Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in my reply to the hon. member for Kensington, I have more faith in the principle of bilingual members in councils than an artificial classification into Afrikaans and English speaking members. That is why I would prefer to agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that a clause should be inserted somewhere to the effect that with the appointment of members to a council, full consideration shall be given to the bilingualism of members on that council. I believe that only when the two official languages are fully appreciated, applied and understood by both language groups will a mutual understanding and appreciation also develop for the extension of one another’s cultural assets, which can then take place. That is why I am prepared, in the Committee Stage, to move the following amendment, i.e. that after subsection (5) of clause 3, a new subsection (6) be inserted which will provide that the four members of the council who are appointed in terms of subsection (2) and a person who is appointed as chairman of a Commission in terms of subsection (5) must be persons who in the opinion of the Minister have an adequate knowledge of the two official languages and the culture of the two white population groups of the Republic. I shall then have this amendment added in due course.

Another request addressed to me by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was that the annual report should be laid upon the Table. Of course I agreed with this principle, but after inquiry and further investigation it became clear to me that the annual report of the Department of Cultural Affairs will report on more than 75 per cent of the activities of this Cultural Council. It will not therefore be practicable or expedient to lay a separate report upon the Table, since adequate provision for this will be made in the annual report of the Department. Of course I said yesterday already that I would remove the word “advisory” and an amendment to this effect would also appear on the Order Paper. What was disappointing in fact in the remarks made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was in the first place his complaint that it was a very poorly prepared Bill. He also quoted a few examples and I just want to say that this Bill was drafted by a very senior law adviser of the Department of Justice. I think the Bill was checked by my own Department, This Bill was not assembled haphazardly. The hon. member also asked us whether we had ascertained what was being done overseas. This Bill followed after a three months overseas visit by the Secretary of Cultural Affairs, in particular to countries with whom we have cultural treaties. There are many aspects of the Bill, dealing with its organization and mechanism, which were in fact inserted on the basis of knowledge acquired by him on his visit abroad. He reported to me, and I was made fully conversant with matters. There are, of course, the countries with whom we have cultural treaties, i.e. Belgium, Holland Germany, and there is also very close co-operation with the United Kingdom, and from all these countries all that was good and what could be applied and adapted in South Africa was taken. Then the Bill was drafted on this basis. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred in very derogatory terms to the contents of clause 2. He read out all the various subdivisions, and then remarked in conclusion: “This is what we are already doing”. He then came to subclause (3) which relates to the activities of and the powers the Minister will have in connection with cultural and educational matters. Paragraph (vi) states(“provides such other services as he deems necessary or expedient, or to subsidize or finance the provision of services by any person”. With reference to that he said, “whatever that may mean”. This is a very wide clause and it not only creates the possibility of elaborating on the present pattern but also creates the possibility for the Minister to do various things, depending upon new circumstances. Here there is an opening therefore. It leaves an opening for the Minister to subsidize or to finance other things, depending upon new circumstances.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also wanted to know why the Minister was also reserving to himself the power to appoint members of commissions. The reply to that is simple. The Minister, in the first place, appoints the Council. The Commissions advise this Council on various special matters—matters such as the utilization of leisure, youth work, and so on. The Council, in its turn, must make recommendations, taking into consideration the available funds. It must also advise on co-ordination. Naturally all the chairmen will be members of the Council. Because this is the case, I can see no objection to the Minister having to appoint the members. In fact, I cannot see who else should do this. After all, it would be something completely unheard of for the Council to appoint those members, something contrary to normal practice. I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will now accept that we have done the right thing here.

In addition the hon. member appealed to me to devote my attention in the first place, when this legislation is in operation, to the promotion of creative writing. That is of course a very good suggestion. But it is already being done. I cannot anticipate the coming Estimates, but when the hon. member sees the Estimates, I think he will be satisfied with the provision which is in fact being made in this connection. This sort of thing still needs a great deal of persuasion, and although the isolated results of that may appear to be unnoticeable a great deal of progress has nevertheless been made. We must encourage and be of assistance to our writers. That fact is quite clear.

I want to thank the hon. member for Simonstown for the positive speech he made and for the positive standpoint he adopted, if one leaves out of reckoning the bits of political propaganda he made in it. His contribution and opinion on the basic principles involved here I regard as beneficial to this entire matter. I want to give the assurance to other members on this side of the House who also made contributions—the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Algoa—that we have succeeded, with a few minor exceptions here and there, of dealing with this subject in the spirit in which it ought to be dealt, because what is at issue here is the fostering of culture in South Africa at the highest level.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill repeals and replaces the existing legislation on the preservation of natural and historical monuments and antiques in the Republic and South-West Africa. A National Monuments Council is being established in the place of the Historical Monuments Commissions of the Republic and South-West Africa, and new powers are being granted to the Council so as to enable it to preserve, in a more efficient way, our national monuments. The preparatory work for the Bill began a few years ago. In 1967 a few urgent amendments were made to the Natural and Historical Monuments, Relics and Antiques Act the purpose of which were for the most part to enable the Historical Monuments Commission to deal more rapidly with its business. In the meantime the recommendations contained in the White Paper on South-West Africa have been published, and the comprehensive amendment of the Natural and Historical Monuments Relics and Antiques Act, 1934 (Act. No. 4 of 1934) has become a matter of urgency.

The first important new principle embodied in the Bill is consequently the expansion of its provisions to include the Territory of South-West Africa. Members from this Territory as well will now be appointed to the new National Monuments Council, and they will represent the interests of the Territory on that Council. Up to now the Republic and Territory have each had their own Historical Monuments Commission. In future one joint Council will devote attention to the conservation of our heritage. With the appointment of members to represent the Territory the vast expanses in the Territory will be taken into account, and the representation of the Territory on the Council will of necessity have to be equal to or greater than that of the two smaller provinces in the Republic. The second and equally important principle which is embodied in the Bill is the power which is being granted to the National Monuments Council to issue provisional declarations to the effect that certain immovable property is a national monument, without the Minister having to be involved in the matter in any way. Such a provisional declaration will remain valid for three years only. The purpose of this provisional declaration is to afford the National Monuments Council an opportunity of investigating the importance of the immovable property thoroughly before proceeding to recommend the permanent declaration thereof to the Minister.

You will ask me why the Historical Monuments Council is being vested with this power. The need for the provision appears from the experience the Historical Monuments Commission has had, and amounts to this. As soon as the Commission began with an investigation into the history and the architectural or aesthetic capacities of a building—and such an investigation takes up a great deal of time—the owner was, as it were, notified in advance of the Commissions plans. If such an owner was not well disposed towards the ideal of conservation he could change such a building drastically, yes, even demolish it. The powers which are now being granted to the Historical Monuments Council will enable it to declare, provisionally, a building which is in danger, to be a monument. After that it will have a maximum of three years at its disposal in which to complete its investigation. Should it appear during the course of the investigation that the building is not of sufficient importance to merit its being conserved, then the Council can cancel such a provisional declaration immediately. Furthermore, if the owner has good grounds for feeling dissatisfied about the provisional declaration, he can appeal to the Minister, and the Minister can then have such a provisional declaration cancelled.

A third new principle is being introduced by granting the Council the powers in certain cases to compel the person who is responsible for the damage or unauthorized changes to a monument which is to be declared to restore the damage. In the past only a small fine was imposed, particularly in the case of an unauthorized alteration upon the person responsible for that, but he could not be compelled to restore the monument to its original condition. In order to ensure that damage which has been done will be restored, the Historical Monuments Council is now being authorized to require that the damage be restored, and, if the owner or person who was responsible for the damage should refuse to restore the damage, the Council will be able to restore the damage itself and recover the costs from the owner or the person responsible for the damage, and as a further deterrent against such meddling with a proclaimed monument, the maximum fine is also being increased. I trust prospective vandals will find in this a further deterrent.

A matter which could possibly have caused problems is the payment of duties, taxes or moneys by the Historical Monuments Council to the State. In this regard clause 15 is now clearly stated. The existing legislation makes provision for the purchase of immovable property but omits to say anything about the payment of any tax. In the past only Government property were involved, but in future it may be necessary to purchase private property. The state subsidy is virtually the only source of income of the Council and the payment of taxes will simply develop into a cycle and mean unnecessary work. The properties which the Council purchases or which are donated to it, are as it were protected and preserved by it on behalf of the State. There is therefore no sound reason why transfer fees and other moneys should be payable.

For the rest certain details in the act are being amended, and I shall go into these fully during the Committee Stage. I simply want to express my gratitude here towards those persons who have, since 1923, served or are still serving, for some period or other on the Historical Monuments Commission of the Republic. They have performed a difficult task with cheerfulness and dedication. Since the South-West Africa Commission is now going to cease to exist, and since the functions of that Commission, in the same way as those of the Republic, are now being transferred to the National Historical Monuments Council, I want to thank South-West African members as well for their outstanding work. In future an attempt will be made as one team to safeguard our monuments and preserve them for future generations. It must still be borne in mind that we are merely the curators of our monuments, and that our purpose must still be to hand them over in an unimpaired and even improved condition to posterity.

May we from now on hear just as often and with as much emphasis of cultural preservation as we are hearing of soil and nature conservation.

There can, of course, be no doubt about the acceptance of the principle of the Bill. It is a very important Bill. It is an attempt to preserve all that is best in the heritage of South Africa. The Bill itself, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, is a Bill to rationalize the legislation that we already have. The key to a consideration of the Bill is in the Schedule where we have a number of Acts which will now be superseded by this new measure we have before us. Sir, all that one can do in considering this Bill is to refer to some of the clauses because the clauses contain the principle of the Bill. I should like to refer first of all to clause 3. Subsection (2) of this clause provides

That is quite in order. Now I come to the proviso—

I think it would be better if the hon. the Minister would consider substituting the usual provision that we have, that is to say, provided the member does not become insolvent or is not sentenced to a prison sentence or that his health does not fail. This should be stated; it should not be left completely to the discretion of the Minister

Then, Sir, I come to clause 9. This is a detail but it is one which we should consider when we come to the Committee Stage. Subsections (7) and (8) provide that the council will submit information to this House; that reports will be laid on the Table and that the Auditor-General will audit the accounts. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether copies of the reports will be made available to members. I think that is very important.

Now I want to mention one matter here which I think is relevant and that is two points that come up in clauses 10 and 12. It seems a far cry from this preservation of monuments in South Africa to think of the preservation of a monument on a Karoo farm. Sir, last year I visited a certain Karoo farm. I will not mention the name of the owner. Hon. members can apply to the hon. member for Walmer if they wish to have further information. I will not mention the name because hon. members would be very anxious to go there at once and it might prove an embarrassment to the owner. The owner of this farm, a South African, has made a remarkable collection of fossils. He is a palaeontologist of world renown. This work has continued practically over his whole lifetime. His collection is regarded as unique by palaeontologists throughout the world. He has his own museum. Amongst his visitors have been, first of all, Dr. Broome, who was well known to us all, and, secondly, General Smuts who had a great interest in collections of this kind, as he had in all cultural efforts in South Africa. There have been visitors from the United States of America, and there have been visitors from the London Museum. These people have come to South Africa to see a collection on a farm in the Karoo where one man has devoted his time to this great hobby, a hobby which became a very serious study. He has received recognition from one of our universities. The University of the Free State, I understand, has conferred an honorary doctorate upon him, but if there is to be any national recognition of services of this kind—and it has been mooted in this House that such a decoration will eventually become available—I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that a case of this kind should be considered. I do not know whether the Minister has visited this collection himself. I think it would be worthwhile for him to do so, for I am sure he would be very impressed. Some of the rarest and earliest collections available in the world of fossils are to be found there. They are from the original Karoo deposits.

One just has to look at the Cabinet to see fossils.

No, I am talking about a different kind of fossil, and much older. We naturally support this Bill, although there are One or two details we will discuss with the Minister when we come to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, this piece of legislation is simply another one of the fine facets of our National Government, i.e. this Bill which is aimed at maintaining and conserving our cultural historical heritage, and which is now being placed on the Statute Book. Our country is exceptionally rich in heritages of this kind, which ought to be preserved for posterity. Every city, every little hamlet, and even most farms have a few of these relics which deserve to be retained. However, one always has difficulty that it is not always possible, in the face of progress to preserve and to retain that which belongs to the past. It was Gezelle who in his poem “Die Mandelbeke” complained “En die overschoone Mandel, wierd di slave van den Handel”, and that is what is happening to us in South Africa in recent times. There are people who have simply no feelings for the value of preservation. Too often bulldozers come along and destroy places which were of aesthetic, historical or even of theological importance. Where those places were, petrol stations and cafes are often constructed. We had a similar case here, near the city, near Mostert’s Mill, of Coornhoop, which would have been demolished if private individuals had not taken timeous action to save it.

As the hon. Minister said, this Bill is for the most part a measure to repeal and to consolidate the old Act of 1934, the amended Act of 1967, and in addition the Ordinance which applies to South-West Africa and to consolidate these into a much wider and far more comprehensive measure.

What we find striking is the much wider powers which are being entrusted to the National Monuments Council. In clause 5 (1) we find that this Council can declare anything to be a monument. According to clause 10 the Minister can declare any article of aesthetic, historical, archaeological, palaeontological or scientific value to be a monument. Clause 12 (2) contains a new aspect, because for the first time reference is being made to meteorites or fossils. The clause also mentions drawings or paintings on stone, rock engraving and the contents of graves, caves, rock shelters, middens, and even shell mounds. In this way jewellery and furniture and any other form of Africana can be included within the framework of this Bill in order to protect, conserve and maintain it for the future.

It is also important to mention, and the hon. the Minister has already referred to that, that this measure consolidates the work done by the old Historical Monuments Commission of the Republic and of South-West Africa, and we feel that it is desirable in order to avoid overlapping and duplication in future.

It also appears that in terms of this Bill the Council is being afforded a greater opportunity of acquiring funds than was the case under the old Act. Clause 5 (1) (b) (iii) refers to the possibility of obtaining a State subsidy for the purchase, restoration or maintenance of a monument. Clause 9 (1) refers to moneys appropriated by Parliament, moneys which are obtained in terms of this Council’s own Ordinances, the interest accruing to revenue, as well as other sources. This is a very important aspect of this new Bill, because we know that the old Historical Monuments Commission had difficulty in accomplishing even the bare necessities, and in coming out with their money, in order to purchase and maintain monuments. Now it is also possible for this Council to channelize financial assistance even to private bodies and individuals. I am mentioning the Simon van der Stel Foundation, which is engaged in the same type of work as this Council. The old Council, as I said, had to rely on allowances, donations, fees and incidental contributions only.

A further important amendment of the old National and Historical Monuments Relics and Antiques Act is the extending of the period in respect of provisional declaration of immovable property by the Council from a period of three months in terms of the old Act, to a period of three years, in terms of this Bill. It was very necessary. The three-month period was impractical, because it made no provision for the necessary research and investigation before the final declaration was made. As a result it often happened that, before the inquiry with a view to the final declaration of such a monument was completed, something happened to that monument. In some cases it was even destroyed. In this way it often happened that this monument was sold, alienated or badly damaged. Now the Council has a much longer period of time while the provisional declaration lasts to deal with all its investigational and research work, before it is finally declared.

Clause 12 (2), which refers to the question of meteorites and fossils, may at first sight perhaps not appear to be very important.

The United Party are the fossils.

Yes, the United Party are still the closest to fossils we have here. It has happened too often in the past that research workers came from abroad, drew generously on our supply of scientific monuments in the shape of meteorites, fossils and even rock drawings, and then those objects were taken out of the country. This clause was necessary therefore to put an end to that practice, because we believe that those objects should be kept in South Africa.

We are pleased about the reintroduction of section 5 (g) of the old Act, dealing with the erection of memorial tablets, furnishing information on historical events in regard to those places in both official languages. We feel that that matter is very important, seen from the point of view of tourism. Those people who are interested in tourism, have problems in regard to the tours they arrange to historical places. When they arrive there is not enough information to furnish to those visiting tourists in order to make it worthwhile for them to visit those places.

