Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have not got a great deal to add to our previous remarks at the Third Reading of this Bill. I am sorry that the two amendments we tried to move were not accepted, although this side tried hard to have the amendment moved by me accepted. I want the hon. the Minister to understand that we support the principle of financing and subsidizing students at universities. We want to make that quite clear. But we are still not by any means satisfied with the Minister’s definition and even his legal advisers’ view on the question of companies, as opposed to people and possibly organizations having a right to suggest how money donated by them shall be spent. When the hon. the Minister replied to the Second-Reading debate, he suggested that the institutions themselves knew better than anybody else how this money should be spent. On the other hand, it was never our intention that individuals should designate how the money should be spent to the extent of supporting specific pupils. That should be left to the institutions. Our idea really was that supposing a specific faculty needed public support, then the person or company or organization making the donation should be allowed to say, “We think that the architects need this” or “we think that the scientists need this”, or “we think that these particular students in a given faculty should be encouraged and we happen to know that they are not able to afford the fees for the necessary period of years”. I think the hon. the Minister rather misunderstood our arguments in some respects in that regard. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister, even if he does make regulations, that when his departmental report is issued and tabled in this House from year to year, some mention should be made in it, merely as a matter of reporting to Parliament, as to how the fund is being administered; in other words, how many bursaries and loans have been given, etc. I think this would instil confidence in the general public and would satisfy hon. members of this House as well as the donors themselves.

Sir, the hon. the Minister says that he is opposed to people having too much say as to what shall be done with their donations other than just saying, “I want the money to be given to a particular institution”. But it will be very interesting, if I may be permitted to say this, to see what the hon. the Minister’s reaction is going to be when we deal with another Bill which is being introduced in Another Place dealing with what I think the Department calls the advancement of human sciences. There the essential principle of the Bill is to permit a company to designate to what branch of study their donation shall be allocated, whereas in this case the Minister says it should be left to the institution.

Other than that, the Minister having failed to accept any of our amendments, in principle we supported the Second Reading and we support the Third Reading as well.

The Bill now makes definite provision for the recognition of the colleges for advanced technical education and I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that I appreciate his concession yesterday when he realized that it was not possible to accept an amendment in terms of the rules of the House. But he did indicate that he was prepared to consider representation for these people on the council. I think it is very necessary that these colleges for advanced technical education should receive this representation and I look forward to the representative appointed by the Minister playing a worthy part on the council. I realize it is not in the form of direct representation, but I accept the Minister’s bona fides in this and I hope that at some subsequent opportunity the Minister may be able to amend the Act to make full provision.

I want to come to the provision in clause 6 in regard to making provision for companies to designate their donations to various universities and colleges for specific purposes. I think the Act is quite clear, that it makes provision only for companies and not for individuals. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to an article which appeared in the S.A. Pharmaceutical Journal of June, 1970. The heading of this article is “Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education”, and when the convener of the Foundation presented his report he said briefly that this particular Pharmaceutical Education Foundation had collected about R72,000 and had assisted some 220 students over four years at a cost of R12,000 per year. I mention this because the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second-Reading debate indicated that perhaps I had not taken any active part in so far as encouraging the collection of funds for the National Study Loans and Bursaries Fund was concerned. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I believe I have played some small part by direct contribution to this particular organization and also a corporate part as a member of the Pharmaceutical Society.

But the point which really worries me in relation to this particular clause which has now been accepted is that it still will leave problems. I want to quote this specific problem in the hope that perhaps the hon. the Minister may in the Other Place or at some other time be able to overcome it. The Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education is not a company. It receives donations from companies, from individuals, and from partnerships. In the report this is what is said—

Then it goes on and it says—

Order! Were not those points raised yesterday during the Committee Stage and ruled out of order? The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I just wanted to refer to the fact that the statement was made specifically here, after consultation with the Department of National Education, that donors may nominate the name of their bursaries and the universities or colleges at which they may wish the bursary to be tenable and the courses they desire to cover. Now if this foundation consists of donations from three different types of individuals, namely companies, individuals and partnerships, which are not registered under the Companies Act—I submit it is not in fact completely accurate to say, as the contributors to this fund have been led to believe, that when they make donations they will be entitled to designate to which university and for which particular faculty and to which student such donation shall apply. I feel that on that basis it is discriminating in favour of companies and is not to the advantage of partnerships and individuals who also subscribe. I have gone into this detail to this extent because I do not believe that this particular foundation is unique. There must be other bodies where such a position may apply, so that you will have the situation that some people will be precluded in terms of the Act as it now stands from designating to whom the money shall be allocated. I do not think that is equitable and I hope that the Minister may be able to give consideration to overcoming this difficulty at some time or perhaps in the Other Place.

I have a good deal of sympathy with certain of the points of view put forward by both the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Berea. There are certain practical problems in connection with this Bill before us, and I think hon. members perhaps did not grasp these completely. This Bill was introduced before finality had been reached on the Budget proposals and in terms of the rules of this House we were yesterday unable to accept or even consider the amendments moved by hon. members. I said in my Second-Reading speech that I would probably be obliged to come forward with amendments at an opportune moment, by which I actually meant in the Other Place, and I think if we keep this in mind the position will be clear to us. I also have sympathy with the point of view which the hon. members raised here, i.e. that the donors should have the right to attach certain conditions to their donations and that the Fund Committee, which has to give advice regarding the spending of this money, should take these into account. I said in my Second-Reading speech that this was being done as far as possible. In fact, until now the Fund Committee has all along taken note of the requests and the wishes of donors, but I did not want to include it in the Act as an obligation on that Fund Committee to take these into account, because you would then narrow down matters to such an extent that, as the hon. member for Durban (Central) said, you would eventually frustrate the actual object of the Act. I think if the hon. members would accept it in this way, we would all understand one another better and then you would realize that there is in fact no ulterior motive in the Bill as it is before the House at present.

As regards the question of the report, which the hon. member for Wynberg raised, I want to point out that the annual report of the Department, of course, includes regular reports on the amounts which are in the fund and which are spent and which are still standing to the credit of the educational institutions. Moreover, as far as the interim period is concerned, it goes without saying that the information is freely available on request. The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to the Bill which I have introduced in the Other Place in connection with research in the human sciences. For the reason I have already explained, i.e. that these Bills were introduced before the final Budget proposals were known, I will have to withdraw that Bill. This, too. therefore changes the position in connection with this matter completely.

