communist.

This Bill contains some good clauses such as the one mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North) and described by the hon. the Minister, namely the clause amending the Matrimonial Causes Act. I think this clause, clause 21, is a good clause and I am in favour of it. We always have this trouble in every Bill, and not only in a General Laws Amendment Bill. I can remember when the Industrial Conciliation Bill was passed in 1956. There were very many clauses that everybody agreed with, but there were two bad clauses in that Bill. The hon. the Minister of Transport introduced that Bill when he was still Minister of Labour. As I say, there were two bad clauses in that Bill which caused all the controversy—the clauses introducing job reservation. And because of those two bad clauses, amongst about 78 good ones, the Bill was strenuously opposed at its second reading. I am going to take the same line to-night in connection with the Bill now being discussed, although it is called the “General Law Amendment Bill” and not a “Suppression of Communism Amendment Bill”, which I have taken on six previous occasions when we have had to consider Bills with this particular clause in it. I am sure the hon. the Minister understands my attitude. In the circumstances, I wish to move the same amendment which I also moved on previous occasions, namely—

In view of the lateness of the hour, most of the points I wish to make can stand over for discussion during the Committee Stage. However, I feel there are two provisions of this Bill to which I should draw attention at this stage of the proceedings. These provisions relate to liquor questions. In this connection I should like to assocate myself with the protest which came from the hon. member for Durban (North) at the fact that these important provisions were not incorporated in a separate Bill and published timeously so as to give us a proper opportunity for studying it adequately. But this has not been done, and as a result we have to rush these provisions through, provisions dealing with an evil which we all recognize. I, too, speak on this measure in my personal capacity because, as the hon. member for Durban (North) has already stated, we on this side of the House can exercise a free vote on this measure.

As I say, we all recognize the evil this measure sets out to eliminate. However, I do not think these provisions are the answer. Consequently I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will not proceed with subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the proposed section 134 under clause 8 of the Bill. I think the Minister has taken a wise step in dropping these provisions. As a matter of fact, I already had an amendment prepared to the same effect. I think it is far better that licensees should be entitled to deliver liquor to homes where people can drink it under decent conditions rather than to have to fetch it themselves and probably drink it in the gutter, on the train or in the bus. I submit that far more study is needed before we introduce provisions like these. However, I am not happy with the Minister’s intention of retaining the proposed section 101, introduced by clause 5 of this Bill. I object particularly to the proposed subsection (1) (b). As far as paragraph (a) of the proposed subsection (1) is concerned, wherein the Minister asks for power to close a Coloured or Indian bar if it creates a nuisance, I am with him one hundred per cent. I agree that he should have the power to close such premises in such circumstances, i.e. where he is satisfied that a nuisance is being created by the presence of those premises causing excessive drunkenness, misbehaviour and other undesirable features. As I say, I am in full agreement that he should have this power. But I am opposed to the power he requests in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) to close all on-consumption premises outside Coloured areas. In view of the time I unfortunately can not argue this point as I should have liked to. But I would just like to point out that this is a sociological problem, a problem which is not going to be solved by simply hiding the evil behind a bush in a Coloured area. Do not let us imagine that when we have pushed it behind the fence it does not exist any more. I am far more in favour of allowing drinking, which you are not going to stop in any case, to take place under controlled and decent conditions where there is an incentive to the licensee to keep order because he realizes that if he does not he can lose his licence. In order to avoid that, he will go out of his way to see that there is not abuse. But to use the shotgun technique and shoot everybody because there have been abuses at a few centres will drive the evil into backyards, into shebeens and other illegal drinking places, and is not going to achieve the Minister’s objective. Of course, I am with him that we should prevent drunkenness on the streets, but I do not believe that this is the way to do it. Therefore I feel the Minister should only take the power to close those premises where undesirable conditions are created in any area and then to order an enquiry in terms of section 118 ter. Such an enquiry need not be rushed as we have to rush this legislation and can hear evidence from sociologists, social welfare workers, from local authorities and from other people concerned with this problem. It could then, on the basis of the representations and evidence received, make a recommendation, in the light of which the Minister could reconsider the position. Let us just take the Indian group, who will fall under the same ban. Indians do not cause the same difficulties.