Clauses 17 and 18 (2) deal with the question of the delegation of powers. In clause 18 (2) provision is being made to call in the assistance of local authorities. But it is a fact that local authorities are not available at all those places, and many of these monuments happen to lie outside the areas of local authorities. I wonder whether it is possible, within the framework of this Bill, to make provision to the effect that similar powers can be delegated to local regional tourism promotion committees, which have to deal with this type of thing every day. They are locally available and can therefore see to the conservation and maintenance of these monuments, as well as to en sure that these monuments are utilized, to put it in this way, by bringing visitors to see them.

In conclusion I want to refer to clause 10 (2) (a) which deals with the acquisition of land, and clause 5, which deals with access roads and the fencing of that land. We are pleased about this, but it often happens that some of these historical monuments are situated off the main roads, and if I may be allowed to be a little parochial here, I want to mention that there are a few of them in Zululand. I am now referring to Ultimatum Tree, near the Tugela River and Fort Crealock. I can even refer to the grave of John Dunn. These are historical monuments, but it is virtually impossible to get to these places. There are no signposts and the marking off of the site is not all it should be. Neglect is the order of the day and the result is that the monuments are simply standing there, of no value, historical or otherwise, to anybody. So tourism cannot benefit by this either. In this regard I want to ask the Minister how it would be possible to make provision in this Bill for monuments such as these, particularly of a historical nature, which are situated within the Bantu areas. Bulawayo Kraal, one of the biggest of Chaka’s kraals, is situated in a Bantu area, and it is impossible even to obtain that piece of land, and to conserve it properly, to protect it for posterity, and to make a tourist attraction of this historical monument. I can also refer to Coward’s Bush where Chaka had the members of his impis who showed themselves to be cowards put to death. This is something interesting, and overseas tourists take a great deal of interest in it. But because these monuments are situated in Bantu areas, it seems to me as if nobody can obtain any jurisdiction over it, in any case not from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Consequently these monuments are lost to us. This Bill is just in time therefore, and we as a country are very grateful to the Government for this comprehensive Bill which is now being introduced, and we believe that the work of the old Historical Monuments Commission is going to be done much more smoothly after the passage of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a further development of the Act of 1934, and we support it one hundred per cent. There are a few questions that we want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage, but on this occasion I want to address only one request to the hon. the Minister. In clause 5 the functions of the council are defined, and I wonder whether he cannot give attention to the possibility of also having the council act in an advisory capacity where local communities want to erect a national monument. When travelling through the country one often comes to the conclusion that it is a pity that local bodies did not have sound advice when they wanted to erect some particular little monument. They had the funds and the good intentions to accomplish something, but they obviously did not have good technical advice. The result is that, as one travels through the country, one sees monuments in the smaller towns which are unfortunately of such a nature that they do not quite serve their purpose. Although it is a good thing that the monuments are there, we cannot really be very proud of them. I wonder whether it will be possible for the Minister to consider this matter so that he may introduce an amendment during the Committee Stage which will grant the council the right, when it is approached by local bodies or institutions for advice in connection with the erection of a monument, to assist such local bodies. That is all that I want to put to the Minister.

Mr., Speaker, in terms of the provision being made in this Bill, the Historical Monument Commission of South-West Africa will virtually cease to exist. The national monuments of South-West Africa will now fall under the large umbrella of the council envisaged in this legislation. In the first place, I should therefore like to break a lance for the Historical Monument Commission of South-West Africa and for the task it has been fulfilling up to this stage. South-West Africa is one of the countries which has been richly endowed not only with geological and archaeological monuments, but also with historical monuments. A short while ago the hon. member for Zululand spoke of meteorites. I may just mention the fact that South-West Africa has the largest meteorite to be found in the world to-day. This meteorite lies at Hoba-West, 12 miles from Grootfontein. The meteorite weighs 65 tons, and consists of nickel, chromium and the other elements found in such a meteorite. But South-West Africa also has other interesting archaeological and geological monuments. We have, for example, an extinct volcano, an amazing phenomenon which attracts thousands of tourists. We have there the petrified forest. At the petrified forest one sees tree-trunks measuring 5 ft. across and approximately 110 ft. in length, all lying in the same direction. They are virtually in the desert. How did they get there? This is very interesting.

We have our own White Lady of the Brand-berg mountains, a drawing in colours which is approximately 14 inches in height and which is to be found in the Brandberg mountain range. It was discovered in 1918 by Professor Maack and it has become world famous. It is being coupled to an interesting part of the history which took place on the island of Crete in the year 2100 b.c. I do not want to go into these details, but they are very interesting.

The only known dinosaur tracks in the world to-day are to be found in South-West Africa on the farm Otjihaewemaparo, 12 miles from Kalkfeld. The tracks of these beasts, a large one and a small one, with three toes, are to be found over a distance of 30 yards. These tracks are imprinted in granite and, according to the scientists, they are 177 million years old. This is very interesting. To-day one also finds what is known as the Bushman Paradise in South-West Africa. This in point of fact is a paradise of Bushman drawings. This too is very interesting.

But South-West Africa’s history and monuments are to-day being linked in a very fine way to the climatic conditions of the territory. South-West Africa is a dry, arrid country, and it is mostly desert. It is interesting to note how this desert has left its imprint on the history of South-West Africa over the years and centuries in which the people of South-West Africa made its history. This one can see in, for example, the Bondelswarts rebellion of 1922. The then Administrator of South-West Africa was the now late Mr. Gys R. Hofmeyr. In 1910 he was the first Clerk of this House. His headquarters during that rebellion was an old railway carriage, which used to be the personal carriage of the late President Kruger. During that rebellion the troops came across a well in the desert in which there was water which had been poisoned by the Natives. There they found the following striking inscription: “Drink jy. dood jy; en drink jy nie, dood jy ook, so drink maar” (If you drink, you die: if you do not drink, you also die, so go ahead and drink). This is characteristic of the history of South-West Africa.

In 1904 Otto Klein, a non-commissioned officer, went into the Epukiro with 41 men. There they were dying of thirst. Two weeks later Otto Klein arrived at the only place where water was to be found and there he also died of thirst shortly afterwards.

There is one episode in the early history of South-West Africa which I find very striking, and that is the Battle of Thirst, which took place in the desert on 4th January, 1905. I should like to tell you something more about this, Sir, just to illustrate what a special history South-West Africa has. This incident occurred in the south of South-West Africa. Major Mesiter who was in command of 223 troops pursued more than 1.000 armed Witboois into the desert. This took them days and eventually the horses and the troops were beginning to die of thirst. They had the choice of turning back, but because they knew that the Witboois knew the nature of that region, they knew that they would eventually go to a place where water was to be found. Indeed, the troops eventually found the Witboois at Groot Nabas. This is a very interesting historical place, which has, as yet, not been declared a historical monument. The troops found the Witboois there, but these Witboois had entrenched themselves around the water. A battle commenced with lasted for three days. The Witboois were sharp shooters and defended the water well. There was no chance of the troops ever reaching the water. Eventually the German troops became hysterical. One of them, Artillery Commander Von Nauendorff, who was severely wounded, in his distress offered 10.000 marks for one mouthful of water. Another soldier, non-commissioned officer Wehinger, offered him a mouthful of wine, but his reply was, “Friend, you who are only wounded in the shoulder have more need of it than I”. Nevertheless, by the third day the situation was so serious that the troops knew that they would die of thirst that day if they could not devise a plan. Do you know, Sir, what a wonderful plan they devised after they had at one stage decided simply to storm the water-hole and many of them had been shot down by the Witboois? They decided to let all the horses loose. The horses, which had virtually been dying of thirst, stormed the water-hole in a cloud of dust. Under cover of that cloud of dust the German troops followed with drawn bayonets. The first 128 horses were shot down by the Witboois but under the cloud of dust the troops reached the water-hole and succeeded in driving the Witboois away. But, Sir, this is only one example and I do not want to mention more. South-West Africa’s history is richly endowed with similar interesting episodes which have to be preserved for future generations.

But South-West Africa’s history is also characterized by another feature which differs to some extent from the history of the Republic of South Africa. This is the particular role which the German population has played in the early history of South-West Africa and to which I, as an Afrikaans-speaking person, refer with pride to-day. These German pioneers were involved in many interesting episodes in the early history of South-West Africa. I want to tell you only one small episode, Sir. This occurred on 11th January, 1904. Lieutenant Gustav Voigts was sent out with 34 men on a reconnaissance to Okahandja in an open armoured carriage hauled by a steam locomotive. They went there and a small distance from Okahandja they encountered the Hereros who bombarded them, and within a short while seven of the troops were killed. They knew that they did not have a chance; they would lose the battle and all of them would be killed. But a strange thing happened. While the engine driver, who was hit first, was lying on the footplate, the engine suddenly started belching black smoke, gave a few jerks and the soldiers thought that it was exploding. It jerked into reverse gear and set off in the direction of Windhoek at an alarming speed. It travelled at such a speed that the men who were in the armoured carriage had great difficulty in climbing over the trucks to see what was happening. When they eventually reached the locomotive they found a small Damara boy. What had happened, was that he had taken some coffee to the engine driver early that morning and had been waiting in a corner of the locomotive to take the flask back without his knowing anything of the dangerous order this mission had been given. However, he had seen his master operating the levers before, and when this attack took place, he pulled the lever, set the locomotive in motion and in that way saved the men. Nonetheless, I just want to ask that when this council has been appointed it should take proper cognizance of this special feature of the history of South-West Africa which bears the imprint of men and women who left us a heritage which we, the Afrikaans, English and Germanspeaking people of South-West Africa, shall never forget.

I think the hon. member for Middelland has jumped the gun on me, but I am quite certain that you, Sir, as well as I have enjoyed immensely the speech he made about South-West Africa. I think we both know more or less what he was speaking about. But the thing that worries me is that last year I mentioned the Thirstland Voortrekkers and I am sincerely hoping that the Minister will not forget these people and their bits of property which are still left, and that they will be gathered and housed in a proper place.

I, too, would like to mention one incident. On the Skeleton Coast there was a Coloured man who swam out at Rocky Point to save his friends from the wreck of the Sir Charles Elliot, and I believe his grave has now been declared a national monument. But a little further up from there I found a rather interesting relic, two small “strandloper” huts in a small reef there, and I was wondering whether that could not be protected, but I believe they do not exist any more.

There is also the famous German-Herero monument at Omaruru which has not been mentioned, and the Herero Monument at Okahandja, where they gather every year. I think these places should be looked after. Then I was wondering what has been done with the Welwitschia plants growing in the Namib desert. Are they protected to-day? Because people go there and cart these plants away. They just destroy them really, because they can never get the tap root out, which is up to 60 feet long. Then there are the graves of the Germans in the Nossop, south of Gobabis Township. The Hereros arranged that at 12 o’clock on a certain day they would kill all the people, and all the white people there were killed. I remember that a German who was digging a well was killed also. He was hit on the head with a hammer. Those people are all buried there. I really think that graves of that description should be looked after. But as I said before, my great worry is the relics of the Thirstland Voortrekkers. There is also the grave of William Worthington Jordan that has never been found, between the Etosha Pan and Ovamboland, where he was murdered. I was wondering whether it would not be possible to trace him and to erect some sort of monument to him, because he gave all his worldly possessions to help the Thirstland Voortrekkers.

I should like to thank hon. members on both sides of the House very cordially for the peaceful atmosphere in which we have received this piece of legislation, and for the contribution they made, particularly the contributions by the last two speakers, the hon. member for Middelland and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City). They revealed to us that with the amalgamation of South-West Africa’s Monument Commission with that of the Republic they will be able to bring us a rich harvest of fine things which have already been accomplished, but probably also a richer harvest of matters which still have to receive attention. In any case it is very interesting for us uninitiated to hear these historical surveys and these admonitions. The speeches of these two hon. members will definitely be referred to the established Council so that they can give the necessary attention to them.

The hon. member for Kensington spoke first, and all the points he mentioned will probably be best dealt with, as he himself stated, in the Committee Stage. However, he spoke about clause 3 (2) in regard to the proviso in respect of some of the members of this commission can be discharged. He does not agree with it, and he in fact advocates the old wording. The information I have received is that the Law Advisers maintain that it is quite out of fashion to say that; one does not in fact say that in a law any more. The hon. member for Kensington and I who are not so young any more, prefer the old way of saying things, but apparently they do not want it like that now. But the hon. member can accept however that if a, member of the Council has to be got rid of then it will take place on the grounds he mentioned there. I cannot quite see how any other justifiable grounds can be mentioned, but the new method is to state it as it is stated there. It seems to me the hon. member and I will have to bow to the greater knowledge of the younger generation.

As regards clause 12, the hon. member had something to say in regard to that very important collection. All I can say is that it is not necessary for provision to be made for that. In clause 10 provision has already been made for that. The Council can in fact be of assistance in declaring such collections as those which the hon. member mentioned as historical monuments. That they can do so is an extension of the powers of this Bill.

The hon. member for Zululand, who gave a sound and comprehensive survey of the new legislation touched upon a point here which was very important. That is the question of monuments which are situated in areas where we cannot really exercise any authority. He mentioned two cases of monuments in Bantu areas. I cannot at this juncture furnish him with any reply in that regard, but I think it is such an important point that I will have the matter investigated in order to see whether it can be done, and how those monuments can be preserved for posterity.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also addressed a request to me to the effect that assistance should be given to local authorities or local bodies by the Council when monuments are to be erected. The spirit of clause 18 (2) of the Bill, in terms of which assistance to local authorities can be granted, includes this. However, I will make very certain whether this request is included in that, and whether it is in fact possible to lend assistance in terms of clause 18 (2). If not, then I shall move the necessary amendment in the Committee Stage. I think that with this I have dealt with all the points which were raised, and I want once again to express my thanks and appreciation to hon. members.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that in the Bill the name Declared Cultural Institutions is given in the place of the existing designation State-aided Institutions. Apart from the fact that the designation State-aided Institutions is confusing because bodies such as schools, universities, etc., all receive State aid, it is necessary for these institutions to be better identified, i.e. with the designation cultural institutions which in reality they are.

The services which these institutions offer the public are in the first instance the stimulation of a desire for knowledge, which results in the expansion of knowledge. The visitor is stimulated and this leads to the broadening of his interests. Unwritten history is illustrated here. Man becomes more aware of the world in which he is living, the vast expanses of time and space, the earth with its trees, plants and animals, his history and development, as well as his achievements in the field of science and art. In the second place these institutions help the visitor to appreciate whatever is beautiful in nature and the artistic and other creations of man. In the last instance the visitor is afforded the opportunity of relaxing and enjoying intellectual and aesthetic pleasure.

The functions of the various institutions, although their divergent nature differ considerably, can be summarized as follows: collection, processing, care of and conservation, research work, publication, exhibitions, educational services and administration. The basic function is that of collection which are followed by the essential functions of processing and preservation work such as cleaning, repairing, restoring, mounting, etc. The national historical institutions in particular afford exceptional opportunities for research. Numerous overseas scientists visit our country in order to study and to describe that which is offered. When the research work is completed, the result must be published in order to acquaint the scientists with new developments in a particular science and all its ramifications. This collective material must also be offered by way of exhibition to the child at school, the university student and the adult.

Mr. Speaker, in order to implement the above-mentioned functions, there must be an administration, and now I am referring you here to the Bill before you. The existing Act in terms of which control over State-aided institutions is exercised dates from 1931, Act No. 23 of 1931, which has already been amended on various occasions. Further amendments are again necessary now, but instead of that I thought it would be better to submit this new Bill and to have the old Act repealed. Apart from the fact that the existing Act is obsolete in its scope and terminology, and apart from the consolidation idea, it would appear from what follows why a new Bill is necessary.

The existing Act does in fact make provision for a grant-in-aid to institutions from moneys appropriated by Parliament, but has nothing to say about the responsible Minister, nor about consultation with the Minister of Finance; it has nothing to say about the purposes in respect of which those grants in aid may be allocated, and the basic conditions associated with them. This uncertainty is now being cleared up in clauses 2 and 3.