I also want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Berea for accepting my as surance that I shall keep the colleges for advanced technical education in mind when vacancies occur on this Committee. Then I also want to ensure that all donors, whether they be persons, or companies liable to tax, will receive the rebate for which the Act will make provision. Another reason why in terms of the rules of this House we were unable to discuss the matter in detail at this stage is that the relevant paragraphs in the Income Tax Act are not yet known. I cannot intro duce an amendment without knowing to what sections of the Income Tax Act it must refer. I want to make an appeal to the hon. members to accept this matter in good faith to a certain extent. We shall put things right in the meantime, and if any problems arise in the future we can always discuss this matter again.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

The Transport Vote covers a number of the activities of the State. However, owing to the limited time at our disposal I propose to confine my remarks this afternoon to only one aspect of the Ministry’s administration, i.e. the problem of the growing congestion in our major cities. In this connection I will be referring to Johannesburg again and again, firstly, because I know Johannesburg better than any other city and, secondly, this problem is at its most acute in that city. That does, however, not mean that we are not aware of the problems of other cities, or that we do not require the hon. the Minister to take into consideration the fact that other cities in South Africa, although to a lesser extent. are experiencing similar problems.

Last year on this Vote we had a discussion on the feasibility and value of urban freeways. As regards this matter it is quite clear that there is a difference of opinion between the Department and experts outside the Department—bodies like the Road Federation, the U.M.E. and the Association of Municipal Employees, who do not agree with some of the problems the Minister sees in the construction of freeways for our major cities. But I do not want to canvass this difference of opinion at all to-day, nor shall I deal with the recommendations made by the Marais Commission, because we know what the Minister’s opinion is of that commission and its work. However, whatever the differences of opinion may be about the solution of traffic congestion in our cities, nobody denies that such a problem has developed and is, in fact, getting worse. To travel through a city like Johannesburg during peak hours to-day becomes an agony. Indeed, while travelling in some of the major streets in Johannesburg to-day, especially from east to west, it is impossible to distinguish the congestion there at any hour of the day from that obtaining during peak hours. The most one can expect is to progress from two to three miles an hour; there is frustration and tremendous wear on the vehicles; the people are submitted to a series of frustrations with the psychological effect this has on them; there are air pollution and. as a matter of fact, a great many problems, all caused by this growing congestion, this choking up, this throttling of our big cities. The Government is aware of this position and is not unwilling to accept its share of the burden created by this problem. The Government tells us that they do not believe in freeways and put forward other suggestions instead. For instance, they believe it will be wiser to divert traffic from the centres of cities by building bypasses and ring roads. Well, these suggestions have merit. It has been calculated that no fewer than 15,000 vehicles which have no business in Johannesburg, pass through Johannesburg every day. These could just as well go around Johannesburg to reach their destinations. To the extent, therefore, that bypasses and ring roads will bring relief, we are grateful, and so are city councils, for the assistance they get from the Government with the building of such ring road and bypasses. I notice that an official of the department, an official who is regarded as an expert on this matter, has suggested that, while urban freeways are not considered practicable, a less complicated, and therefore perhaps a slightly less efficient form of through-way traffic is feasible, i.e. the boulevard system. These have more access and are cheaper to construct than freeways because they do not have the high standards of freeways. Even so they will run into hundreds of thousands of rand per mile where they have to be built to give access to the centre of a city and exit from a city to its suburban areas. A network of these boulevards will therefore also run into millions and millions of rand.

It has also been suggested by the Government and by others that the solution lies in the decentralization of businesses normally situated in the centre of our cities. I have seen this tendency towards decentralization in other countries, especially in the United States, and I have also seen it in Johannesburg where decentralized business centres are being established in places like Rosebank and also in Yeoville, a constituency which I represent here. Big business undertakings are establishing branches in these suburbs. But that brings problems for the city council concerned, because as such a centre develops, amenities are required—for instance, the reticulation of water and electricity, the supply of sewage, the construction of a better type of road, parking facilities and others. Whatever solution is found to this problem of congestion must involve the urban authority in great expense. Furthermore, an unconscionable burden is placed upon it. Let us take Johannesburg as an example. Johannesburg is a community which already pays 40 per cent of direct taxation to the State. If indirect taxation is included the percentage will probably be more. If you consider that, more than half of our Whites are living in major cities, you can understand the inconvenience and the unconscionable burdens which are being placed upon a most productive and most valuable section of our population. There is no indication as yet what the Government’s proposals will be to alleviate this extraordinary burden upon the shoulders of our urban population. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister in replying to the debate will give us some indication of how the Department of Transport believes that this expenditure should be financed and how these burdens should be carried and more equitably distributed among the population. In the last two years every major municipality in the Transvaal has had to raise its rates considerably, mostly in order to meet capital expenditure on traffic problems. Johannesburg itself only recently, although it reduced the rate, had to collect an extra R6 million this year from 90,000 ratepayers. This seems to me an impossible situation. Something must be done about it. A large proportion of that money has to go towards measures to meet the transport problems of a growing city.

There are certain aspects of this problem to which the hon. the Minister should give his immediate attention. The hon. the Minister certainly does not believe that the expense in financing the solution of the problem of congestion should be borne out of the National Road Fund. We have to accept that. But then surely the cities in another way should get a larger share of the contribution that the motorist makes to the Treasury. At the moment they do most of the collection of licences, but they get very little indeed. Mr. Patrick Lewis, the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Johannesburg Municipality in his Budget speech of the 26th June, 1970, pointed out that the Johannesburg Municipality collects R5,191,000 in licence fees. Of that it retains only R2 million. However, after the costs of collecting, administrative fees, etc., have been deducted, Johannesburg is left with R1,046,000 of the money that it collects. This is hardly enough to cover the expense of traffic control which amounts to R93,000 per year. A mere R100,000 is left over for other purposes of dealing with the problems created for every modern city throughout the world owing to the fact that we are a motor car-orientated civilization to-day. On page 9 of the printed version of his Budget speech, Mr. Lewis said—

This excludes excise duties and purchase tax. This amounts to a total of R70 per year of which about R24 only goes to the National Road Fund while a mere R3 goes to the city council concerned. He goes on to say—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to refer to the aspect of transport to which the hon. member for Yeoville has just referred, i.e. the congestion of the urban traffic in our major cities. I also want to take Johannesburg as an example. Before I come to my own opinion about that, I want to mention one other matter that is not so pleasant.

In the Star of 7th March, 1970, banner headlines announced: “R325 million shock for city drivers: Cost of master transport plan.” The report itself read, inter alia, as follows—

Then there is a caption which reads as follows—

These reports were followed up from time to time, and in the Star of 10th March there was once more a sensational report on the front page. The report with the headline “5,000 home owners hit by road plan in state of insecurity” read, inter alia, as follows—

Then in the same article, in defence, Mr. J. F. Oberholzer, a member of the Provincial Council and a member of the Johannesburg City Council, who is also chairman of the planning committee, said to the people: “You must not worry; these things cannot take place unless they are approved by the Province and the Government.” The objection I want to raise here to-day, and bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, is that this matter in particular exploited for political gain during the most recent election in Johannesburg. People in these affected areas, which extend through certain National constituencies, were walking around with the story that this privation and uncertainty, as a result of the expropriation of 5 000 houses, was actually being brought about on the instructions of the Minister and the Department of Transport, and with the approval of the Province. The United Party tried to take large-scale political advantage of the proposed plan of this United Party City Council of Johannesburg. That is what I am objecting to. I should like to bring this matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention. This matter must be put right. The blame for this large-scale plan of the Johannesburg City Council cannot be placed on the shoulders of the Government and the Province. The City Council of Johannesburg must take responsibility for it, and everybody must know that the responsibility rests on their shoulders.