You are now talking about paragraph (a), not so?

No, to paragraph (b), because Indians do not cause any difficulties under this paragraph either. Under paragraph (b) there is therefore no problem with the Indians, neither with many Coloured canteens.

I say the whole matter is too complicated to be rushed through like this. In the circumstances I suggest the Minister take only the power he asks for under paragraph (a), then have an investigation and then come back if he is still not satisfied. He cannot use these provisions before next session at any rate. In that I think he will agree with me. So let us have an enquiry first and let the Minister thereafter come back to us. I shall, of course take this matter further during the Committee Stage, but I wanted to raise it at this stage so as to give the hon. the Minister an indication of my attitude to these particular provisions.

I thank hon. members on the other side for the way in which this measure has been received in general. It is so that the measure contains 63 clauses altogether and deals with quite a number of matters. That is why it has been known as the “omnibus bill” over the years—everything is lumped together in it. And if the United Party should ever come into office and the hon. member for Durban (Point) should become Minister of Justice, he would follow precisely the same procedure. My predecessors have always had a problem with this, just as I have now. It is just one of these things and we have to accept it as such.

As regards clause 39, which provides for bail, I think we should accept it as it is and discuss it further in the Committee Stage. The same goes for clause 62, in regard to proclamations, as well as the question of liquor. I really think that I am only asking those powers which are necessary for proper control. With this I am only meeting the objections which have come from the trade. The trade has no objection to what I am proposing here.

Yes, they have.

No, they have no objection. Surely the trade cannot have any objection if, in cases in which undesirable conditions prevail. I close down a non-White bar in a white area after issuing a warning and making an investigation.

I agree with that. They have no objection to that. But they do have other objections.

Neither can they have any objection to removal if sufficient provision exists in an adjacent area, together with what I said in my statement during the discussion of my Vote the other day, and after an investigation which I am going to entrust to the National Liquor Board has taken place in terms of section 118 ter. I do not think there is any objection to that at all. There ought not to be. In any case, I may say that it is a decision of principle which the Government has taken.

Then there is the control over the conveyance of more than two gallons of liquor. As soon as a conveyor is trading in contraband, I simply place a ban on him and say that in future he may not convey more than two gallons of liquor without a permit from the police, and I think that will be the end of it. Then we have the power under section 100 quin. If persons are selling too cheaply and cause a congestion outside their premises, I am going to prohibit them from selling to a particular race group. I think that in this way we shall eliminate these problems to a very large extent.

All that remains is the point which was made by the hon. member for Durban (North) and on which the hon. member for Houghton enlarged, namely the question of Sobukwe’s detention. I have already said that we had considered this matter very carefully. I said on a previous occasion that I had visited Sobukwe. I went over specially to have a talk with him. I myself had a talk with him at which no-one else was present. Sobukwe still has exactly the same views. If he is released from that detention—I do not want to call it inprisonment—and especially if he is released at this particular moment, there will be trouble again. As the hon. member for Houghton rightly remarked, this statement from Dar-es-Salaam has unfortunately come at a very inopportune moment for Sobukwe. Especially if one reads that report with the other report of the terrorists who are on their way to South Africa, then one must agree that I have taken the right decision. The terrorists are armed with communist weapons. They are P.A.C. terrorists who pledge their allegiance to Sobukwe.

(Inaudible).

Yes, the press report reads, “The executive council has re-affirmed its loyalty to Sobukwe”.

Has Sobukwe identified himself with these people?

No, he has not, but that is what the executive council of that organization ¿ays. As far as Sobukwe is concerned, it is a matter of principle. I duly considered everything and asked myself: What is in the best interests of the country: that one man be detained under favourable circumstances or that the safety of the country be threatened by his being released? That is all that is involved. We can talk here about this matter for days and we shall not make any progress at all. Seeing that it is nearly 10.25, I want to resume my seat so that the hon. member’s amendments can be put.