Although the institutions are declared to be corporate bodies, provision is being made to the effect that a declared institution cannot without ministerial approval purchase or otherwise acquire, hire, sell, let or exchange or otherwise alienate, hypothecate or encumber immovable property or invest, lend or borrow moneys. These things now require approval. Such approval will also be necessary in order to let, sell, exchange or otherwise alienate any articles belonging to an institution. The funds needed for all these operations are derived for the most part from the Treasury, and hence the necessity for ministerial approval. Clause 9 makes specific provision to the effect that the State will provide and maintain land and buildings. In the past this was in fact the practice, but now it becomes a legal obligation. This land and these buildings remain Government property and must be safeguarded. Apart from this, the interests of the State must be protected against any losses. I am thinking here for example of a donation made to an institution. If it is going to cost more to utilize than it is really worth it cannot simply be accepted by that institution. In addition, the control over the investment, lending out or borrowing of money is equally necessary in order to ensure, for example, that it is not invested in an undertaking which is going to go bankrupt within a year or that money is borrowed at an excessively high rate of interest, while it could have been borrowed somewhere else at a lower rate of interest. The indicated Government control is therefore absolutely essential.

A deficiency which in the past made the administration of the institutions difficult is being met in the Bill by making provision not only for the declaration of an institution in terms of clause 3, but also for the cancellation of such a declaration in terms of clause 14. The motivation for this is that in the past the need arose, and I foresee that the same need will arise in future, to divide an existing institution and to declare two independent institutions. The cultural historical section of the Transvaal museum, Pretoria, has for this reason already been declared an independent institution. It subsequently appeared to have been an illegal step. This Bill not only legalizes this step but makes provision for the cancellation of a declaration of an institution and the declaration of two separate independent institutions. In this connection I can just mention that I already have a request before me to declare the cultural historical section in the old Supreme Court building, Cape Town, which at present still forms part of the national museum, Cape Town, to be a separate independent institution.

The establishment of boards of control over the institutions is already an established usage and needs no further argument. An essential innovation however is the establishment of an Advisory Council and a Committee of Heads of Institutions. These institutions must develop within a national development programme into fully fledged cultural and scientific centres. Such a development programme entails that a national development policy must be laid down. Such a policy will in turn have to be planned and implemented by competent body. I am thinking here of an advisory body similarto the universities advisory committee which was established in terms of the Universities Act, (Act No. 61 of 1955). As I said earlier on, research is an important function of these institutions. There is therefore a need for a coordinating body which will prevent overlapping between these various institutions and other research bodies, and in order to determine general guiding lines for such a programme at the institutions. Officials in the Department of Cultural Affairs do not always have specialized knowledge in regard to matters which affect these institutions very closely. That is why such an advisory body is regarded as the obvious way in which to furnish the Minister with advice. In addition, such a body will aso be able to eliminate the investigating committees into the various needs and problems of the institutions, every few years.

But, Mr. Speaker, provision must also be made for the interests of the various institutions, in so far as they themselves are affected, to receive attention. There is already such an administratively adjusted body. i.e. the State-aided Institutions Committee. By transforming this body into a statutory body, i.e. the Committee of Heads of Declared Institutions, action taken in regard to matters of general importance are amalgamated. Joint consultations with a view to efficient administration and the fulfilling of tasks are hereby ensured. This body will also serve as joint mouthpiece for all the institutions when they address representations to the Department.

In conclusion provision is, at the request of the South-West Africa Administration, being made to the effect that the provisions of this Bill should also be applicable to South-West Africa. The other provisions are of a merely consequential nature.

Mr. Speaker, we are having a busy time! The hon. the Minister and I seem to be closely engaged during these days. I think that this Bill gives evidence to us of the very energetic staff that the hon. the Minister has. They have been reorganizing certain parts of their administration with very good effect indeed I think. There have been items in our annual estimates that have not been so clearly set out as we should have liked. Now we have this opportunity to get clarity.

I see that most of the control will be by regulation. I think that is unavoidable. But there are certain safeguards that one can ask for. One of these safeguards is contained in clause 11 where it is stated that the accounts will be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. We will see something about that in the annual report.

There is the other point which I have mentioned before and I think it can be elaborated upon. There is a necessity for annual reports on the work of these councils. If they are to receive public money, we should have information about how that money is being spent. I think that is an elementary request and I would like the hon. the Minister to give it his attention. I understand that each of these institutions will have a council and that there will be an advisory council in command of them all that will advise the hon. the Minister and that his department will report to the House or to the Committee. I hope that will be possible. We have no objection to the Bill. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the work which his staff is doing in preparing a well organized department.

Mr. Speaker, as in the case of the Bills we dealt with prior to dealing with this Bill, i.e. the National Culture Promotion Bill and the National Monuments Bill, as well as other Bills already piloted through Parliament by the Department of Cultural Affairs, this Bill to me is another fine fruit of the independent status of this Department. We know that cultural affairs have always been the patient and docile attendant of education. Now that it has been raised to the status of a partner—perhaps still a junior partner to a very large extent—of education, this Department is already beginning to give a good account of itself. As long as cultural affairs fell under the old Department of Education, Arts and Science, the attention was directed exclusively at educational affairs. Because the needs of education were so immediate, the attention, as far as financial provision was concerned, was directed at education. Cultural affairs and cultural institutions had to be satisfied with the proverbial crumbs which fell from the table. I intentionally do not say the rich man’s table, because education as such has not always received the portion it ought to have received from budgets of the past. Now there is a marked improvement.

The original Act, i.e. the State-aided Institutions Act of 1931, made provision for—

This stigma of being known as State-aided institutions has stuck throughout the years since 1931. In the amending Acts which followed—there were quite a few, namely in 1948, in 1957 and in 1966—reference was always made to “State-aided institutions”. These words, “State-aided institutions” give me the impression that these cultural and kindred institutions have had to be satisfied with the crumbs I have just referred to. Otherwise they have had to assume the roles of beggars. The institutions that were more modest eventually stopped trying whereas the institutions that were less modest and perhaps knew the art of begging somewhat better, received reasonable amounts. However, the title of this Bill, namely the Cultural Institutions Bill, is removing, at least from the wording, the destitution with which these institutions have been stigmatized in the past. That is in my opinion, a very positive step in the right direction which will in future have excellent results.

In my opinion this Bill is, in the main, a measure which consolidates the existing Acts. It makes this legislation more streamlined and the terminology is in keeping with modern concepts. All existing declared institutions—a whole list is mentioned in this Bill—are receiving recognition and an opening is also being left for the addition and recognition of new institutions. Whereas the Minister used to be dependent on his Department with regard to the handling of matters affecting individual institutions, the Minister is now going to have the assistance of the Advisory Council for Declared Institutions which is to be established. This advisory council is being empowered to advise the Minister. This arrangement is being made in clause 12 (14). This can lead to a greater measure of uniformity in the handling and treatment of the declared institutions, and to me the establishment of a Committee of Heads of Declared Institutions in particular, spells the modernization and streamlining of the activities of the institutions. As all of us will admit, the heads of the institutions are acquainted with the real needs of the institutions, and every truly inspired head of such an institution is the pivot on which everything in the institution hinges. While I am speaking of the heads of institutions, surely it is fitting that I should mention the dedication and the purposefulness with which the heads or the directors of these institutions have been fulfilling their task. They have often had to do so under difficult circumstances because of a lack of funds. These heads truly inspire their staff and their actions also infuse the public with interest.

It has been my special privilege to have been serving for many years on the board of curators of the National Cultural History and Open-Air Museum, to which the Minister also referred in his Second Reading speech. In connection with this special institution I should like to mention the name of the energetic directrix, Mrs. Roodt Coetzee, whose inspiration for her work will make a deep impression on anybody, whose capacity for work is conspicuous and whose knowledge of her task astounds one.

I have also had the privilege of being a member of the board of curators of the Transvaal Museum for a few years. I also want to pay tribute to the good work of the former head, who has passed away. I also want to pay tribute to the disposition with which the new head, Dr. Brain, is setting about his task. He is setting about this task with great enthusiasm and he regards it as his life task.

With regard to the open-air museum of Pretoria I want to say that it actually is an addition to the old cultural history museum. It is in point of fact the modern extension of a cultural museum. I want to mention three objectives in brief. The open-air museum is, as I have said, a modern extension of the cultural museum and its real objectives consequently are no different. Its objectives are to introduce people to the cultural past and to educate them in that regard, as well as to promote research into culture. The second objective of an open-air museum is to reproduce the material manifestations of the cultural life of the past by means of a careful reconstruction of buildings and landscapes. Finally, a national open-air museum has to have regard, in addition to all these things, to the various cultural communities of a country. Consideration is also being given to the representation of certain important material cultural elements of our countries of origin in order to illustrate the relationship between us and our countries of origin.

On behalf of the board of curators of the museum to which I have been referring, I want to thank the Minister once again for everything he is doing in this connection. I did this last year, and now I emphasize it again. I thank him for the special interest shown by him in the Cultural History Open-Air Museum, particularly in the open-air museum division. I want to thank him for the assistance he rendered in obtaining the land. We also have to thank the City Council of Pretoria for the fine piece of land it gave for these purposes. Last year the hon. the Minister said in a speech, “In future we shall spend much more money on this very important aspect of our nation’s past”. That is why this legislation before us holds so much promise. This open-air museum will also make its contribution to the preservation of our cultural possessions, because a nation that neglects its cultural possessions is neglecting its heritage and will become spiritually impoverished.

Just as good work is being done by the directors and the staff of the said two museums, so good work is being done in other museums in our country in connection with the preservation of that which is cultural-historical, natural-historical, as well as natural-scientific.

In conclusion I want to express my gratitude to the local authorities, to be specific, to the city councils, for the allowances they have been paying to these museums in order to promote the work of these museums.

Order! I think the hon. member is digressing very far from the Bill.

I am speaking of additional financial support, Mr. Speaker, because this Bill also deals with the provision of more money, and for that reason what I am saying is complementary to that. We want to thank these authorities most heartily for the financial support they have been giving, because the lack of funds has been the museums’ biggest obstacle after all. Consequently I want to ask, and in my opinion this is relevant, people who can make donations, who have articles which may otherwise be neglected because their children may no longer be interested in such items, to bequeath those donations to these museums. The articles may be of great cultural value. If there are people, authorities, companies, etc., that wish to make financial donations, these will definitely be welcome.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister most heartily for the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I briefly want to thank the hon. members for Kensington and Koedoespoort for setting their seal to this Bill as one of a whole series of measures which in fact ensure that our cultural possessions, our cultural activities and our cultural expressions are placed under the proper control, and the modernized control, of the State. I thank the hon. members for this.

I want to give the hon. member for Kensington the assurance that this last of the series we are now dealing with will all be included in our annual report, instead of being placed in separate reports. The Department of Cultural Affairs is still a small department. We are now developing it, not in order to create a large and new empire, but in order to be able to render efficient service. Until such time as its annual report justifies it, it is probably not necessary to table separate reports here. We hope that, as in the past, the report on the past year will be available to all hon. members at an early stage in the next year.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, the remarks I have to make about clause 2 will be applicable as well, I think, to clause 3. This clause deals with the appointment of assizers. It seems to me that a new class of assizer is going to be created. The old class had to have an elementary knowledge of physics. I suppose it covered the usual range of heat, light, sound, magnetism, electricity, some mensuration, and so on. But now we seem to create a new class of assizer. Are these men to be employed temporarily, or are they to be civil servants who have to go through another course of training? It does not seem clear to me from clause 2. It says here: “re-assize any or any particular kind of weighing or measuring instrument … in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and to perform such other functions as may be assigned to assizers by this Act”. So it seems to me they may be creating a different type of assizer. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can help me in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are digressing far from the existing system. Basically no changes are being made to the present dispensation. Actually, I think we are simply widening the scope somewhat; because instead of appointing the officials to assize “weighing and measuring instruments”, as was provided in the old section, the new clause reads to assize “any or any particular kind”. Therefore, if a person is qualified to perform his duties in respect of a certain class of weighing or measuring instrument, he may be appointed. He will not be appointed on a temporary basis, but on a permanent basis. It is not the idea to make provision in this clause for the appointment of temporary officials. In addition their powers are also being extended to some extent. The old Act read: “to carry out the provisions of this Act”. These words are being substituted in the new Bill by “to perform such other functions as may be assigned to assizers by this Act”. For example, in terms of this substitution the officials are being empowered to carry out certain inspections.

Will it not be necessary to appoint new staff?

No, but this clause renders the appointment of new persons to the staff a little bit easier. It enables the superintendent to entrust them with a slightly wider field of inspection duties. Actually, we think this will assist in alleviating the staff shortage to a certain extent.

Mr. Chairman, my reason for raising this question is that the whole matter depends on the inspection by assizers. These men will be in touch with the companies and will be assizing their instruments. I think it is most important. That is why I have raised these points.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Clause 3 says “a curriculum laid down from time to time by the board, passed an examination in—(i) subjects so laid down”. Will it be a completely new training for these men? Will they be retrained, or will the old men be used, after they have adapted themselves to the new system? I should like to know how it is to be done?

The intention is to use the existing personnel, whose qualifications will be acknowledged. New officials will be appointed. The board will have a broader choice to lay down the subjects in which they want these men to qualify, instead of the Act laying down the subjects specifically. Once again, we feel that it will also assist the board in recruiting people for this type of work, which is at present perhaps a bit difficult, owing to the stipulation of the relevant section of the main Act.

Mr. Chairman, I understand it to mean that there will be one group of assizers who will be concerned with capacity, for example, and another group that will be concerned with weight. That seems to be implied in this amendment. Is that what is meant?

That is so. We feel that the number of weighing and measuring instruments will increase to a very large extent. There are also certain other instruments, like water meters, etc. It is possible that they could be brought within the ambit of this legislation. So, if a person is specialized in a certain direction, the board will perhaps not require the same entrance examinations for him. There might be an easier entrance examination. While he is working, the basis of his qualifications could be broadened by prescribed subjects so as to qualify him for operation over the whole range of the Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

There is one unit of measurement that is apparently omitted here, as well as in the other clauses. That is “fluid ounces”. Is it intended to retain “fluid ounces” now that we are going over to this new system? After all, when one buys a bottle of beer, they do not tell you whether it is a pint, a half pint or a bottle, according to South African standards; they tell you it is so many fluid ounces. I want to know whether that is going to be included in this clause. I see that provision is made for the apothecaries’ weights and carat weights. That is included. Provision is made for troy weights and the apothecaries’ weights. I should like to know whether “fluid ounce” is retained in the measuring capacities. I do not see any provision being made for that.

Where does the hon. member see anything about fluid ounces?

It does not appear here. I want to know whether it is to be included or whether it is being left out intentionally.

May I point out to the hon. member that the second schedule A, which we are here inserting under clause 15, has nothing to do with the matter he is raising. The term “fluid ounce” is a liquid measure, and the hon. member will find it in the second schedule of the principal Act. That is not changed. [Interjections.] No, the second schedule of the principal Act is not changed. The hon. member will see that, in terms of one of the clauses of the Bill before us, the State President will have the power to remove from any of these schedules a unit of measurement. This measure, so far as I can see, will be retained for the present.

So one will drink fluid ounces, but one will eat solid grams.

It is out of order to raise the matter of “fluid ounces”. There is nothing about that in the Bill.

That is the point I wanted to make. There is nothing about that in the Bill. That matter is covered by the second schedule, which is not repealed by the Bill before the House. This Bill contains a provision by which the State President by regulation can change any item in the second schedule.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of the Bill is to amend certain Railway Acts; the implications of the various clauses are explained in the Explanatory Memorandum which has already been laid upon the Table, and my observations will therefore be brief and to the point.

Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 are aimed at increasing the statutory powers of the Railway Administration in connection with materials which may be conveyed by pipe line and which is at present restricted to petroleum products and other liquids. As it may be necessary in future to lay pipelines for the conveyance of other kinds of traffic, it is the intention to augment the statutory powers of the Administration by authorizing it to lay pipelines for the conveyance of any material, that is, solids, liquids and gases. It is also necessary similarly to extend the expropriation powers of the Administration, so that it will be possible to obtain the land required for the laying of pipelines for the conveyance of any product or material. The amendments in clause 4 are consequential upon the increase in railway fares, goods tariffs, and miscellaneous costs as from 1st September, 1966, and relate to the excess charge payable by passengers if they travel without a free pass or ticket, with an inadequate pass or ticket, or beyond the authorized distance. Clause 6 relates to the alteration of the route of the proposed new railway line between Vryheid and Empangeni, which has already been approved by Parliament. Hon. members will see from the report of the Railway and Harbour Board that has been tabled, that as a result of the progress made with the planning of the Richard’s Bay area and in view of the particulars which have since become available as a result, it became necessary to take the railway facilities for the area into consideration. It was found that, owing to the changed conditions, the route originally planned for the railway line between Vryheid and Empangeni would no longer, as a whole, fit in with the development of the area concerned. Consequently it is suggested for the consideration of Parliament that the route of the railway line concerned be altered so as to fit in with the changed circumstances. In clause 7 provision is made for the confirmation of certain changes in the conditions of employment of the staff which were introduced with retrospective effect by way of regulation.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for his exposition, but I am afraid that it is not quite satisfactory. We should not like to oppose this Bill, because it is an administrative Bill which is probably necessary to enable the Administration to do certain things, but I feel that we are entitled to more information than we received, either from the explanatory memorandum or from this little speech made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Therefore I immediately want to ask him a few questions about matters on which I had hoped he would enlighten us in his introductory speech. There can of course be no objection to our extending the powers of the Administration by authorizing them to lay pipelines through which it will be possible to convey goods other than petroleum products and other liquids. I think it is quite right that provision should also be made for solids, liquids, gases and so on, because the experience of other countries has shown that this can be a very efficient and inexpensive form of conveyance. It would have been interesting, and at the same time it would have helped Parliament in deciding about this matter, if the Deputy Minister had told us, for example, from where to where he had in mind that these goods should be conveyed. Is this pipeline for the conveyance of manganese and iron ore? I think that Parliament is entitled to have this information, and if, for example, it is manganese or iron ore, which are mined in the dry parts of South Africa, the hon. the Deputy Minister might have told us by means of which liquid it is to be conveyed, and if that liquid is water, where the water is to come from. If the conveying agent is to be water, he might have told us whether he intends to re-use the water. This, of course, is essential in South Africa to-day, that is, that we must learn that we have to use water not only once, but over and over again. I think it would have been more interesting, and it would have been more respectful towards this Parliament, if the Administration, and particularly the hon. the Deputy Minister, had furnished this information. Clause 4 of the Bill provides, for example, that an increase is to be made in the excess charge that is levied if someone gets onto a train without a ticket. All of us who know something about the South African Railways, know that this applies mainly to Bantu. Now and then it happens that a member of Parliament gets onto a train without his ticket, but that is simply carelessness. However, there are thousands upon thousands of Bantu who, owing to ignorance or to a more sinister motive, get onto a train without a ticket, but is the hon. the Deputy Minister satisfied that he will be able to administer this Bill effectively in the case of Bantu? There are members on this side of the House who will in a moment, or perhaps when the discussion is resumed, speak from their own experience about what they have seen on Bantu trains, or on trains conveying Bantu passengers mainly. They will be able to convince the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is virtually impossible for a conductor to apply this clause of the Bill. It would have been interesting to us if the hon. the Deputy Minister had told us, and it will still be interesting to us if he will tell us when he replies, especially after the information that will be furnished by other hon. members here, what hope there is of applying this clause. We have nothing against the clause in principle. Railway tariffs have increased over the years, because the value of money decreased, and therefore it is quite fair and justified that this specific excess charge should be increased, merely on account of the decrease in the value of money.

Which is always decreasing under this Government.

Yes, of course, It forms part of this Government’s policy.

Order! The hon. member should not pay attention to all the interjections that are made. They are not relevant.

This is the point I am making myself, Mr. Speaker. We cannot oppose this clause, because the value of money is decreasing so constantly that adjustments inevitably have to be made. It is of course part of the Government’s policy. I now come to clause 6, which is really a surprising clause.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

I wish to move the motion standing in my name—

1. (1) cheaper and more efficient mass transportation needs including the possibility of monorail or underground services;
2. (2) adequate subsidization of urban authorities; and
3. (3) other financial assistance to provincial and local authorities.

Contrary to what was about to be said to the hon. the Deputy Minister, when the last debate was adjourned. I want to remark that this is a very rare occasion on which I really believe that he and I are going to agree. [Interjections.] I had some doubts about it, and I wondered whether perhaps I was wrong; when I studied my motion I thought that perhaps I should have said that we deplored the inadequacy of the Government, but the motion does not say that. It deplores the inadequacy of transport facilities in our 20th century cities. I think the case is so unarguable that the Deputy Minister is going to agree with it. It is unarguable because we have a tangible and visible and an urgent need for an assault on the problem of mass removal of people in our cities. In fact, we have this demonstration twice daily in every city of South Africa. We have it every morning, and we have it every afternoon, with people going to and from their work, and there is no city in South Africa which has escaped it. We have traffic jams, we have delays, we have hold-ups, and we have the effect on nerves and on tempers, with the result that we have accidents. There is one stretch, for instance, leading into Durban where I saw the other day there had been 37 accidents in a matter of a few months, simply because of traffic jams. There is nothing wrong with the road; it is just a point at which traffic concertinas and you get the accidents. So twice a day in every city you have the visible evidence that we have a problem which had to be attacked immediately and with imagination.

Not only can we see it, but I think perhaps it would be as well if I looked for a moment to the statistics upon which I base this demonstrable need for an investigation into mass transport. It is not only time to face this issue; I think we have passed the time when we should have faced it, because the problem has become a very much greater one through the delay in attacking it, and with every year that passes it becomes even more and more difficult and expensive. Durban, for instance, as a city has just spent thousands of rands on traffic consultants to draw up a plan. When they presented that plan people looked at the figure of the cost with horror. Immediately you had people saying: This is impracticable and unrealistic. I read the other day a controversy in a Sunday newspaper over the 16 years of delay in dealing with the Pretoria-Johannesburg freeway. The Durban-Western freeway was held up for years because of delays and arguments over subsidies, and each of these delays makes the problem more difficult and the cost much higher; and it is now going to cost double or treble, or ten times as much, what it would have cost had we tackled this problem long ago. Therefore this appeal I make in this motion for an urgent inquiry relates to a matter which, if delayed at all, will add further to the cost, not only in the expropriation of buildings and land which are appreciating in value, but in the cost of the construction work itself. All I have dealt with so far has touched on only one small aspect of the problem of mass transport.

Let us look at our population figures. The Witwatersrand has grown from, roughly, ½ million population in 1921 to 1 million in 1936, to 1¾ million in 1951, and to over 2 million in 1960. In Cape Town a similar increase took place, although not quite so big. Durban grew from 168,000 to 680,000 people. Pretoria grew from 74,000 to 420,000, with this growth accelerating in recent years, from 1951 onwards. With this we have had the growth in private and public vehicles on the road. If we think that at the time when Johannesburg had ½ million people there were only 40,000 motor vehicles registered in the whole of South Africa, which grew until in 1958, when Johannesburg had nearly 2 million people, there were 1 million vehicles, then we realize what growth took place. From 1958 to 1967, in those nine years alone, it grew from 1 million to 1.8 million registered motor vehicles on the road. If we compare the growth of population with the growth of vehicles, we find that vehicular road traffic has grown at a far greater rate than public transport. I do not want to bore the House with a lot of figures, but I have taken out the figures relating to the S.A. Railways’ suburban traffic. Cape Town has gone up from 1940 with 47 million to 1965, with 102 million, and in 1967, 107 million. In Durban there has been a steady increase, except when the line was installed to Kwa Mashu, and similarly on the Witwatersrand there was a steady growth except when the Soweto line was installed. But if you look at the population, the vehicles and the public transport, you find that the trend has been for people to move on to the roads and that the public transport has not kept pace with vehicular traffic. There is only one reason for that, namely that public transport is not attractive to the average user. If you see the motor-cars nose to tail with one passenger in each car, spending far more on driving themselves in to business each day in his own car than he would have to spend on public transport, you realize that the only reason why he does it is because it is more convenient. Neither local authority transport, nor the S.A. Railways’ suburban transport, is meeting the demands of the public.

If you look at these figures again of public transport, you find that over three-quarters is for Bantu passengers, and roughly a quarter is for white or second-class passengers. But about three-quarters of the traffic is third-class traffic, and this again affects the numbers of vehicles on the roads.

Now, this is the background against which any investigation into the mass transport movement of people in our cities would have to take place, a background in which at present roads are choked with traffic, and yet the Government has withdrawn its subsidies on urban freeways within our cities. I accept that ring roads, the subsidy on which has not been withdrawn, are an important factor in the problem, but I still believe that the subsidy on urban freeways should be retained, because no matter what we do to provide public transport we will still have the motor traffic problem. I do not believe it is the right approach to say that because freeways are pumping vehicles into the cities, like a 10-inch pipe suddenly being reduced to a 2-inch pipe, so to say, with a solid stream being pushed into narrower streets, therefore you should stop freeways. We should expedite ring roads and we should take other measures to deal with the problem in the cities, but we should not stop the building of the freeways themselves because they are vital to the smooth flow of traffic. If you again take my own city of Durban, you have the freeways bringing the traffic in, but the ring roads lag years behind. The progress is so slow that even the effect of those ring roads is not being brought to bear, despite the decisions to build them. It all comes back to this question of continuously putting off the problem because of the expenditure. In the meantime each delay is costing South Africa and the taxpayer in the country additional thousands and millions of rands for every year that this urgent work is delayed. I do not want to deal in detail with the financial problem. I have colleagues who will deal with the details flowing from this motion. I therefore want to paint only the broad pattern of the problem of delays and the problem of financing that goes with them.

We should be getting people off the roads and if we want to do that we have two alternatives. Either we must go down underground, or we must go up. I believe it is perhaps, in our present cities, too late to think in terms of subways. I do not know how many hon. members saw the city of Frankfort whilst it was installing its subway system. It created untold congestion and mess. Whole buildings had to be demolished, and whole sections of streets closed, and year after year this has gone on, trying to superimpose a subway system on an existing system. Anyone who has tried to drive in that city, as I tried to do some four years ago, found himself going round and round in circles, and all you bump into is “Road Closed” signs and more subway work. So I think perhaps subways may be too late for our present-day cities, but I believe that the hon. the Minister of Planning, in any planning for future cities, should make provision and leave open space for subways to be incorporated into that plan; because obviously when the populations get to the right figure, that is the easiest way of moving people en masse.

But I think there is also another direction, that of looking upwards towards the monorail system. Our existing ordinary surface train system is limited to topography; it is limited to the layout of suburbs. For instance, Cape Town can use the system with effect, as the figures show. Cape Town has 107 million suburban transport journeys against 41 million in Durban, and only 238 million on the whole of the Witwatersrand. Where your layout is along a straight line, a suburban train system can play a part. But the monorail system could be installed in nearly all our cities where it is not possible to use the normal train service. I have had a look at the monorail planning for the 1970 World Exposition in Japan. I am quite happy to send this over to the Minister to look at. It is all written in Japanese, but I will tell him a little about it. He can read it from the back while I read it from the front, because I believe your read backwards in Japanese. This monorail service carries 270 persons per car, and there are four cars per train, which means that it can move 1,080 persons at a time. The installation which they are using at this World Exposition is anticipated to carry 25,920 persons per hour to do a 2¾-mile or 4.3-kilometre track in 2½ minutes. In other words, faster than a mile a minute, with no driver and no staff on the train at all, operated entirely automatically, with entry from stations which can be controlled. Without going into the technical data, I mention this to show what is happening to-day. This, admittedly, is a special monorail being built for a special purpose, but in Japan this has grown from the use of monorails for normal commercial purposes, monorails which can be built, for instance, on a pylon of less than a metre, less than a yard, in diameter. In other words, it can be put down the centre of an ordinary road. Just as you have your lamp post down the centre of a two-lane road, so you could put your pylons with your monorails running on top of it. It can climb a gradient of up to 55 per cent and it can turn in 60 metres. In other words, it is flexible enough to use in fairly uneven cities; it is small enough at its base to take it up above the traffic on your normal routes without any necessity for demolition. I have not been there, but from literature and information I understand that in Japan many of the stations are in fact on the first floors of buildings; that they open directly off the monorail, into upper storeys of buildings, into offices, into shopping centres and so on. I believe that this form of transport is one to which we have not given sufficient attention and sufficient investigation as to its practical potential. I do not pretend to be an expert on the cost factor or on the engineering factor, but there are engineers who have claimed that they can produce a monorail transport system at a lower cost than the cost of building an ordinary public highway. These are rubber-track vehicles, electrically driven; they are smooth and easy to handle and control. As I say, on the Japanese monorail there is no staff provided at all. It is entirely controlled from a central point.

This sort of transport system is one which I believe could help to take many thousands of present motorists off the highways. You will never get them all off; you will never clear our roads entirely; that is impossible. Many people have to have their cars for their day-to-day work. But there are tens of thousands of others who in fact, if there was an efficient, cheap and reliable service, would turn towards it. Sir, all this motion asks for is an investigation into these problems with a view to seeking a solution and with a view to seeking better co-ordination of our transport resources. We have had the Marais Commission, which has reported but whose report is not yet available, and that may to some extent deal with co-ordination between local authorities and the railway services. But that was not a commission designed to investigate in detail the problem of urban transport. It was a national transport co-ordination investigation. Such a commission, if appointed, would have at its disposal a tremendous amount of data already collected. Durban, for instance, could make available to it immediately the complete calculations and efforts of its transportation consultants. The results of an investigation, which has taken two years or more to complete, would be available to an investigating committee immediately, without cost and without effort. Similarly the results of all the other investigations done by all the other cities of South Africa would be available. It is a question of putting that information together, investigating the question of practicability, investigating the question of finance and working out a system of co-ordination and administration. The question of co-ordination is a matter which will be dealt with by colleagues of mine on this side of the House in more detail. It is a matter of importance. It is no use having efficient systems unless you have proper coordinating machinery to tie them together. I will not deal at this stage with the details of the possibilities there.

If I may sum up, Sir, here we have a four-pronged problem. We know that there is a need; the need is visible and it is urgent. It affects rail, road and local authorities, and it affects in particular the financial relationship between the Central Government, the provincial and the local authorities. Those are the four factors which I believe require urgent investigation, and I hope that we are not going to have any vague generalization but a real acceptance from the hon. the Minister of this as an urgent national matter, a matter which we cannot afford to play around with any longer, a matter that we must tackle immediately this year in order to avoid this tragic postponement of decisions, which is taking place on such a big scale in all our cities. The only city which really can hold up its head is the city in which this House is situated, the City of Cape Town. I think Cape Town’s highways and its suburban train service are an example to South Africa—the train service because of the convenient lay-out of the suburbs, and the urban freeways because of the efforts of the Cape Town City Council but, more than that, because of the financial support that it has been able to receive from the province, from the Divisional Council and from the Central Government. They have got the money and they have got on with the job. Other cities have not enjoyed that advantage. Cape Town has had subsidies from three sources. Durban for a long time battled to get more than just the National Transport subsidy. Eventually the province was able to contribute. But the problem has been one of finance and Cape Town has shown what can be done. It is not finished yet; it has a long way to go, but it has shown that something can be done if it is tackled. Sir, my plea is that we should investigate and tackle this matter on a national scale as a matter of primary importance, so that by the end of this century we do not find ourselves completely throttled by traffic which cannot move and people who cannot get to work.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) moved his motion in a way altogether different from its appearance in writing. None of us here to-day want to claim that the transport facilities, especially in our large cities, cannot be improved upon. We know that in many places it still leaves much to be desired. It is a question which this side of the House is most certainly not indifferent to. Whether a commission should be appointed to investigate this aspect I leave to the judgment of the hon. the Minister. I merely want to refer here to the commission of inquiry which already exists and which the hon. member mentioned, i.e. the expert commission under the chairmanship of Dr. Dawie Marais, which is investigating the entire question of transport co-ordination in South Africa. This is actually the correct point of departure. The present pattern of urban traffic is a three-fold pattern; the use of private motor cars, local public transport services and the national transport service, i.e. the Railways. Co-ordination for the maximum utilization of these existing services is of the utmost importance. I think that if we could bring about co-ordination between the various services in this field, we would already have progressed far in solving the existing problem. The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised this aspect and said that his colleagues would go into this matter further, but in his motion there is no mention anywhere of this question of co-ordination of services. Therefore I want to mention here that this question of a linkage between the various services is important. Sir, in saying that we are not indifferent to these matters, I must say to the hon. member that we must understand one another very well: The Railways, the national transport service, has a certain task within this framework, chiefly to convey people to the centre of town, but the transportation of people in the urban areas themselves is the basic task of the local authorities. The local authorities and the United Party and their Press are very particular that one should not encroach upon their terrain. We saw this last week when the hon. member for Middelburg moved a motion here. The Cape Times was immediately up in arms because the terrain of the local authorities was being trespassed upon. What the hon. member for Durban (Point) states in his motion and what he has just said are two different things. What is contained in his motion is no more than an attack on the administrations of the large cities of our country. To-day he was actually engaged here in introducing a motion of no confidence against the large city councils of Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town which are controlled by United Party supporters.