While saying this, I now want to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that the increasing traffic congestion in our major cities is a matter that ought to enjoy our attention. It is a tendency in the major cities of the world that is now also becoming part of our major cities. I must, of course, say that there is no crisis at present. I do not agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that this matter has already assumed critical proportions in South Africa. At certain hours of the day there are delays, but with the rare exception of Johannesburg, perhaps, I do not think that there are critical conditions in any way comparable to conditions in major cities in America and Europe. That is not to say that we must not make plans to prevent the crises that could possibly develop. I want to proceed here from the standpoint that it is a problem that is closely bound up with the rapidly growing development of our major cities. In the planning and development of new townships, the transport aspect, and particularly the linking up of roads and streets to the general routes of the larger urban complexes, have not enjoyed sufficient attention in the past. Since there was a Joint Town Planning Commission that in recent years has kept an eye on the over-all planning of new townships, there was no co-ordinating body that gave specific attention to the over-all planning of the traffic needs of large urban complexes. This is a matter with which the Marais Commission also occupied itself. I think the Commission is on firm ground when it suggests that metropolitan authorities should be created for this purpose of co-ordination. In accordance with a recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry int the Financial Relations between the Central Government and Provinces and local authorities, I want to say that it is an obligation and a responsibility of the local administration. That is why I want to say that the Provincial Administrations ought to implement the idea of metropolitan authorities acting as co-ordinating bodies that can supervise the aspects of transportation in and around our large urban complexes. I want to quote to you what the Marais Commission has to say about this matter. Paragraph 810, reads, inter alia, as follows—

In paragraph 812 the report continues as follows—

This idea is not a new one. It has already been included in a previous commission, i.e. in the report of the Page Commission, which was appointed in 1945 and which reported in 1947 Paragraph 416 of that commission’s report reads, inter alia, as follows—

It is therefore an old idea, and consequently I am able to associate myself with the Marais Commission’s conclusion, where in paragraph 824 it recommends that—

1. (a) Urgent consideration be given to the creation, within the provinces concerned, of the necessary statutory machinery for the establishment of groupings of local authorities to be known as Metropolitan Authorities;
2. (b) The powers and functions of such Metropolitan Authorities be exercised within the defined regions which shall include responsibility for roads and mass transit routes and facilities based on prior region-wide comprehensive plans approved by the Provincial Administrations concerned.

It is therefore a matter relating to every urban complex, a matter which must in the first place be tackled and solved there. The Province must give its attention in the first place to this matter. I think it is a very good recommendation that such overall urban boards be established to achieve co-ordination in order to solve this problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. member for Parow has entered this discussion and that he seems to support the approach I am making to the hon. the Minister on this problem. I regret it however that he found it necessary to start his speech with a little bit of political sideswipe. I do not think he can help that, but it always amazes me that the hon. member for Parow can be such an expert on the affairs of Johannesburg and the Transvaal. I would have expected an hon. member from the Transvaal to raise such problems.

I want to return to the fact that Mr. Lewis, the elected treasurer of the Johannesburg City Council, has made the point that the formula on which this division of licence fees, etc., was based, was laid down in 1927 and is completely out of date. He then referred to the pending arrival on the public scene of the reports of the Borckenhagen and Schumann Commissions, which he cannot anticipate. Then he said:

I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether the Department of Transport has considered what can be done to relieve this tremendous burden upon our cities of urban transport. The problem is immense. The City Engineer’s department of Johannesburg, as the hon. member for Parow pointed out, has worked out a scheme which according to their experts will be able to relieve the position in Johannesburg. This includes roadways, parking garages, underground railway services and other services which will cost over a period of 20 years the amount of R520 million. This means that the cost will be R26 million per year. One cannot expect the City of Johannesburg which is part of South Africa and which to a large extent generates the wealth of South Africa to carry this burden alone. While Mr. Lulofs, our city engineer in Johannesburg, devised all these plans for Johannesburg, it is interesting to see that he has borne in mind the fact that Johannesburg is not an isolated community. It is part of the great Witwatersrand urban complex and it is the metropolitan home of dormitory municipalities like Rand-burg. Standerton, Roodepoort and even a part of Germiston and Bedford View. All these are really dormitories for the economic activity of Johannesburg and the people who live there come to Johannesburg, work in Johannesburg and enjoy the amenities in Johannesburg. But they never contribute to the income of Johannesburg in any considerable fashion. He took this into consideration and his plan was directed at the greater urban complex of the Wiatwatersrand and the areas surrounding Johannesburg.

It is interesting to see that the Provincial Council has done something wise in the Transvaal, one of the few wise things it has done, by asking to have this whole plan reconsidered under its supervision as a plan for the greater urban areas of the southern Transvaal. It is a wonderful development and I was glad to see the hon. member for Parow supporting this idea which is also supported by the Marais Commission. However, he does not answer the question where all the money comes from. Where will the money come from? We have been told that the National Road Fund is not really intended for the solution of urban problems; what sources of revenue will there then be? Councillor Oberholzer and others of the Johannesburg City Council have indicated that Johannesburg does not want gifts from the Central Government to solve its problems, but it is entitled to ask for additional sources of revenue. The same applies to the Provincial Counoils who are constitutionally responsible for this type of problem, as the hon. member for Parow quite rightly has said. However, they do not have the sources of revenue either to deal with this matter adequately.

We sit here while the problem is growing and it is now some eight years we have been waiting for some of these reports which should give us advice on the financial relations between the Central Government and the provinces and between the provinces and the local authorities. Where are the reports we were promised during this session? We are already discussing this difficult problem during the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill and we do not know what the Borckenhagen and Schumann Commissions have reported. Can we have some progress and can we be told what we can expect? Is there any prospect of relief to municipalities? Has the hon. the Minister any thoughts on this matter? Will he share those thoughts with us? This is a serious problem and we cannot delay much longer.

We have to look at other countries to see what they are doing. They are, for instance, levying a purchase tax on petrol, which is perhaps one of the fairest ways for this purpose of furthering the development of urban roads. In America the sight of a toll gate where one is stopped and is obliged to pay before one can cross a bridge or enter a freeway, is a common sight. In that way motorists pay directly for the privilege of using the roads. It has been suggested by one councillor in Johannesburg that insurance companies should pay a levy for this purpose, because good roads mean that their liability in respect of accidents becomes less. I do not necessarily support this view, however. But this shows that there is concern in the minds of many people about what is a most vexing problem and one which threatens the economic efficiency of the major economic areas of South Africa.

I therefore do hope that the hon. the Minister will give us a detailed statement on how he sees this problem, what he believes the solution is, and especially how he thinks this vast expenditure which has become absolutely necessary, should be financed. I only hope that the hon. the Minister will not make the decentralization of urban activities to other areas one of his main approaches to the subject, because whatever one may think about decentralization, and we all agree that it is necessary, that would not solve the problem but will create other urban areas where similar problems will arise. It was interesting to note from speeches made by the hon. the Minister of Finance and by others that even the Government is changing its tune and wants to see continuous progress in our established cities by making certain labour concessions in consultation with others. Let us then not use that as an excuse. Let us accept that the problem is going to stay with us, that it is becoming more and more acute and is threatening the wellbeing of vast communities and that the time has come that the Government must give an imaginative lead and a bold lead in this matter and that it must make available to all concerned the findings of these two commissions and the reaction of the Government to their suggestions and their recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we should let the impression take root that the Central Government and the National Transport Commission are not honouring their part of the financial obligations in this connection. I am glad that the hon. member for Yeoville did not deny, either, that the State was not trying to evade its financial obligations in these respects. I just want to point out that when thought was given at the time to freeways as a possible solution, an amount of R50 million was given to the various major cities for this purpose. However, this did not appear to be the solution to the traffic jams. The State subsequently said that it would assist the cities in finding other solutions. As the hon. member for Yeoville also mentioned, certain motorists drive through the city while they could just as well have skirted it. The Government then undertook to take the full responsibility for those roads upon itself, and to carry in full the financial obligations concerned. That is why the hon. the Deputy Minister said last year that up to that time the State had accepted obligations totalling no less than R122 million in respect of by passes around large cities, in order to prevent this congestion in the cities. I therefore want to mention that as far as this is concerned there must be no illusions about the State not honouring its part of the financial obligations: in this connection.

Because I only have a limited time at my disposal I should like to put another matter to the hon. the Minister by way of a few questions. The matter I want to touch upon is that of third party insurance. The first question concerns the commission to which the members of the consortium, in their capacity as agents for the fund, are entitled. The members of the consortium are allowed a commission of 20 per cent, plus 5 per cent for costs. Sir, it has now been proved irrefutably that the establishment of this consortium was a step in the right direction. It has been a success. It has placed third party insurance in South Africa on a sound footing. I now understand that the contract of these companies sharing in the consortium lapses in 1976. In the meantime, as a result of the stability that has developed, and as a result of the fact they are no longer exposed to such risks, the companies who are members of the consortium are able to do brisk and healthy business. I think it has also been mentioned here in the past, but I want to do so again, that a request should perhaps now be made for the premium advisory committee to give specific consideration to this aspect concerning the possibility of these companies making a concession at this stage, and doing this work as agents at a reduced commission, now that the fund has got into its stride, everything is going smoothly and there is a great saving on expenses in respect of the investigation procedure for claims. In this way it will be possible for more capital to be deposited in the central fund, with, of course, the eventual reduction of premiums. That is my first question.

The second question I want to ask deals with the payment of claims. In the first place I want to say that the question is being asked why late claims are not being paid. I just want to point out the fact that under the Third Party Insurance Act two years are granted for a claim to be instituted. I do not think that it is the fault of the fund, and its administration, that the claims are not paid. The general public does not understand this. They do not know where the delays are taking place. They cannot understand that they are being covered by a fund and that their claims are eventually not approved. I think the Minister should now clarify this matter. He must tell us where the snag is. Why is it that claims cannot be settled within the proper two-year period.

The third matter I should like to put to him concerns the paying out of large amounts to people who have been crippled in accidents and so badly injured that they cannot continue in their ordinary professions. They then receive that amount of money from the fund. The possibility exists that that money could be spent injudiciously. Not long after that one finds that these people and their dependants are simply loaded onto the State as welfare cases. I think it is a problem we must also face up to. We cannot allow these large amounts to be paid out to people involved in accidents, and then have them become a liability for the Welfare Department not long afterwards. I think the Minister ought to investigate this matter as well. I do not think that it is a general complaint, but the possibility exists that people who get hold of such an amount of money all at once could possibly spend the money injudiciously. Perhaps there is also a solution to prevent this.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Parow occupied themselves with what they called the traffic congestion in our major cities. This is a problem that develops because tens of thousands of motorists converge on the cities where they do business and where they work.

I should like to bring another problem to the hon. the Minister’s attention. This problem deals with those people who are not motorists and who in the mornings are transported by bus to their jobs in the city, the bus passengers of Cape Town. About two weeks ago I put a question to the hon. the Minister in that connection. At the time he told me that the passenger service in the Cape Peninsula is controlled by four white bus companies, for both non-white and white passengers. If my information is correct, all four bus companies actually belong to one mother company, and therefore the total passenger market of the Peninsula is managed by one single body. From this the following fact emerges: Except for the Railways, which can only furnish services in a very restricted sphere, there is, therefore, no actual competition as far as our passenger services in the Peninsula are concerned. I do not want to use the word “monopoly”, but the truth of the matter is that there is no actual competition. Sir, I do not want to go into the advantages and disadvantages of the fact that there is no competition here. I am merely stating the fact as I see it.

But this fact gives rise to two others, the first of which is this: When one has a situation in which there is no competition, or a lack of competition, it is not inconceivable, nor is it unknown, that frequently there is a decline in the quality of the service given. In the second place there is frequently an increase in the price demanded from the consumer—in this case an increase in the bus fare. Then there is a second fact I want to mention. Since one has this lack of competition, and since one has these two possible disadvantages that can result from the lack of competition, I respectfully believe that the hon. the Minister has a very specific and a very decided duty to perform in respect of the conditions. It is the hon. the Minister’s duty to satisfy himself at all times that the prevailing situation here is a healthy one, since there is only one bus company controlling the whole situation; that in the first place the bus company is supplying the best service, and that the bus company, which is a private company, is supplying the service at the most reasonable price.

Sir, here in the Cape very recently there was a considerable increase—for many people a sharp increase, in the bus fares. This was not the first one. I believe that in 1969 there was also an increase in certain cases, and there was also an increase in 1968. I should like to state that as a result of the increase in bus fares there are a large number of people who are having a very difficult time. If we bear in mind who the people are who make use of the services, we realize why this is so. They are usually the people who cannot afford motor cars, people who, as a result of their economic position, are forced to make use of the bus services; and on the other hand there are the Coloureds, who must be brought to Cape Town from their own areas, and who have no other option but to make use of the bus service. These people are suffering tremendously under the high tariffs, and the increase in tariffs that took place very recently was a great blow to these people. I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that there is great consternation in the Cape Peninsula as a result of these increases.

This afternoon I should like to say this to the hon. the Minister: I have already said that I believe that it is his duty to satisfy himself that the situation existing here is in the best interests of the consumer. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon to assure this Committee that he has satisfied himself that the recent increase in bus fares was not an exorbitant one: that he is satisfied that it was a reasonable increase and, in the second place, that he is satisfied with the quality of service rendered by the bus company in the Peninsula. I believe that under the particular circumstances of non-competition, a situation that develops under our country’s laws, a very important obligation rests here on the Minister. and I should like him to assure this Committee that he has satisfied himself that the bus company did not overstep the mark when it recently increased the tariffs.