You will play politics with anything.

I just want to tell the hon. member what he actually did here. He bewailed the inability of those city councils to do this matter justice. He is now indicting them before the Government and requesting the Government to take the task out of their hands and seek a solution.

Where must they get the money? The Borckenhagen Commission has already been sitting for seven years. *

Mr. Speaker, I now come back to the motion itself. The national transport service, as I said, has a task in this connection. Its portion of the task is to convey the people to the centre of the city, and in that respect we may say with every justification and pride that the national transport service carries out its portion of the task exceptionally well. I do not want to go into particulars. The hon. member for Randburg, who will support me on this side of the House, will supply the particulars to hon. members. You know, Sir, how the Railways has spent millions upon millions of rand to improve its suburban train services to the maximum of efficiency. Just to give you an idea of the extent of the activities of the S.A. Railways in our large cities, I want to mention here that in Pretoria, Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town an average of 2,600 trains are handled each day, at these four stations alone. The report of the Schumann Commission indicated that on these services the Railways suffered a loss of at least R40 million a year. What is that other than a contribution, a subsidy, to make efficient suburban traffic available? What is more, the State, on the other hand, has an agreement with the Railways that it will carry the responsibility for every loss which is suffered on Bantu services to resettlement areas. On those services the State subsidizes the Bantu passengers to the tune of about R12 million a year; in other words, the State spends an additional R12 million a year to supply cheap, efficient services for suburban Bantu passengers. I merely mention these two cases to indicate the part played by the national transport service.

I specially want to dwell now for a moment on a few other possibilities which the hon. member mentioned here as solutions for the problem. He mentioned the question of mono-rails, overhead railway lines, giving Japan as an example. The matter has already been investigated by the Johannesburg City Council. I just do not know what happened to the investigation. The hon. member spoke about delays in other spheres and he could perhaps merely have told us what his City Council in Johannesburg found out after they had conducted the investigation. I read in the Rand Daily Mail of 22nd June, 1966, under the heading “Aid on monorail”, the following—

Mr. Oberholzer is a United Party M.P.C. and I believe a really formidable United Party member in the Johannesburg City Council. Certain of the recommendations were—

In other words, this old United Party motion which was moved in the Johannesburg City Council is therefore to-day merely being dished up part and parcel to us here again. The matter has apparently now been investigated by the Johannesburg City Council. I also read in a subsequent issue of the same newspaper under the heading “New study to be made of monorail plan”, the following—

Then it was given to the organizers and planners of the Johannesburg City Council and that is now the end of the story.

What is the date of that article?

The date is 16th June, 1966. Since then we have not heard of the matter again. Apparently the Johannesburg City Council came to their senses and simply dropped this matter like a hot potato. If the hon. member has other information from the City Council he may tell us about it. But he mentioned the Japan or Tokyo monorail here as a specific example of how efficiently the overhead line could work. A few days later I read once more in the Rand Daily Mail of 20th June, 1966, that “Tokyo’s monorail is not all that smooth”. But I can comprehend that the hon. member understood nothing of his brochure because it was written in Japanese. The article in the Mail reads as follows—

That one is worth nothing. The fact of the matter is this, as the article goes on to state—*

The Tokyo monorail is slow, rumbling and cumbersome, not well patronized and certainly no asset.

Now, why does the hon. member want to come along and commend something like this to us as an example. Getting away from the Rand Daily Mail now, I come to an article in the Railway Gazette of 1st January, 1965. That is quite a few years back. An article appeared there under the title “Monorail mania”, and the editor who wrote this article said that this story of overhead railway lines had now become a mania with people, and that every town planner who is instructed to lay out a new municipal area and who wants to prove that he has mastered the most modern and enlightened concepts in connection with town planning, now includes a monorail in his scheme. That is what is stated in this article. It goes on to state—

This man, therefore, after a well-considered article, comes to the conclusion that this affair does not solve anything. But, neither are our Railways as stupid as the hon. member thinks they are. This matter has already been investigated by the South African Railways. On 20th August, 1964, the Minister of Transport announced certain schemes contemplated in connection with extensions to the Railways. In an article it is stated that the hon. the Minister of Transport said the following—

That is what the Minister said. This investigation which the Railways instituted in connection with this monorail system brought to light certain deficiencies. The first was that the aerial rail system had not been thoroughly proved. Secondly it cannot be easily integrated with the existing railway system. Thirdly, it is more difficult to provide by-passes in cases of blockages than is the case with the conventional railway system. That is what I wanted to say in respect of these overhead lines. I do not think that the time is now right for South Africa to afford such luxuries.

It is still hanging in the air.

Yes, the thing is still hanging in the air.

Does the Rand Daily Mail now do your thinking for you?

No, I now quoted the hon. the Minister. Then the hon. member also spoke here of underground trains or underground services. He himself came to the conclusion that it was out of the question for South Africa’s old cities. It has been proven in practice that it does not pay to tackle an extensive scheme for an already constructed city with fewer than 5 million people—new cities are quite a different matter. I also have here an article about the problem which exists in other countries in respect of underground railway systems. The greatest problem there is to be able to feed these systems properly. I have here an article written by Mr. Gabriel Bouladon in which he explains the problem of supplying this underground system with a steady flow of passengers. Mr. Bouladon is chief of the engineering division of the Batelle Institute in Geneva. I cannot quote everything at present, but in this well-considered article the following is stated—

Consequently this matter is also one which ought to be considered seriously before we tackle it. And the hon. member also suggested another solution in which he actually criticized the Department for its decision no longer to subsidize expressways. A psychosis has also developed that by means of this expressways and such roads one can now wipe out all these problems as if by magic. Informed people tell you that it is not a long-term solution. Usually one cannot plan far in advance for such a great road. One can hardly plan such a scheme 20 years ahead of schedule. It then takes one several years to construct such an expressway. And, by the time one has constructed the expressway, one’s problem is that there is once more sufficient traffic to overload it. But that was not my idea in the first instance. I want to read to you what Dr. P. J. Rigden had to say in this connection. He is director of the National Road Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. In an article in the Commercial Opinion of December, 1967, he stated the following—

I leave the matter there. We must have these conveniences, but after exhaustive investigation the Department made well-considered decisions in this connection.

The hon. member rightly said that there is a continual concentration of our people in the cities. Professor Sadie of Stellenbosch calculates that in 1970 almost 90 per cent of our country’s total white population will live in the cities. In 1960 the percentage was 84 and in 1951 it was 79. 44 per cent of them live in our four large cities which I mentioned a moment ago. The tendency with our nonwhite population is the same. In 1961 33 per cent of the million vehicles in South Africa were registered in these four large cities, and in 1967, 559,000 of them—that is 30 per cent of the total number of vehicles—were registered in these four large centres. The C.S.I.R. calculated that in 1967 8,700 million motor-vehicle-miles were travelled in our cities. This indicates to us what a tremendous task it continually is to keep pace with this mass of traffic.

There is no reason why we should not give our attention to this matter.

What must we do?

I do not have much time, but I shall mention a few things. As far as I am concerned, the following matters must receive a little attention for greater efficiency in respect of our suburban transport. In the first instance we must make much better use of the existing roads and streets in our cities by applying the most practical and modern methods of traffic control. I do not have enough time to elaborate on this point. In the second instance, we must see to it that, in town planning and in the re-planning of towns, the public transport aspect is not lost sight of, because our traffic problems often originate in the lay-out of our towns. We must bear in mind that the further the worker lives from the centre of town, the further the residential areas are, the greater are the problems in respect of transport services. In the third place we must, as far as it is practically possible, decentralize our business and industrial areas in our large city complexes and remove them to places where more parking facilities can be provided. At the same time we can thereby relieve the traffic density on our existing roads and streets. In the fourth place we must purposefully control and restrict certain types of traffic and certain vehicles on certain streets and roads. Fifthly, we must encourage our public to travel by motor car up to a certain point, where they can make use of public transport, instead of travelling right into the city by motor car. But then we must ensure that there are decent parking facilities at those outlying changeover points. Therefore we must consider constructing parking parkades at our suburban stations and at our bus termini rather than in the centre of town. Lastly I want to put this idea forward for consideration. In the large, distant outskirts of our cities, where the people have greater reason to travel into the city by motor car, satisfactory bus services must be instituted. The local authorities must meet their obligations more effectively in respect of the provision of transport for the inhabitants. They must institute regular, smaller bus services on the outskirts, and the function of these services must be to take people to the public transport points. These services can never be instituted on an economic basis, but the city councils must not be concerned with what they can make out of these kinds of services and whether they can be instituted economically. No, they must regard it as an obligation towards their local inhabitants and towards the greater city complex, to relieve the general transport problem.

I think my time has now expired. I want to conclude by saying that everything the hon. member mentioned in his motion is not unacceptable; in fact, we on this side are not at all unsympathetic towards this matter.

We are interested in what you said. Will you now tell us where we are going to obtain the manpower to man these numerous small bus services?

Mr. Speaker, we need a great deal more manpower to build these monorails and underground systems. If we can obtain people for that, we can also obtain them for these bus services.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parow commenced to deal with this motion in an objective and, I thought, constructive way, but then turned aside to make suggestions that three of the country’s cities had neglected to do the necessary planning and had not fulfilled their responsibilities in regard to the matter now under discussion. I do not want to follow on that line, but I should like him to know that Pretoria is also a city faced with this great problem. It has a scheme for road development which it is estimated will cost some R70 million, and that city, I take it, is not controlled by what the hon. member calls a “Sap” council. Yet they are only now thinking about road planning. I mention that merely in passing the show how childish the hon. member was when he tried to make some local authority propaganda out of this motion.

The trouble which I see, is this. The local authorities of the old established cities cannot possibly out of their own resources modernize their road systems. In a report which I saw recently the Department of Transport estimated the construction cost of a through road in one of our major cities to be on an average R5 million per mile. That includes the cost of expropriation and construction.

And more.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says “and more”. If that is so, how can the local authority of an old established city meet those costs out of its own ratepayers’ pockets? I will come back to this aspect a little later.

At this stage I want to develop the theme which the hon. member for Parow commenced to discuss, and that is the necessity for coordination of transport facilities, co-ordination which is becoming more and more necessary. It is as well that we should remind ourselves that in 1948 when the National Transport Commission was established in terms of the Transport Co-ordination Act, that commission was charged with taking over the responsibilities of the National Road Board, which had been established in 1935, of the Central Road Transportation Board, which had been established in 1930, and also to take over the responsibilities of the Civil Aviation Council. That was planned in 1948. One must look to see whether that commission has in fact achieved the co-ordination which is necessary. I venture to suggest that because of the rapid development in this country of ours, including the rapid development in the field of transport, the commission is faced with a well-nigh impossible task as it is now established. It not only has to take over the control of national roads and road-building of all types, but it also has to control motor carrier transportation, and it also has the added responsibility of controlling civil aviation to a great extent. I want to suggest it is quite impossible for one commission to deal with all these various forms of transport and at the same time to plan the actual co-ordination. My view is the time is now ripe that apart from a co-ordinating body, there should be small bodies of experts to deal with the actual control of those various sections of transport, in a coordinated manner. The hon. member was correct when he said that it was in the 1948 Act that the purpose of the commission should be the achievement of the maximum benefit and economy of transport services to the public. This is a matter which I believe deserves consideration and investigation. The purpose of the motion moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point) is to look at the entire field of transport. I want to emphasize that, to look at the field of transport purely in regard to road and air transport, is not enough. This commission should look into the matter and include Railway transport, which is not now in the hands of the National Transport Commission. I believe that, if there is to be proper co-ordination and if the maximum benefit to the country is to be derived from the investigation, Railway transport must be co-ordinated into and under the same umbrella that covers co-ordination of road transport, air transport, water transport, pipeline transport and any other type of transport which might be visualized. I believe that this board should be empowered and obliged to reconcile the conflicting interests among the various forms of transport and to eliminate the waste caused by unhealthy competition between the different forms. The experts in the field of road planning, road construction, aviation, shipping and Railway services should be charged with the implementation of the overall co-ordinated planning.

So far as roads are concerned, the National Transport Commission to-day does not accept complete overall responsibility. We should remember that we have roads in different categories. We have the national roads, provincial roads, main roads and urban roads. But the co-ordination as well as the efficient and economic financing of these roads as a whole, as a composite picture, does, I believe, need to be looked into. I believe that urban through-ways or ringroads must be co-ordinated with national road access to any city. Perhaps the hon. the Minister in his reply will be able to tell us, as I understand it, that although there is a withdrawal of certain financial assistance so far as urban roads are concerned, the National Transport Commission is still to accept responsibility for subsidizing the construction of ring-roads and certain of the bypass through-roads or through-ways, as they are referred to. I think that those apply in various large cities. In 1962 it was realized that this co-ordination should take place. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that it was then that the power was given to the National Transport Commission to subsidize urban roadways.

I want to say just a word in regard to the position as it applies in so far as the cities are concerned. The advantage, for instance, in Cape Town of the excellent national road access to the city, and those which are in the course of improvement and development, will be completely lost to Cape Town if they are, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, to be in effect ten-inch pipes leading a flow into a city, which is going to be drained off in two-inch pipes. I believe that one already sees the effect resulting from the non-completion of certain aspects of Cape Town’s roads, namely the damming up of the traffic stream into the city at peak hours. That will become worse and worse, unless the city itself is able to proceed with the completion of the planned complex of roads. We in Cape Town are, as I have said, fortunate as regards the planning and the work which has been done over the years by the Municipality and the provincial engineers, and which was expedited, I must say, to a great extent by the construction of the Foreshore system and the planning that was necessary, including the linking up of road planning. Certain of these plans are still to be fulfilled.

But where is the finance to be found? I want to say that the private road users, namely road users other than the Railway Administration, have contributed considerable sums to the Consolidated Revenue Fund by way of customs and excise payments. The pattern has been consistent over the years, but I may just refer to the most recent one. The figures for the financial year 1967-’68 are most enlightening. The facts are that the Treasury received in respect of motor vehicles, motor parts, tyres, accessories, petrol and diesel fuel by way of customs duties R28,342,042, and by way of excise duty R116,629,395. That is a total of just on R145 million. This excludes the amount received from licence fees or any portion of the R15 million already made according to estimates by the Railways Administration on the pipeline for the first nine months of this year. How much of this R145 million have been used on roads? The figure is quite startling. I want to say that it is as parsimonious as it is startling, when one realizes that out of that contribution made by the motorist, whether for business or private purposes, out of the R145 million, less than R45 million was made available for road construction. The Government received into the Consolidated Revenue Fund a handsome profit out of the motorists to the extent of R100 million. I know this matter has been raised before, and we are referred to the subsidies and the grants to the provincial councils, the general grants and subsidies that are paid to them. But that is not an explanation and certainly not an explanation which covers this colossal difference between the amount contributed by the motorists and the amount which is actually made available for road construction. Now the city dwellers apparently have to pay for all the roads in the city. The city dweller, the man who owns property, whether he is a motorist or not, is now apparently to pay the total cost of urban roadways. The rates which are necessary to provide those urban roadways, must now be raised in respect of property owners in the towns and the cities.