The principle which the hon. member there wants to attack is an old one. In fact, we already find it in the 1945 report of the Page Commission when, in paragraph 408, they advocated the principle that under these special circumstances conditions of monopoly should apply in transportation. They motivate it here, and I shall briefly quote you the following—

It is, therefore, a very old principle. As far back as 1945 the Page Commission recommended exactly the opposite of what the hon. member is now advocating.

But there is also another principle. The hon. member spoke of tariffs. What is the main purpose of tariff increases? Was the main purpose of the tariff increases not to attract more Whites for the service? That is indeed the purpose. The hon. member is shaking his head, but he surely knows that the main purpose of the tariffs increases was to get more Whites for the service.

Where do you get that? You are living in another world.

In the limited time at my disposal I want to approach the transportation problem from a slightly different angle, and I want to discuss another problem. It concerns the recommendations of the Marais Commission in clause 506, in which they make the following recommendation—

The latest available report of the National Transport Commission indicates that there are 403 licensed aerodromes in South Africa. Now great efforts are being made to solve the aerodrome problems and to eliminate some of the bottlenecks, and one of those efforts is the amount of R30 million on the revised Estimate for the Jan Smuts Airport. It is indeed going to be a very modern airport. It is going to be outstanding, and it will contain many interesting things. It is going to be a great pleasure for the travelling public to make use of the new terminal at Jan Smuts. I am just going to mention to you a few aspects that will be encountered there. There will, for example, be 22 escalators and 19 elevators. The building will make use of closed-circuit television for certain internal control. Passengers will have every conceivable amenity, and then provision is also being made to make the building imposing and interesting and for its appearance, etc.

When will it be finished?

If the hon. member had perhaps flown to Jan Smuts recently he would know what is being done there; he would know the rate at which the work is being done, and he would also know about everything that is going on there. For his uninformed and unintelligent eye it perhaps looks chaotic; I do not mind conceding that much, but for those people who are working according to the building plans, it is part of a creative pattern that is in progress there.

This problem of aerodromes is a world-wide problem, and it links up with the problem which the hon. member for Parow discussed, i.e. access roads from airports to cities, etc. The world, and the Western world in particular, has big problems in this connection. I quote briefly from an article in Die Welt, the German magazine, which has the following to say about the problem—

They say that the same problem exists in New York and in Chicago. In fact, in Europe there is apparently only one airport that is equipped to handle the large jets, the 747s, and that is Orly at Paris. According to an article in Saturday Review, this is the only airport in the world that is already equipped to handle on a large scale, these massive jets with their passengers.

However, the problem goes further. It affects not only the existing aerodromes, but is very closely related to planning for the future. Our cities are bursting at the seams. As a result we have more and more traffic problems. Hon. members discussed this. Land around the cities is becoming altogether unobtainable and in the near future we shall find ourselves in a situation where our airports will have to be placed so far from the cities that the time lost in travelling from the city to the airport will be far greater than the flight time from one point to another. In fact, I submit that we are already approaching such a stage. If one is flying between Johannesburg and Durban. the aircraft climbs for 18 minutes, flies level for 13 minutes, descends for 12 minutes and lands in Durban. To reach the airport from Johannesburg takes almost as long.

That is why I think that our planning of aerodromes should take place on a national basis, and it is in this connection that I want to make a few suggestions. The Minister must constitute a committee to tackle the planning of airports on a national basis. There is, in the first place, the placing of future aerodromes. Land must now already be preserved, otherwise we shall not be able to obtain it for that purpose at a later stage. Then there are aspects of aerodrome construction, the relevant costs, maintenance and control. There are some aerodromes that are controlled by the State, while the majority of the 403 licensed aerodromes are controlled by private authorities. There are several bodies that can be brought together in such a committee for the national planning of aerodromes. From the nature of the case the Treasury will have to be involved on the basis of the financial implications. The Department of Defence must also be consulted, and so too, from the nature of the case, the Department of Planning and the Department of Transport. There will also have to be proper consultations with provincial administrations, and also perhaps with the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure.

We must already plan now for the next 25 years. If we were to proceed with ad hoc planning for aerodromes, building them only where and when the need arose, we would find ourselves entangled in a series of patterns that could not subsequently be properly disentangled. We already have problems in this connection, historical problems. Just look at the Waterkloof military aerodrome. That aerodrome developed years ago, even before the present-day problem could be contemplated. The same applies to Ysterplaat, although perhaps to a lesser extent. But specifically because we have problems to-day, we must project our planning of our aerodromes so far into the future that these problems cannot recur.

There is Jan Smuts Airport itself. A committee investigated a noise pattern there—not. Mr. Chairman, the noise pattern of hon. members opposite! Before that committee could report, additional townships were laid out and dwellings were built at places which the committee would not have approved. That is why it is of the utmost importance that we constitute a properly representative committee, even at this stage, consisting of at least those groups I have mentioned, to carry out the planning of aerodromes on a broad national basis, and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would give attention to this suggestion.

I am glad the hon. member for Middelburg agrees with the view which we on this side of the House have expressed from time to time, that our forward planning for airports is haphazard and ad hoc. The hon. member drew attention to the provision of R30 million for Jan Smuts Airport, but omitted to say that the original estimate was R16 million and that after all these years of knowing that Jan Smuts Airport needed urgent and vital extensions we have so far only spent R4,800,000. This year we are being asked to vote R8.3 million. A further R16 million is still to come. We have known for years that we are going to get jumbo jets; vet the tempo of planning does not seem to keep pace with development which can be foreseen.

I should like to deal particularly with the Durban Airport. I see nothing on the Estimates for this airport-not even a token provision for the future. And yet Durban Airport to-day is so hopelessly inadequate that it is inexplicable how the staff there can handle the traffic every day. I should like to pay tribute to the Airways and transport personnel there. The way they manage despite the lack of facilities they have available coupled with the increased daily schedule of flights, can only mean that they must be working under an impossible strain. It is only their efficiency and loyalty which help them to overcome the hardships of working under such conditions. Yet the Government talks of planning. We are now in the year 1970 with an airport at Durban which is already out of date and inadequate; yet there is not a cent provided for forward planning. There have been rumours and there have been surveys going on north of Durban. The Deputy Minister should tell this House and Durban to-day what their plans are for the future of Durban Airport.

Is the present airport to be abandoned in favour of a new airport north or west of Durban, or is it going to be kept as a secondary airport? Are the present airport facilities to be expanded? I know the plans are there for a new building. Is it going to be built or is it going to be shilly-shallied and dillydallied over until we have complete chaos there and a new airport will come only in the far distant future? The hon. the Deputy Minister should tell us to-day what the situation is.

Vause Raw airport!

It would not be a bad name for it. As a matter of fact, it will not be long now before we will be getting more intelligent names for our airports than those we have at present!