As far as the rural population is concerned, there is certainly no chance of them expecting any reduction in so far as Divisional Council taxation is necessary for financing road construction. One wonders why this is necessary, because the motorist, the car user and the lorry user are paying more than enough to provide adequately for the cost of road construction. So I believe that if there is ever a reason which justifies the motion of the hon. member for Durban (Point), quite apart from those which he has mentioned and were underlined by the member for Parow, it is the lack of co-ordination and of proper use of the funds available for road construction for the purposes of road construction.

That does not appear in the motion.

It is a matter which has to be investigated because if we are to have adequate transport facilities and the efficiency which is required, that efficiency and that adequacy cannot be achieved unless there is an adequate road network. Adequate urban roadways are as much a national responsibility as they are the responsibility of the local authorities.

Mr. Speaker, both the mover of this motion and his supporter were somewhat disappointing in certain respects. Personally, I expected that the nature and particularly the motivation of the arguments to be advanced would have been more comprehensive as well as more convincing than they really were. I must honestly say that I found the arguments advanced by the mover of the motion fairly limited and shallow. When one has an experience such as this, one usually asks oneself what the motivation behind the motion really was. A few arguments arose both from his personal attitude and that of his supporters which I should very much like to investigate closer. The first argument concerns the question of the statement of fact that in our large cities the passenger transport services to as well as inside the cities are hopelessly inadequate to-day, a statement with which I, personally, cannot quite agree. In the second place, the argument was advanced that the co-ordination between public and local transport as represented by the Railways, the National Transport Commission and the local authorities, was poor, something with which I, personally, cannot quite agree either. In the third place, it was stated that consideration should be given to bringing about better cooperation and control as regards the financing of this complex project concerning the transport machinery, particularly as far as it may have a bearing on our major cities.

Mr. Speaker, by way of introduction, I cannot refrain from adopting the attitude and stating that, in my opinion, the motion before the House, which was introduced by the hon. member for Durban (Point), once more produces clear testimony of not being well-considered, as I have already said, and the misplaced standpoints which are typical of representatives on that side of the House. This motion suffers from a lack of content because the arguments and the facts advanced as proof thereof, were represented in a disjointed manner and were deliberately linked with political motives, as I shall show presently. Furthermore, they are misplaced because all knowledgeable members of this House know only too well that three different commissions have already been appointed to inquire into the matters raised by the mover of this motion. They are aware of this and for that reason I want to ask what the motive is. This matter is actually sub judice and we shall have to wait until we receive the decisions and considerations of the Government as regards those reports of the various commissions. The first commission was the Borckenhagen Commission of 1956, then we had the Schumann Commission in 1960 and the Marais Commission in 1965. The report of the most recent commission is not available yet, but it will be considered by the Government soon. If only the mover of the motion took the trouble to find out what the terms of reference of those three different commissions were, he would have decided straight away that his motion was irrelevant. The underlying motive of ambition—let me make this clear to the hon. member for Durban (Point)—namely his aim to become the deputy leader in Natal, stands out quite clearly in the framework of his entire address, and I doubt whether the father to the thought will achieve this time what he is seeking.

For the consideration of the mover of this motion and his supporters, I want to ask whether it is not the duty of the mover and of his supporters to act positively in the communities of which they are the leaders and whether they should not tell their supporters that they also have a responsibility and a duty towards the local community as well as towards the State in the wider sense of the word. Instead of doing this, their attitude is to try and find as many obstacles to place in the way of the Central Government. I just want to say how utterly regrettable this unfortunate anomaly is. The same will be said by any member of the United Party who has an objective approach if he means it well with his local community and his fatherland.

Mr. Speaker, let us have a closer look at the picture which is at issue here. The statement was specifically made here by way of implication that the Railways and the National Transport Commission were not in a position to provide, or are, indeed, not providing in the needs in that they were unable to provide the necessary transport facilities. During the financial year 1967-’68 altogether far more than 446 million suburban passengers were transported by the South African Railways. From the reports we deduce that the number of first- and second-class passengers on suburban train services decreased, and we deduce further that these services were not used to their full extent. However, the number of third-class passengers increased by more than 17 million. The fact that fewer trains ran during the year under review is mainly attributable to the strict control exercised by the Head Office in respect of special mainline trains as well as the curtailment of the suburban train services during week-ends as a measure of economy. The position is not anything approaching a surplus or a congestion as far as transport is concerned. We read of measures of economy and improved control with a view to economizing, in other words, not anything approaching maximum utilization. Mr. Speaker, we read further that in the Estimates for the current year provision is being made for an amount of almost R13 million in respect of suburban electric passenger coaches alone. This is proof of adjustment and co-ordination and of being well-informed of the needs of the time and the services which are expected of a public undertaking such as the Railways. In addition, the following subsidies were paid by the Department of Bantu Administration in the under-mentioned urban areas in the interests of the resettlement of Bantu: Johannesburg, R5 million; Durban, R2 million; Cape Town, R3 million and Pretoria, R2 million. This is proof of a realization, an obligation and a willingness to accept responsibility in connection with this essential service, in the first place in the interests of commerce and industry but, in the last instance, in the interests of the urban areas which are concerned here.

But on whose behalf are you replying now, Hans?

On your behalf. The hon. member for Durban (Point) alleged that the service was inadequate, and I am furnishing proof that what was at issue, was not the statement made in his motion, but other motives, motives which I have already referred to.

In addition, during the past year the National Transport Commission paid subsidies to the same areas, the cities which are, unfortunately, suffering, and those subsidies were also paid in the interests of commerce and industry and the private sector. An amount of R654,000 was paid to Johannesburg; to Durban, R590.000; to Cape Town, R9,000; to Pretoria, R146,000 and to Germiston, R167,000. I take it that this is further proof of the indifference and the lack of coordination between the National Transport Commission and the Railways as regards the necessity for these services, as was alleged by the mover of the motion.

I now come to the example of the realization of responsibility on the part of these cities themselves. Where do they stand in this struggle as against these proofs furnished by the State? Last year the public transport services in Durban incurred a loss of R620,000; Johannesburg suffered a loss of R1,260,000; East London, R220,000 and Pietermaritzburg, R138,000. This is proof of their responsibility towards the ratepayers, and may I make an exception in this connection in the case of the local authority of Cape Town, which did not suffer any loss, but which displayed the management initiative, the keyword to success, and left transport to private initiative as a result of which a net income of R76,000 in respect of commission was paid into its coffers. The hon. member for Durban (Point) will do well to use this small broom he used to-day to sweep in front of the doors of the National Transport Commission and the Central Government, to sweep in front of the doors of the local authorities of Johannesburg and Durban. It is time that they should realize what their duties and responsibilities are and that they are also called upon to display the management initiative and the originality and to contribute towards the solution of this problem.

I go further. I just want to touch briefly on the question of free-ways of which we have heard so much. It has already become evident that the National Transport Commission is under no obligation to contribute towards the construction of urban free-ways, and it is laid down by law that the National Transport Commission may, in its discretion, defray all or part of the cost of such roads from the Road Fund—there is no misunderstanding in this connection. Why are some people so keen to demand more than that? All of us are well conversant with the origin of urban free-ways, and for this reason I do not want to deal with the matter in detail. However, it seems to me that, in spite of serious warnings issued in connection with the excessively high cost of urban freeway schemes, local authorities have nevertheless initiated such schemes which caused them to land into financial difficulties in respect of which we had to listen to a great deal of misplaced excuses. As a result of the great deal of pressure that was brought to bear upon the Commission, it was compelled several years ago to start contributing towards a portion of the cost of urban freeways and the Commission undertook to make available from the Road Fund the under-mentioned amounts for this purpose for a period of time: Durban, R10 million; Port Elizabeth, R5 million; Johannesburg, R15 million; Pretoria, R10 million and Cape Town, R11 million. I know that the estimated cost was far more than these amounts. To quote round figures, the estimated cost in respect of Durban was R25 million; Port Elizabeth, R14 million and Johannesburg, R42 million, but as far as Cape Town is concerned, it should be pointed out that no comprehensive scheme was submitted initially and that various projects were subsidized separately. The Commission contributed an amount of approximately R2.5 million towards these projects. The estimated cost of the comprehensive scheme which was approved recently, amounted to approximately R22 million and the Commission undertook to contribute an amount of R8.5 million, resulting in a total contribution of R11 million. This is proof of goodwill and of willingness to make a contribution and to be helpful, but what is the response on the part of the local authorities? Did they say, “Thank you for your contribution; we are prepared to do this, that and the other”? No, they demand as much as they can and, furthermore, they place as many obstacles as possible in the way as regards settlement of their claims. This is the new slogan of the super-South African alias the United Party members. With the exception of Cape Town, therefore, all the local authorities concerned are now insisting that the approved subsidies be increased, and it is time that we were given an indication as to what the attitude of the authorities in this connection is, and this indication was given by the hon. the Minister last year at the opening of the road named after him.

Furthermore, it is known that, according to information, the Provincial Administrations concerned made the following contributions towards these schemes: Johannesburg, 40 per cent of the contribution of the National Transport Commission, by the Transvaal Provincial Administration, which means R6 million; Durban, R2.5 million, or 25 per cent. It should be noted that this is less than any of the others; Pretoria, 40 per cent, or R4 million of the Commission’s contribution, and Cape Town, 80 per cent of the cost of the scheme.

Taking into consideration the increased estimated cost of the freeways schemes and bearing in mind the recent estimate provided by Professor Verburgh of the University of Stellenbosch, namely that an amount of R2,000 million will be needed during the next 20 years for the construction of roads in urban areas, it can hardly be described as anything but a bottomless well.

I want to conclude. Unfortunately I could not deal with all the points I should have liked to deal with. I want to refer to one other matter, namely the bypasses outside cities and towns. Although it was decided not to make available any increased subsidies for the construction of urban bypass schemes and to have nothing more to do with such schemes, it cannot, however, be suggested that the Commission is adopting an attitude of indifference towards the cities. This is my response towards that of the hon. member for Green Point a moment ago. I can only say that its ultimate aim is to relieve the traffic problem in the major cities and towns, and a total amount of R122 million was provided by the National Transport Commission for this purpose. Therefore, there is definitely not a lack of coordination. There is definitely not a lack of willingness to make a contribution. Something that does exist, is a lack of positive response on the side of some local authorities and particularly an unwillingness on their part to accept responsibility themselves together with the provinces and the Central Government, and I think that if the United Party and the mover of this motion have any duty, it will be the duty to inform their local authorities in this connection and to give positive guidance. When that happens we shall all find that this problem of ours is not as formidable and unsurmountable as was tried to make out in the House this afternoon.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) has put a very constructive motion before this House. I have listened to two speakers from that side of the House and I must be perfectly honest and say that I have never heard two more destructive speeches. The hon. member for Parow does not want to do anything at all. He is against monorails and he is against underground railways. In fact, he is against everything, and I think he would like to go back to the old ox-wagon days. Then we find my old colleague, the hon. member for Randburg, getting up and getting very upset at the fact that somebody dared to mention that the Railways were not providing an efficient service for the urban Bantu in South Africa. This really surprises me, because surely the hon. member must know that for some Bantu workers to get to their work in Johannesburg from Soweto, they have to get up at 4 a.m. in order to be at work at 8 a.m. Surely he knows, too, that the railway services are running a train every 2½ minutes during the peak time between Soweto and Johannesburg, and that this service has been proved to be entirely unsatisfactory, so much so that a very profitable Native pirate taxi service is operating between these two areas. I admit frankly that the Railways are doing their best to cope with a very difficult situation, but hon. members should not come along here and make statements in this regard that cannot be proved. Then the hon. member for Randburg seems to take a great deal of delight in showing that the internal transport services in Johannesburg are suffering a loss of more than R1 million, he mentions, too, in the same breath that the only transport undertaking showing a profit is the one in Cape Town, but of course he forgets to mention, very conveniently, that this is the only transport service that has not had to apply the Government policy of apartheid. Before we hear interjections from that side, let me tell him that a large part of Johannesburg’s loss can be ascribed to the fact that they have been applying the Government’s policy of apartheid faithfully. I will not spend very much more time on the hon. member for Randburg, because I am disappointed in him. He is an old colleague of mine, but I really feel that he made no contribution at all to this debate.

I prefer to regard the motion before the House as a timely and well-reasoned plea to the Government to recognize the urgency of finding ways and means of providing local authorities with funds so that they can provide the services needed for the people living in their cities. I would have thought that because of the vital role that mass transportation plays in the economy of the country to-day, this motion would have received the wholehearted support of both sides of the House. There can be no doubt that because of the unprecedented growth of the larger cities of South Africa over the past 20 years, the problem of providing adequate road systems and mass transport services from the revenue sources currently available to local authorities has assumed really alarming proportions and unless the Government can be prevailed upon to act very quickly and energetically in this matter, urban transport in South Africa is heading for certain chaos.

It would seem too that the long-awaited findings of the Borckenhagen and Schumann commissions of inquiry, which are expected to recommend forms of financial assistance from the Central Government to the local and provincial authorities, will not have any effect on the 1969-’70 Budget. We see, therefore, that no immediate relief can be expected from this particular source. It is very difficult to understand, having in mind the urgent nature of the problem facing local authorities, how the Government has been able to sit on these reports for more than a year, especially when we know that it has taken the commissions concerned more than ten years to complete their work. Sir, although the provision of adequate road and transport systems is a national problem to-day and effects every major city in South Africa, I feel that the position of Johannesburg is particularly disturbing. I want to raise this matter specifically, and I do not do this in any spirit of provincialism. It is becoming clearer by the day that Johannesburg’s 90,000 ratepavers cannot be expected to foot the back-breaking financial bill tied to the provision of adequate road and transport services indefinitely. Sir, to give you one example, figures show that the number of motor vehicles registered in the City of Johannesburg is increasing at the rate of 15,000 a year, and it is obvious that unless other sources of revenue become available to the council to keep pace with essential road development, a position of chaos must eventually result. Just like any other large city in South Africa, Johannesburg finds itself in a very invidious position. It knows what is needed. It has the planners who have planned ahead accordingly, but it now finds that it has to curtail essential development because of the lack of the necessary funds. What makes the position even more disturbing is that there is a feeling in Johannesburg—I think a justifiable feeling—that they are not receiving fair treatment in regard to finance from the province or the Central Government. They point out, for instance, that of the enormous income from motor-car licences, Johannesburg is allowed to keep only 16 per cent while the rest goes to the provincial authority. Surely, this income should be used by Johannesburg to finance its very, very urgent road and transport services. Sir, can any local authority be placed in a more difficult position in regard to its urban freeway programme than the City of Johannesburg? When the council decided about five years ago to embark on its freeway scheme, it did the correct thing; it discussed the matter very, very fully with the National Transport Commission and with the Transvaal Provincial authority. Both these bodies agreed with the council that a system of freeways was essential, not only as a solution to the city’s internal transport problem but also as through-ways serving travellers wanting to pass through Johannesburg from other parts of the country to their points of destination. One must assume that the Transport Commission and the provincial authority accepted the position that the building of these freeways should not be the responsibility of the Johannesburg City Council only, because we find that they in fact agreed to contribute R15 million and R6 million, respectively, towards the then estimated cost of R45 million. An agreement was drawn up between the three bodies, and although the agreement contained a protective clause indemnifying the commission and the province against having to provide any further funds for this scheme, there was an agreement between the parties that the door would be left open for further discussions should the need arise. The Johannesburg City Council now finds itself in the very difficult position that having embarked on the scheme which is in the national as well as in the local interests, they have to find an extra R18 million, which is the difference between the original estimate and the R63 million which the scheme will now cost. Let me say immediately that the increase in the cost cannot be placed at the door of the Johannesburg City Council. It has come about because of lengthy arbitration proceedings, and we all know that the longer you wait, the more the costs go up. We find now that the Council again does the correct thing; it approaches the province and the commission and asks, I think very fairly, that they should contribute a further amount in proportion to their first allocation, and what do we find? The request is not only turned down but the Transport Commission makes the surprising statement that in their opinion freeways are no longer necessary and that they would not help to solve Johannesburg’s transport problems. What a complete change of attitude, Sir. Under these circumstances can one blame Johannesburg for feeling that they have been treated very unfairly? It is a pity too that the Government itself remains adamant in its decision not to make money available from the National Road fund for the building of freeways, because this fund now has an accumulated surplus of R40 million standing to its credit. I believe some of this money should be used to assist local authorities to finance their very essential road building services. Sir, there can be no doubt that the crux of the matter to-day is that there is a degree of urgency. If the Government wants to assist local authorities to avoid chaotic road and transport conditions in the larger cities of South Africa, they will have to come out and help, and it is no good hon. members on that side saying that the responsibility for internal urban transport and roads must lie with the city council. We know that there is a limit to the amount of taxation that you can levy on ratepayers, and I honestly feel that the Government and the Minister in particular should give very serious consideration to the motion placed before the House by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I believe it is a very constructive motion and I have the greatest pleasure in associating myself with it.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) really used this motion in order to make a plea here for Johannesburg as such.