I should also like to deal with catering at airports. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to change the regulations under which caterers have to operate. I do not want to criticize, but it is common talk to-day that nobody is satisfied with the catering at our airports to-day. The basic problem is that caterers are not allowed to use non-European waiters. They are obliged to use white waiters and waitresses, whom they are unable to get …

Will Douglas allow you to be served by a non-White?

I wonder where the hon. the Deputy Minister has been. I think he has been so busy doing Zulu war dances in Malawi that he does not seem to realize that if he goes into the Edward Hotel or into the Mount Nelson Hotel or into any leading hotel in the country he will be served by non-European waiters, [Interjections]. But probably they will not let him into these hotels. But even in the hotels he could go to he would be served by non-White waiters. The Indian waiters of Durban are famed for their efficiency. And yet the airport at Durban has to struggle with people who have to travel all that distance. They work for a short time and the staff is continually changing. They have to rely on students and temporary workers. A relaxation in line with all the catering services of South Africa would enable an improved service to be offered.

Another anomaly is the refusal of the Department of Transport to allow an exception to liquor closed days. You can have liquor on the aeroplanes. You can have it on a train but you cannot have it while you are waiting for your flight unless you have a full scale meal with it. I ask the hon. the Minister to consider the convenience of travellers who are often stranded through breakdowns and delays or waiting for connections for long periods on a Sunday or public holiday.

In the time that is left to me, I want to deal with an aspect of the department which is perhaps far less enviable. I refer to the fact that the Road Transportation Department of this hon. Deputy Minister probably as a world record in corruption and bribery. I have been ruled out of order for two sessions running because there were court cases pending which prevented me from dealing with this issue. Those cases have now all been finalized and I want to say now what I have not been allowed to say for two years. In Natal every single inspector on the staff in Natal was charged with bribery or corruption. All except one were found guilty. This is an incredible record. There we have a department in which every single inspector on the staff in 1968-’69 was charged and all bar one found guilty of bribery and corruption. What sort of control has been maintained over this department? What control has the hon. the Minister maintained?

The Transportation Boards are looked upon to-day as old age homes for reject politicians. Three ex-Nationalist candidates have all been put onto transportation boards. In Durban the member who was rejected by the voters of Port Natal Mr. J. H. Stander, was rewarded for his rejection by Port Natal by being put on the Road Transportation Board. Then we have Mr. C. Haupt who was the aspirant candidate for Umlazi. He was put onto the Road Transportation Board. So was Mr. Robbie de Lange put onto the Road Transportation Board.

They are not inspectors.

No, but they are all part of the department. I am saving that this department of the hon. the Minister apparently is a political organization on one side while on the other there is lack of control.

It is a club for beaten Nats.

Yes, my colleague says it is a club for beaten Nationalists. That is the one aspect, the political one. The hon. the Minister admits that he only appoints good Nationalists. It stands on record that he only appoints good Nationalists to the Transportation Board. On the other side you have this widespread corruption. It is not only in Natal.

It is not widespread corruption.

When every single inspector on the staff in Natal is charged, it surely amounts to widespread corruption. How much wider can it be than 100 percent? That hon. member must have some strange ideas about corruption if 100 percent of 99 percent is not widespread.

100 percent of what?

He is probably looking for 110 per cent of the staff of the inspectorate in Natal.

How many?

About seven or eight. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we listened attentively to the previous speakers in this debate. The contribution from that side of the House was reasonable. However, I am extremely sorry that the hon. member for Durban (Point) spoilt the atmosphere which prevailed in the discussion of this Vote. The hon. member for Durban (Point) again tried to make political capital out of this whole matter. In the first place I want to say to him I think it was far-fetched to make an allegation here that corruption is widespread in the inspectorate.

Only six people are involved.

As the hon. member quite rightly says, only six people are involved. I say this was a scandalous reflection on the officials of this Department. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) ought to be ashamed of himself. I wish I had the time to deal further with the matters which the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised here. He raised a few matters in general terms and I am convinced that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to those matters, i.e. if the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks it is worthwhile replying to them.

The purpose of my speech is to raise a matter which is of real importance to the city of Welkom in particular, but also to the Free State goldfields and in general to the Northern Free State. I should like to make a friendly yet earnest and definite plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should give serious attention to having the Welkom airport taken over by the Department of Transport and to declaring it a national airport, or alternatively, that it be placed on the scheduled route of South African Airways. The hon. the Deputy Minister visited Welkom on an occasion last year. On that occasion he honoured us by officially opening the new Welkom airport. We are grateful to him for that. Seeing that this was just a few months ago, I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister is still reasonably well-acquainted with the circumstances at that airport. For the purposes of the record, however, I think it is perhaps necessary that I briefly and by way of introduction express a few thoughts in connection with that airport. In the first place I want to tell the Deputy Minister that the City Council of Welkom has spent an amount of approximately R400,000 on the airport to date. At the moment the Welkom airport has two runways of approximately 5,000 ft. The one runway is tarred along its whole length with a 60 ft. wide tarred surface. In the construction of this tarred surface, a base was provided which is suitable for the wheel axle of aircraft as large as a Boeing. As far as the control tower is concerned, I may just mention to the hon. the Minister that experts regard it as a control tower which can be compared to the best we have in South Africa. At the moment, that control tower is already manned by officials of the Department of Transport. This tower is excellent for present use and was planned for future development. As far as the terminal building is concerned, I want to say that it is a well-balanced building in which all the facilities are provided. In addition, it was planned in such a way that it will be very easy to add to that building when the airport is enlarged in future.

It is a recognized fact that the travelling public in South Africa are to-day making increasing use of air transport. Therefore it is obvious that in that part of the Orange Free State, the Free State goldfields as well as the Northern Free State, increasing use will also be made of air transport. A few weeks ago, I took the trouble to approach the three travel agencies established in Welkom in order to determine how much use is being made of air transport in that vicinity. I found that in the year 1968-’69 no fewer than 2,224 air tickets were sold to travellers who boarded South African Airways aircraft at the Jan Smuts and J. B. M. Hertzog airports. This number of 2,224, of course, does not include the large number of passengers who get in touch with South African Airways directly, nor does it include the large number of passengers who make use of chartered aircraft at that airport. I therefore believe that the service which is provided by the Welkom airport, has already reached national significance. It can no longer be regarded as merely a local service which must be provided by the local management. I think the time has arrived for airports in South Africa to be graded and for airports which qualify for it in terms of such a grading to be taken over as national airports by the Department of Transport. In my opinion, this will be the most economical and efficient arrangement. It will also be in the national interest that airports which comply with a particular standard should be owned and controlled by the Central Government in the same way that the Railways and the network of national and special roads are the responsibility of the Central Government.

In times of emergency or war, it is essential that all important and strategic centres should have well-developed airports. It cannot be expected of local communities to provide national services from their limited local sources. Geographical and weather conditions make Welkom extremely suitable for serving as an airport which can be used for the training of military and civil pilots, in addition to being a national airport. As you know, Sir, that area is absolutely level. There are no mountains or hills which can create landing problems. Fog and thunderstorms are a rarity and the visibility in that part of the world is almost perfect from January to December. Now you can appreciate that if Welkom should be declared a national or scheduled airport, there would be many people in that vicinity and further afield, as I shall indicate, who would make use of that airport as their point of confluence. Calculated in terms of direct distances from Welkom, the following places are closer to Welkom than, for example, to Ian Smuts Airport in Johannesburg or the J. B. M. Hertzog Airport in Bloemfontein, and even Kimberley: Bloemhof, Bothaville, Marquard, Wolmaransstad, Ottosdal, Klerksdorp, Orkney, Vierfontein, Viljoenskroon, Bethlehem, Kop-pies, Kroonstad, Edenville, Senekal, Venters-burg, Hennenman, Schweizer-Reneke, Bult-fontein, Theunissen, Clocolan, Ficksburg, Reitz, Petrus Steyn, Lindley, Delareyville, Sannieshof and of course Virginia, Odendaalsrus and Allenridge.

When discussing the Welkom airport, one must not see the matter against the background of the development of a single city or airport. We must see it against the background of the economic progress of an important part of the Orange Free State. I hope and trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister will regard this matter which I have just raised, in a serious light and will give his full attention to it. I think it is important for the hon. the Deputy Minister to know that I have been authorized by the Welkom City Council to declare here that it is prepared to hand over that airport, which, in round figures, has cost approximately R400,000 to date, to the Department of Transport, obviously with the express condition that it either be taken over by the Department, or alternatively, as I said at the beginning, be included in the scheduled route of South African Airways. In conclusion, I therefore hope and trust that these earnest and friendly representations of mine will enjoy the sympathetic consideration of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I unfortunately cannot agree with what the hon. member for Welkom had to say about the hon. member for Durban (Point), but I am quite happy to support him when it comes to asking for an airport at Welkom, because I wish to do exactly the same for Pietermaritzburg. During the last session of Parliament I asked the h6n. the Minister what he was doing about an additional airport in Natal for the jumbo jet service. He unfortunately never replied to me. This is a matter of major public importance and I feel that the public are entitled to know what the future holds in this regard. It would also be necessary to acquire the necessary land as soon as possible in order to avoid having to pay astronomical prices for land as was recently reported in the Press to have happened in the vicinity of the Ian Smuts Airport. Pietermaritzburg and Durban are very rapidly developing towards one another and it must be remembered that the freight and the passengers destined for these two cities must have an airport from where they can disperse. The Durban Airport as far as I am concerned is unsatisfactory for this purpose, especially when one considers that it is situated near the coast and within the coastal mist belt. I think sufficient undeveloped land is available between these two cities which will be suitable for purchasing and the establishment of such an airport. I would also like to know what is going to happen with the Pietermaritzburg Airport. It is well situated, on flat land, and I think that could quite easily be developed into such an airport. I would like to quote from an article in an American journal which deals with airport developments and which I think will be of interest to the House. I quote—

Where are you quoting from?

I am quoting from an article in the Post, an American journal, by an airways engineer. I quote further—

How true is this forecast. The Jumbo jets are on their way and the great ocean liners are looking for passengers, already deprived of their normal quota of trade.

Then, I want to go onto road safety. I think we have juggled long enough with road safety. I have always supported the Road Safety Council and I am still a member. We must face the facts when we ask ourselves whether the Road Safety Council has succeeded with a breakthrough to reach the motorist or has it failed. I think their propaganda machine has lost its impact. The original enthusiasm of the public for road safety is on the wane. Road safety pamphlets have become a complete waste of public money.

Road safety films are no longer an attraction. During school holidays small children ask to view these films merely to pass the time of day as a form of amusement. If they had the necessary pocket money they would prefer to go to a cinema. To the best of my knowledge the Road Safety Council originally established 17 subcommittees in Pretoria. At the last annual conference in Durban 13 of these were wiped out in one swoop, I believe, at the request of the South African Railways. I understand the present General Manager is retiring and I suggest that he be replaced by an experienced and qualified motor engineer. I also suggest that only a nucleus of staff be retained at Pretoria with a manager as director to co-ordinate the four provincial road safety authorities. After all, traffic control is a provincial matter and provincial pride should be created and guarded jealously by each province. Threats are pouring in from all quarters against motorists. We must not make enemies of motor drivers and we must rather solicit their co-operation.

Our first difficulty lies in the inadequacy of learner driving training and examinations for drivers’ licences. This must be overcome by suitable legislation. At present the test for a motor driver’s licence is chicken feed in comparison with the testing for a pilot’s licence. Why is there this vast discrepancy? The road hog kills continuously, whereas the pilot must avoid collisions to save his own life. Traffic courts should be established in all major cities completely divorced from criminal courts. Preliminary evidence should be recorded as soon as possible while everything is still fresh in the witness’s mind. The traffic officers must be well educated and of the highest integrity and also very well paid. Money spent unnecessarily by the Road Safety Council on propaganda at present must be used to supply traffic officers with the best photographic equipment to record evidence against reckless drivers. Ordinary 35 mm. cameras, movie cameras and closed circuit television cameras and projectors should be used to show films as evidence in court. This will eliminate the hours of gruelling examinations of traffic officers in court to prove a point of evidence. Uniform legislation must be passed to accept evidence in all four provinces. The traffic forces strength must be considerably increased and this is already being done in several provinces. Heavy fines are of no avail, because they are paid by drivers, businesses houses and even by hard-luck clubs, I believe. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before making a few remarks in reply to what the previous speaker said, I want to refer to the speech made here by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I wonder whether the hon. member himself knows what he said. The hon. member for Durban (Point) made really distasteful and ugly accusations against the Road Transportation Service. The affairs of Road Transportation Service are managed by officials, and the hon. member spoke about a “record for bribery and corruption”. The hon. member was referring more specifically to inspectors. From what the hon. member said, I imagined this had to involve hundreds of people. He said this was “widespread”, and he gave us to understand that on extremely large number of people were involved in this. According to my information this in actual fact involved only six or seven people. The fact remains that those people who had committed this offence, were exposed and punished. The hon. member was now trying to suggest that nothing had been done to punish these offenders.

For how long had it been going on?

The fact of the matter simply is that the hon. member was trying to make political capital out of those cases.

No; I said there was no proper control.

I should like to take the debate to a higher level; the same level that maintained by the previous speaker in the final part of his speech, i.e. with regard to road safety. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) referred here to the S.A. Road Safety Council. From what I could gather from his speech, he criticized the council. I think the hon. member ought to know that the Minister has already appointed a committee of inquiry into the activities of the S.A. Road Safety Council. He did so in December, 1969. One aspect of the terms of reference of that committee is that it should ascertain whether there is a sound ratio between the expenditure involved in the maintenance and functioning of the S.A. Road Safety Council and the results achieved. This is the central idea as regards those terms of reference. I should like to mention in passing that the work of the Road Safety Council, or the council as such, is criticized very strongly, as the direct, real results are usually not visible. From the nature of the case, no exact results can be discerned. But for this reason, too the committee was appointed to investigate the activities of the council. We know that the Road Safety Council is operating on a really very broad basis. They are performing a major task in respect of the education of prospective drivers of vehicles. One need only examine their programme of work. I have here the current, immediate programme of work of the S.A. Road Safety Council, as published in the June /July edition of the magazine Robot. Here one can see what they are really trying to do.