Why not?

His whole speech is nothing but a plea for Johannesburg. Sir, I want to put this question to the hon. member: When he was a Johannesburg city councillor and when, in 1961, Mr. Sporie van Rensburg introduced in the Johannesburg City Council a motion in which he requested that this monorail system and other systems be investigated with a view to coping with the future traffic problem in Johannesburg, why did that City Council not grant assistance at the time by starting such an investigation? Why did they have to wait five years, up to the present, before introducing a motion here in which they are asking for the same investigation for which that Nationalist asked in 1961? Surely, in that case the hon. member failed to meet his responsibilities as city councillor when at that time an objective proposal was introduced, i.e. that the Johannesburg traffic problems be investigated.

But we did have it done.

And he was mayor at the time.

No, in 1966 Mr. Oberholzer once again introduced a motion in which he asked for an enquiry, a request which had been rejected by the City Council in 1961. But enough of that; I shall come back later on to a few of the statements the hon. member made. In the first place, I want to say that I have no quarrel with the hon. member for Durban (Point) in as far as he deplores the inadequacy of our traffic facilities in certain cities; he is correct. In addition, I am glad that he did not try to lay the blame for that inadequacy at the door of the Government. However, some of his colleagues immediately pointed a finger at the Nationalist Government, the National Transport Commission and the Railways. I shall come to that accusation later on. The hon. member made, in the first instance, a certain statement here in order to prove how inadequate the traffic services are supposed to be. I do not want to make political capital out of this motion of the hon. member. I do not want to do what was done the other day when the hon. member for Middelburg introduced a motion here and when his motion eventually became nothing but a political football. One could make a great deal of political capital out of this; for instance, one could ask who the persons are who govern those cities where these problems exist, but what would one gain by levelling these accusations? Therefore I do not wish to drag politics into this matter. If politics have to be dragged into this matter, the United Party would find it easier to do so because they have a great deal of influence with some of these city councils, so much influence, for instance, that they tell Ismay that he is not good enough for the City Council and that he has to make way. But enough of that, Mr. Speaker. That would not solve anything.

The hon. member asked, firstly, for a commission of enquiry. But, surely, an exhaustive enquiry has been ordered. It is necessary for this House to take cognizance of the terms of reference of the Marais Commission. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) levelled the accusation here that the reports of the Borckenhagen and Schumann Commissions had been tabled a long time ago and that the Government was taking its time about them. But it was as a result of the reports of the Borckenhagen and Schumann Commissions and the anomalies they pointed out, that the Government considered the matter to be so important that it appointed the Marais Commission. What were the terms of reference of the Marais Commission? I just want to read out to you, Sir, that part which is relevant here (translation)—

1. (i) the role to be played by the various forms of transport, such as rail, road, air, pipeline and shipping, in the Republic of South Africa and the territory of South-West Africa so as to promote the development of the national economy in the most effective manner.

In other words, the terms of reference are so wide that an exhaustive investigation may also be made into all aspects of the matter, including industrial development in the cities and all other forms of development, with a view to finding the most effective solution. These are the terms of reference of the Marais Commission.

My motion is confined to the cities only; those terms of reference are much wider.

This urban economy forms part of the national economy. Our cities, our rural areas and our provinces do not develop separately from one another. The country develops as a whole and the cities are vital components in the development of the whole of South Africa, and because urban development forms part of development as a whole and because there is more and more industrial and economic development in and around the urban areas, the cities are very definitely included in this enquiry. Therefore I believe that the Marais Commission would have concentrated on this matter and will submit a report in this regard. Then I come to the second part of the Commission’s terms of reference—

1. (ii) the nature of the control measures and the administrative machinery which will be necessary for ensuring that the role assigned to each form of transport in terms of paragraph (i), will be played in the most effective manner, be it separately or by way of co-ordinating with one or more of the other forms of transport.

In other words, this commission of enquiry functions in a much more exhaustive manner and can submit a much wider report than would the commission requested here by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I think I can soothe his conscience with this.

I cannot go into this in detail.

Why is it not possible for you to go into this matter in detail? If a commission has to report on the co-ordination of all forms of transport, the latter would include those forms of transport which convey people, etc., from outside the cities into the cities themselves, as well as the distribution thereof; therefore it includes the co-ordination and integration of all forms of transport. It is not a separate organization. A moment ago the hon. member for Green Point said that he wants an overall co-ordinating body in this regard in order that we may have a “bird’s eye view” of the traffic system. After all, that is what this enquiry affords us, but the person who proposed this enquiry is no longer satisfied with his own proposal. That is why I say that the Government is aware of the dilemma in which the local authorities find themselves. It is aware of the financial inability of the local authorities and the administrations to do the necessary financing. Just as was done by the Borckenhagen and Schumann Commissions, this Marais Commission is enquiring into the financial implications of the financing of local authorities, etc. This commission is and has always been aware of these traffic problems. What is the factual position? The factual position is that the South African Railways are responsible for conveying the passengers from the suburbs to a central point in the urban area. By furnishing figures the hon. members for Parow and Randburg very clearly proved what the Railways were prepared to spend on that. In regard to this matter they also furnished the number of passengers conveyed by the Railways. Therefore I do not want to take up the time of the House by repeating these things, because I think these two hon. members made carefully prepared speeches in order to put those facts right. I want to add—and I do not want to repeat the figures the hon. member for Randburg mentioned in this regard—that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said that transport facilities for the Bantu of Soweto were inadequate. And yet he said that there was a train every 2½ minutes. The State is already granting—and I am not referring to train traffic, peri-urban traffic and the traffic on national roads—a subsidy to local authorities in respect of Bantu transport. I just want to mention to you, Sir, the case of Johannesburg, Pretoria, Germiston, Edenvale, Boksburg, Durban and Pinetown. In the year 1966-’67 the utility companies of these cities received a subsidy of more than R1,804,000 to meet their expenses.

The employers pay for it.

I am referring to the subsidy that was granted. If we add all the subsidies which have been made available to such companies, we arrive at the total amount of more than R2,300,000 for the year 1967-’68.

Is that the service levy?

I mention these things in order to point out that the local ratepayers, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) put it here, are not responsible for this, nor are they being asked to fend for themselves and meet the costs themselves. The Government contributes a great deal in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether that is the services’ levy being paid by the employer that the hon. the Deputy Minister is talking about?

No, not what is being paid by the employer. This is the subsidy granted by the Treasury.

I want to say at once that the hon. member for Parow made a very interesting proposal when he said that it was our duty to lay out peri-urban parking areas for the people of the suburbs so that they need not bring their cars into the city. The South African Railways tried this in the past by providing good parking facilities at suburban stations in an attempt to encourage people to leave their cars there and then to convey them to the central urban areas by train.

Many people make use of those facilities.

No, very few people make use of them. So few people made use of them that we have had to stop providing these facilities. The love of ease and snobbishness on the part of members of the public who drive to work in the mornings each in his own car, are such decisive factors that we fail to have regard to this bottleneck which we cause as a result. The Railways has been making use of this plan for a long time; in other words, the task of the Railways is to convey the passengers to the central area. After that it is the task of the local authorities to convey them further. I think that South Africa and this House cannot deny that up to the present the Railways has been performing its task in this regard very thoroughly, as was stated here by the hon. members for Randburg and Parow.

This problem is something of which several people are aware. The hon. member for Parow quoted from the Rand Daily Mail to show that Johannesburg had already investigated this matter. I do not want to repeat that. He also mentioned that the Rand Daily Mail published another article, after this enquiry in Johannesburg, in which it was said that the Japanese railways were not good enough. However, that was not all. I want to point out to you, Sir, that we ourselves, the South African Railways and the hon. the Minister, have investigated this matter time and again. I want to mention a few examples. In 1963 an investigation was made into what the hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned as the second leg of his speech, i.e. the sky railway or monorail. I just want to read out to you, Sir, a few findings from the report of an engineering commission which investigated this matter—

The report goes on to say—

If you turn back the pages of history, Sir, you would see that this type of transport has formed the subject of investigations since 1884. The rest of the world has never regarded it as an economic, paying and effective means of transport. I know that such a transport service was introduced on the occasion of the Olympic Games. However, it was only for conveying people to and fro over short distances. The conclusion this engineering commission arrived at in their investigation was as follows—

This is also applicable to Umlazi Township in Durban. They go on to mention the reasons why this would not be successful, in other words, this problem has already been investigated. I want to mention another example taken from a report on an investigation made into the same aspect in March, 1965—

You are now referring to new development where no problems are experienced in regard to expropriation. I am referring to the cities themselves.

This enquiry covered an urban area as well as a new development area, and it was found that “taking all factors into consideration and bearing in mind also that the overhead system despite experimentation over a period of more than a century”, it is simply not acceptable to the world as an economic, proper system of transport. The hon. member for Parow also referred exhaustively to the underground railway system, the alarmingly expensive system. Now I want to say this. If there are cities which want to introduce an underground railway system which can be integrated with our railway system, then that is a matter for the local authorities concerned. Having investigated the matter and considered the possibilities, the local authority must study the financial implications, and then it must determine to what extent it may make application to the State for the necessary subsidization, via the provincial administrations. But it is not the task of the S.A.R. or of the Government to force any city in South Africa to introduce an underground railway system or a local system of transport.

Hon. members opposite tried to make out a case that our subsidization was allegedly inadequate. The hon. member for Green Point did that and the hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned it in his motion and touched upon it briefly. Let us look at the various types of subsidization which we are undertaking. As regards urban freeways, the National Transport Commission has the power in terms of section 10ter of the National Roads Act of 1935, to finance and to subsidize, in part, freeways in urban areas, but then the Commission must also ascertain whether this would really solve the problem or whether this would not aggravate the problems of that urban area. I think what the legislature had in mind when the National Transport Commission was established, was that this Commission would be responsible for the construction of roads, in the first place, to take traffic from one point to another. The Commission is not responsible for financing and looking after the road-building programmes of the local authorities and the provincial administrations. Our Constitution makes provision for delegated powers and duties and responsibilities—and responsibilities go hand in hand with these powers—to be transferred to provincial councils, divisional councils or to other local authorities. As a result of pressure which was brought to bear upon it in the past, the Commission assisted in this financing, as was stated very clearly by the hon. member for Randburg. In a moment I shall say more about the figures he mentioned. An investigation was made and we arrived at the conclusion that the major national roads and freeways in our cities did not solve these urban problems. What do these roads do in actual fact? They bring traffic from outside the cities to the city itself, traffic which does not belong in the city or which did not want to go to the city. Consequently the Government has decided that we shall not carry on with this financing. For the purpose of the record we must put this matter right, for a wrong statement was made here. The Government has already granted R50 million towards the subsidization of these freeways. In addition to that it is spending an amount of R122 million. As the hon. member for Randburg explained, R172 million has been made available in respect of these urban freeways. I think it was the hon. member for Durban (Point) who complained because there had been a delay in the subsidization, because the National Transport Commission criticized the planning, etc.

No, I only said that there was a delay.

The accusation was levelled that the delay was attributable to the failure of the Transport Commission or whoever to reach finality.

Is that the reason you furnish?

No, this is the reason that was furnished on the opposite side. I want to say at once that the subsidies granted by the Transport Commission, were granted immediately after the local governments had submitted their road plans and after they had been approved. Certain representations were made in this regard. Certain cities were not interested at all and now, after the event, they want to come forward with new plans and they want assistance, something which of course we cannot consider. In other words, the Transport Commission was never responsible for any delay. Any delays that have occurred, are attributable to unsatisfactory plans, unacceptable plans, and failure, on the part of the bodies which made application, to submit acceptable plans in good time and to conclude the matter. A few days ago the hon. member for Middelburg called attention to this problem of delays. He mentioned the dilemma which resulted because negotiations had to take place between the urban area, the provincial administration and the Government. When he mentioned that, he was accused of talking politics and advocating that the powers of the provinces and the cities be removed. Surely, hon. members opposite cannot say one thing, and to-day, a few days later, want to state the opposite here. Let us see how the financing was done. [Interjections.] According to Press reports, Harry Lewis really took the hon. member to task at Milnerton the other night.

Just imagine!

The hon. member for Randburg told us what amounts had, in the first instance, been made available to Durban, Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg, Pretoria, and Cape Town. Let me make this very clear. When these amounts were made available, the estimated cost was as follows: Durban’s approved schemes would have amounted to R25 million, that of Port Elizabeth to R14,164,000 and that of Johannesburg to R42,416,000. At that stage Pretoria had not yet submitted any schemes. According to subsequent reports the hon. the Minister had said, “Up to now I have granted assistance. The assistance I have already granted, I shall grant right up to the end, but no new amounts will be appropriated.” Then we found that the road which had been planned for R25 million would now cost R58 million. This is the road in Durban. The cost of the Port Elizabeth scheme is now R20,023,000; that of Johannesburg is now R63,353,000; and at that moment Pretoria’s scheme cost R73 million. I mention these amounts to show how these major urban roads in which many fly-overs are used, are becoming astronomically expensive. I say that the solution is to have our traffic outside our cities. The traffic leaving the city should not be channelled into one main road; it should rather leave the city at various points along a ring road. Such a scheme is perhaps the most difficult one for Cape Town, because we have the mountain on one side and the sea on the other, but it was for that very reason that Cape Town planned so far ahead that it has a splendid scheme at present. We realize that we should not channel all our urban traffic into one road, and that is why we are constructing ring roads and by-passes in order that there may be various points of exit for the traffic. In order to alleviate the traffic problems of the larger cities, we have already made available R25 million in respect of Durban’s outer ring road, R3½million in respect of Pietermaritzburg, R2,300,000 in respect of Kroonstad, and R10,300,000 in respect of Pretoria’s eastern by-pass alone. In addition, an amount of R3,200,000 has also been made available in respect of Standerton’s by-pass, whereas an amount of R47 million is available for Johannesburg’s ring road. In respect of Bloemfontein the amount is R5,700,000, East London R11,300,000, Port Elizabeth R11 million, and in respect of the Black River Parkway in Cape Town R2,700,000 has been made available. In other words, the National Transport Commission and the Government are trying to divert, in the manner indicated by me, the major flow of traffic which is causing such bottlenecks in our cities. That is why I say that the Government and the State are well and truly meeting their responsibilities in this regard.

The trend throughout the world is that the volume of traffic in the larger cities is beginning to drop as a result of the national freeways which are being constructed in cities. We find that the large chain stores and business concerns are moving outwards, to the suburban areas, because members of the public are realizing that there are better parking facilities out there, that the traffic is not as heavy and that it is easier to do business there. They are moving out of the cities. Consequently the peri-urban areas and the suburbs are going to get these benefits. This is a world trend which we shall have to accept here in South Africa.

Amongst other things greater financial assistance was requested here. We have the Schumann and the Borckenhagen Reports. Those commissions had to enquire into ways in which it would be possible for us to finance the provinces and the local authorities. Since it regards this as being so important, the Government appointed the Marais Commission with the wider terms of reference of investigating this matter further—with specific reference to the said two reports—and submitting its findings.

I say that in politics our story should always remain the same. Time and again during this session that side has levelled the accusation that, since this Government came into power, the South African taxpayer has found himself under an increasingly greater obligation to pay too much tax. They say that more and more is being taken from and asked of the taxpayer.

Yes.

The hon. member opposite says yes. Now I want to ask him this question: If the taxpayer does not pay tax, irrespective of how it is collected, how are we to provide national services? They cannot want these two things; they cannot say that we should have fewer taxes and, at the same time, that we should provide services. Hon. members opposite must conduct themselves in a politically honest manner as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon. member for Green Point tried to make a point, in the first place, out of our revenue from customs and excise duties as paid by the motorist in South Africa. But, surely, the hon. member knows that in terms of the Act in question we have a levy on petrol which accrues to the National Transport Commission. The Commission has to use that for financing the services it renders to the country. We do not have the surplus the hon. member mentioned. If I furnish the amount of the approved services, hon. members will see that, unless the Government makes more money available to the Transport Commission in a year’s time, it would not be able to provide in full the approved and already planned services which it has already announced and accepted. That large surplus does not exist. There is another thing the hon. member for Green Point must realize. The provinces or the urban areas are after all reimbursed by the Government. The provinces are being subsidized on a rand for rand basis for the services they provide; in other words, our provincial and local roads which are built by the provinces, are being subsidized in that manner. The same principle obtains when local authorities receive sums of money from the provinces. I am not going to mention these amounts again, because the hon. member for Randburg has already done so. When local authorities receive their subsidies from the provinces, it is because the Government subsidizes the provinces to that extent.

But, surely, that forms part of the R45 million?

No, it does not. If I look at the approved services which we have up to 1971, it appears that by 1971 we shall have a balance of only R12 million, and not the R45 million the hon. member mentioned. And then I do not mention a series of services which have been approved and which are going to come to an amount of approximately R61 million. Hon. members should try to be realistic instead of only demanding more services but fewer taxes. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that at the moment it is not necessary for the Government to appoint a commission of enquiry into these four matters. The Marais Commission has been given very exhaustive terms of reference and their enquiry embraces all these facts and all these aspects which the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, the last portion of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech was devoted to he subject of the financing of national roads and of provincial roads and I believe that every single word the hon. the Deputy Minister has said simply comes down to this, namely that not enough money is being devoted to this task in South Africa. There is the figure pointed out by the hon. member for Green Point of R145 million a year, which comes in from excise tax and other taxes which are paid directly by the motorist. One might therefore well expect that a greater amount than R45 million a year will be devoted to making the life of the motorist a bit more easy than it is to-day in South Africa. I am in agreement with the hon. the Deputy Minister about the ring-roads and what relief the ring-roads will bring to traffic in urban areas and the decentralization this is going to bring to shopping and the movement of housewives, which to-day forms a very considerable part of the local urban traffic. It will not, however, solve what is by far the greatest traffic problem in every city to-day, namely the movement of people going to work at peak periods morning and evening. It is precisely those people who form the problem that we have to face and it is to meet the needs of those people, people going from where they live to where they work, that the hon. member for Durban (Point) moved this motion in the House. The motion deplores the facilities in our 20th century cities and it is specifically on that point that he asked for an investigation to be made. The movement of people in our big cities at peak periods is held up because the transport facilities are not available and because the roads are inadequate to carry what has become the conventional method of going to work to-day, namely the ordinary private motor car. When mass transport was first inaugurated the first means considered was obviously the railways. The hon. the Deputy Minister and other members who have spoken are quite correct when they say that the railway is the easiest and probably the most efficient means of mass transport, but in our country it is impossible to run railways, particularly the sort of suburban lines with which Cape Town is blessed, in many of the bigger cities of South Africa. What we have got here to-day is what they have got in America and Australia and in all the other countries of what one can call the new Western world outside of Europe, namely a society that is geared to the motor car.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the National Transport Commission have changed their policy and where they supported the idea of urban freeways, they are now opposed to the idea of urban freeways. The fact is that if they do not build the freeways they are still not going to solve the problem. By not building the freeways and not subsidizing the urban authority in building freeways, they are merely making it harder, more difficult, and irritating and longer for the ordinary man to get to work. This is a disguised cost of production, not only in the time it takes a man to get to work and not only in the extra fuel that he uses, but in the irritation to his whole system which prevents him for nearly half an hour after he gets to his office from thinking constructively and making the contribution he should be making to the national economy. I believe that the National Transport Commission, in this particular case, by refusing to continue the subsidization of the urban freeways, have taken a wrong decision. The urban freeway, by providing a a readier means of access to the inner city, will get the man to his work provided that other facilities are co-ordinated, particularly parking, off-street parking and other aspects which are now the responsibility of the urban authority. But, Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the one of the construction of freeways; the problem is one of mobility, of enabling the flow of traffic, to keep it flowing and to be disposed of when it gets into the inner city enabling the man to get to his work. The reason why people use their motor-cars is that they can get to their places of work. That is the reason why the hon. the Minister’s rail system and the buses in many instances are not as popular as they might well be.

The hon. member for Parow raised the matter of peripheral parking, where you can park your car outside the city and catch a bus to go into town. This is not going to take on without some means of selective toll. It may well be that a system of this nature might have to be considered, if a proper investigation shows that a peripheral parking system is indeed the answer to the problem of conveying people from their place of residence to their place of work in the inner city. Then it may be that some sort of selective toll, or something of this nature, might have to be imposed in order to discourage the use of the private motor-car and to encourage people to make use of these other ways and means of transport.

And at the peak hour?

Yes, the peak hour can be coped with. The hon. the Minister said that the system of the monorail had been largely discredited and written off throughout the world, but in San Francisco they are erecting the so-called Bay Rapid Transit System which is based on the monorail. The only difference is that it is not an overhead rail, but a vehicle which runs on a cushion of air on a raised concrete ramp. They are spending millions of dollars on it. It is cheaper to build, than the conventional monorail system which is in operation. I believe this is something which can be investigated; I am not particularly wedded to the idea of the monorail myself. I believe that the cheapest and most effective way of getting people from place to place is by means of the tarred or concrete road, and by conventional diesel engines perhaps or by electromotive power—whatever may be established must be the best, the most and the cheapest. I believe that it is a matter which merits consideration. The hon. the Minister tells us that the Marais Commission is going to go into the whole overall system of transport. I am afraid, and I say this perhaps incautiously, that this Marais Commission may well take a considerable number of years because of the very complexity of the problem. This hon. Minister says that the Borckenhagen Commission and the Schumann Commission have made their reports on this kind of thing. But it is going to take many years of patient negotiation between the various tiers of authority of this country in order to work out what will be regarded as a satisfactory basis by the three tiers of government—as a result of the recommendations of those commissions. Here we have another commission which is going into all these kinds of things, whereas what the hon. member for Durban (Point) asked for is something which is more immediate, because the specific problem of moving people en masse is the problem we have to live with every single day. One of our problems, as the Minister said in relation to the by-passes, is that every single major city in South Africa as a result of our past is the centre of a network of transport. Every major city is a through route to-day, and it’s going to cost millions and millions of rand to obviate that and to get the pattern of traffic flowing around the major urban centres. To-day the problem is how to get these people cheaply from place to place. The motion asked that it should be investigated and I think if there is one thing the hon. member for Durban (Point) did wrong it was perhaps by not saying that there should be submitted an early report for consideration by the Minister and consideration of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the approach of the hon. member for Randburg. The hon. the Minister gave the game away when he said that the hon. member for Randburg and the hon. member for Parow came here with “voorbereide toesprake”.

I said “studied speeches”.

It sounded like “voorbereide” to me and I must say that was indeed the impression I got from the hon. member for Randburg. [Interjections.] I must say that I feel the people of Randburg, and particularly the ladies, might be far more grateful to the hon. member for Durban (Point) for the practical substance in the motion he has brought here to-day than they would be to the hon. member for Randburg and the Deputy Minister in their approach to their Bantu servants who recently had to be sent home. [Interjections.] I think we have ground here for research to be done, on the question of parking garages, freeways, a rapid transport system and even the possibility of using rubber-tyred trains. It seems to me an old failing of human nature that whereas people will go to park at the station, they will not park at a bus stop. It might be that by means of some articulated vehicle of this nature, we will be able to solve the problem. One cannot help thinking of the efficiency of the Osaka Express in Japan, where the train comes in at the station at a marked place. You buy a ticket at the station with your place marked on it and you stand on the platform while the train pulls in and stops opposite you so that you can step straight into your booked seat. Surely, something like that can be done in our own country to enable us to get ahead of the problem rather than to be behind the problem as we continually are.

In regard to the question of local authorities the hon. member asked for adequate subsidization. The matter has been covered to a certain extent. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with the statement which has been made, i.e. that problems of urban roads, throughways and this sort of thing are far more than a local problem; it is a national problem which is far beyond the means available to the urban authorities. I think the hon. Deputy Minister will agree with that because he indicated that the National Transport Commission was prepared to go a certain distance towards meeting these particular circumstances.

Of course I have never denied that.

There is no doubt about it that the rate funds of the urban authorities to-day are simply inadequate. They cannot cope with the tremendous, ever increasing services. When you consider the city of Durban, where the budget is larger than that of the province of Natal, you will find that even Durban to-day is unable to cope with the demands—particularly those imposed by these freeways. Then it must become common cause between us and both sides of this House must agree that this is more than a local problem—it is in fact a national problem.

Referring to point No. (3): “Other financial assistance to provincial and local authorities,” I think the first point one must make is that the provinces themselves to-day are in financial difficulties. Any kind of assistance which is going to be given by the provinces is merely robbing Peter to pay Paul under the present circumstances. In fact, the provinces ought to be the overseers of the local efforts being made by the larger urban authorities in the fields of mass transport and road construction. I think we have to take into account to-day that there are increasingly large numbers of Bantu owned vehicles and Indian owned vehicles coming from the Bantu residential areas into the urban areas, the White urban areas. Also in the case of the suburbs there are vehicles coming into the inner city area, the borough area, which pay no rates whatever towards the burden which these people in city councils have to bear. It might well be that the provinces themselves will have to take upon themselves or ask the Minister to take upon himself legislation which will require financial assistance to be given to the central boroughs by suburban authorities. I think that this is something which the provinces are going to have to consider. Whether they will be approached by the municipalities, I do not know. It is something which is shaping up to-day in the relationship between the borough centres of the city and their suburbs who pay nothing in relief of the rate burden of the ordinary man living in the city area who has to foot the bill. Mr. Speaker, let’s face it, all the people outside depend for their living on what they do in the borough areas. It may well be that something of this nature is going to have to be investigated. The hon. member asks specifically that there should be a committee to investigate the various matters he has raised. I think that one of the things that could be done at provincial level would be to establish economies of scale, whereby things could be done on a larger scale than that of the smaller local authorities throughout the provinces. This would, for example, involve standardization of planning, techniques and procedures, accepting tenders on a bigger scale for various works, etc.

May I put a question to the hon. member in this connection? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that in the past five years Natal had to pay back R8 million to the Treasury which Natal was unable to spend?

Yes, I am perfectly aware of the fact that money has been paid back, but this was because of difficulties experienced in regard to planning. The problem is the planning of the roads. The problem again is one of technical manpower in the National Transport Commission itself and also in the Provincial Roads Department. I do not really understand the point of the hon. member’s question. I realize that money has been paid back because the province was unable to spend it. The desire was there to spend it. The greatest difficulty is experienced in regard to planning, and because of the shortage of engineers to carry out programmes.

The failure by the provinces.

No, the National Transport Commission and the provinces together. There is nothing political about this, Sir. I know the absolutely tragic position of the Provincial Roads Departments in all the provinces. I know this to be true specifically in the case of my own province of Natal. This is because of the shortage of trained engineers and staff to carry out the planning of these roads. In fact, practically the whole of this work is being given out on contract. I have said already that I believe that the failure of the National Transport Commission to continue with its policy of subsidizing the freeways is not going to inhibit the use of private motor cars. It will not prevent people from using their cars. It will merely mean that it will take them longer to reach their destinations. They will be far more irritated when they do get there. In fact this is a disguised increase in the cost of production of every single item which is produced here in South Africa. I do not believe that the National Transport Commission have come up with an acceptable alternative. Having agreed with the urban authorities that this was a way of obviating, to a certain extent, their difficulties, I feel that if they now do away with this scheme, the National Transport Commission should propose something else which is at least an alternative solution. That we have not had from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Perhaps we shall now have to wait for that golden day to dawn when the reports of the Borckenhagen Commission, the Schumann Commission, the Marais Commission and all the various commissions we have had, are all co-ordinated and synchronized. Perhaps, when the Government have taken the decisions that they are going to take, all the tiers of Government, whether local or provincial …

If you say that those commissions are failures, why do you now ask for a new one?

Sir, I have every faith in the reports of those commissions. The only thing is that we want the Government to do something about those reports when they receive them. When that day comes, the hon. the Deputy Minister will be judged by this side of the House as to whether he has acted properly or whether he has not.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the United Party for coming to light with a motion like this. When one considers this motion, one can come to no other conclusion but that that side ought to sing the praises of this Government for everything that has been done in recent years. This is particularly true in regard to the second point made in the motion, namely “adequate subsidization of urban authorities”. The National Transport Commission has been going out of its way in recent years to assist urban areas in the construction of Toads. When one has regard to the amounts which have been spent, particularly on areas which have been receiving generous grants from the National Transport Commission, one expects those hon. members to express their gratitude towards the Minister of Transport for having paid such generous grants to them.

There is at least one aspect I should like to mention, and that is that certain areas have been undertaking planning for years but have not at this stage succeeded in qualifying for these grants. If members of the Opposition wanted to address a request in respect of urban areas which have been undertaking planning for some years, but have not executed their plans to such an extent that they qualify for a subsidy, I could have understood that. But when one considers what has been given to those areas from which those hon. members come, one really feels that to act in this way and to suggest that what has been done is inadequate, reflects a lack of gratitude on their part. I am nevertheless of the opinion that a great deal has been done in this regard.

The first part of the motion of the hon. member for Durban (Point) concerns “cheaper and more efficient mass transportation needs, including the possibility of monorail or underground services”. A great deal can be said about this matter. We have just been listening to a statement, but I am satisfied that where the opportunity still exists for doing so, we should most definitely avail ourselves of the services we have on the surface. It is much cheaper and much more efficient. Many factors prove that we do not need that here. As regards tube trains, I can only say that they will probably be introduced in years to come, especially when one has regard to the fact that our large urban areas will have to bring their labour forces, in particular the Bantu labour force, from the homelands, as it will be impossible to have further extensions to the Bantu residential areas. If more Bantu labour were to be required, I assume that advance planning would be undertaken so as to render these train services as efficient as possible and so as to provide transport for the Bantu which will enable them to arrive in good time at their work. As regards our present system of transport, previous speakers made it very clear that it was not inadequate at all. Up to this moment our planning is completely up to date. No one can complain that our transport facilities are not adequate. In this respect too, we should rather express our gratitude for everything that has been done in recent years than point out the needs.

I now come to the third point in the hon. member’s motion which concerns “other financial assistance to provincial and local authorities”. Various commissions of enquiry have been appointed in connection with this matter. Various reports on this question have been published. I am perfectly satisfied that the provinces are receiving generous contributions. The National Transport Commission pays a generous contribution of 70 per cent of the costs of roads in the case of the special roads in our provinces, and the provinces have to contribute 30 per cent. This is a special concession. I can only speak on behalf of one province, and that is the Free State, and there this has meant a great deal. If we keep ourselves informed about the activities of the various provincial administrations, we shall know that Natal too has expressed its gratitude for these generous allowances towards its special roads.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion lapsed.