A great deal is also being said and written about road safety and about the astounding death toll on our roads. It is really everyone’s duty as a citizen to take an interest in this major problem and to try to do something in his or her own field, whatever it may be, for improving the situation and for making our roads safe. The hon. member mentioned a matter with which I readily want to agree. I also want to say that tests for a driver’s licence should be made even stricter in order to eliminate that dreadful evil, the evil of unsafe roads. The high accident rate on our roads must be tackled at its roots. I think one of the aspects which deserves our attention, is the obtaining of that driver’s licence. When we think of motor traffic and the accidents which occur on the roads, there are three basic elements which one must take into account in every case. The first is the person behind the steering wheel; the second is the vehicle; and the third is the road. As far as the vehicle and the road are concerned, technical attention is continually being given to them. I do not want to elaborate on this. But now we come to the driver of the vehicle as such. As far as the driver is concerned, the vehicle actually is only an instrument in his hands. One can say it is an instrument under his feet, because he is the man who steps on the accelerator. That vehicle becomes a willing tool. It submits to the moods and the fancies the temperament, the emotions and the personality of the driver. Of the three elements I have mentioned, the driver is the most important. Roads are being improved; vehicles are being constructed stronger, but a bad driver or a badly trained driver with a good vehicle on a good road still remains a dangerous and potential cause of accidents. Sir, we know that the high accident rate, the high death toll, on our roads really is a stigma on the name of the Republic. Although we are achieving success in other respects, we have not made much progress in this field according to the statistics which are furnished from time to time. It has been irrefutably proved that this state of affairs is due to the human factor, the human shortcomings, and besides that, the person behind the steering wheel is not the only one involved in this matter, but also others who use the road namely pedestrians as well as cyclists. In an investigation which the South African Police conducted into road accidents which occurred during the summer holidays of 1967 and 1968, the contributory causes of fatal road accidents were divided as follows, and I think these figures are very interesting: Road defects, 4.26 per cent; vehicle defects, 5.58 per cent (a total of 9.84 per cent as regards the two elements I have just mentioned); the fault of the driver, 39.21 per cent; the fault of the pedestrian, 38.91 per cent; the fault of the cyclist, 8.52 per cent; the fault of the passenger, 2.64 per cent; the fault of animals, .59 per cent; illness of the driver, .29 per cent. Sir, this proves to us that the person behind the steering wheel is the biggest contributory factor towards accidents as well as other users of the road. Sir, as I have just said, because of the rapidly increasing number of vehicles and the increasing traffic, all feasible means must be sought for making our roads safer. This matter of making our roads more safe ought to get a big boost if the testing of the prospective driver is placed on a higher level. Road safety consciousness and the tremendous responsibility which the driver has towards himself, towards the passengers in the vehicle under his control and towards other people who use the road, must be impressed upon him long before he receives a driver’s licence. Sir. it is essential that the type of person who will become a danger, should be eliminated at the test. If he cannot be educated, he must be eliminated as a driver. It may not be so necessary to have such a very high level of intelligence in order to obtain a driver’s licence, but a certain level of intelligence is, in fact, necessary when a licence is granted because the person to whom the licence is issued, must be able to control a vehicle under all circumstances. [Time expired.]

I think every hon. member of this House must have been shocked by the very casual dismissal by the hon. member for Koedoespoort of the serious charges of corruption in the Division of Road Transportation made by my colleague the hon. member for Durban (Point). Surely, if in one single Dart of a department almost 100 per cent of the people are found guilty of corruption, it is much more than merely a superficial charge; it is an extremely serious matter which is worthy of the most serious investigation by the hon. the Minister. Do those members who laughed so lightly at these charges realize that in Natal alone that inspectorate amounts to 20 per cent of all the staff in Natal in the Division of Road Transportation? One of the main reasons may be the very low salaries these people are paid. In 1969, if my information is correct, they started on R70 per month, slightly more if they were ordinary inspectors. Information of that nature was given by the hon. the Minister in this House. There are indications, too, that the position might be almost as bad, if not worse, in the Transvaal, and we should like to know more from the hon. the Minister as to what has happened in regard to charges of corruption in that province. The hon. member for Koedoespoort, instead of laughing and being amused at cases of corruption, should have thanked the hon. member for Durban (Point) for having been one of the prime movers in bringing this matter to the attention of the authorities.

That brings me to what I actually wanted to say. I wanted to say something this afternoon about the miserable tale of delays and bad planning and of wastage of money in regard to the Jan Smuts Airport. Do we realize how important that airport is to South Africa? Annually there are no fewer than 32,000 takeoffs and landings at Ian Smuts, 12,000 of them on international flights alone. In four years the number of passengers on international flights has more than doubled. The total number of passengers carried in and out of Jan Smuts amounted to 1.5 million in one year, of whom 600,000 were on international flights. The passengers processed by Jan Smuts Airport are more than the total number of passengers using all the other airports in the whole of the Republic. Nearly two-thirds of the country’s air freight goes through Jan Smuts Airport. Why then is Jan Smuts Airport treated as the Cinderella airport of South Africa? Why is there this wastage and this lack of planning? I accuse the Government of allowing the building to proceed at a snail’s pace at Jan Smuts, and do not let the hon. the Minister blame the Public Works Department. because he and his own Department are responsible for the basic planning. The era of the Jumbo jets and of the supersonic transport. are almost on us. The Chairman of B.O.A.C. has expressed his anxiety as to whether Jan Smuts can cope with the Jumbo jets which will be arriving at the end of next year. Already Alitalia and Quantas are buying supersonic transports and at least one of them would like to use those transports on the Johannesburg run. Where is our planning for the days that lie ahead? The hon. the Minister of Transport told me two years ago that he had no plans in connection with the supersonic transports when they do come. I mentioned the word planning. Sir, but what sort of planning was it actually? The planning for this new terminal at Jan Smuts started in 1964. Three years later they started excavating the foundations. In 1969, a further two years later, they said that the contracts had been let out to the Public Works Department for some of the more important work, and meanwhile some changes had been effected in regard to the existing terminal. But how unimportant those changes were is reflected by the fact that the latest report of the Department of Transport has to mention, as being important, the fact that at the old terminal at Jan Smuts they enlarged the lavatories and chopped down a few bluegum trees. That is progress, Sir, under this Government. What I regard as even more serious is the fact that the plans of Jan Smuts Airport were changed more than once under this present Government, involving hundreds of thousands of rands wastage. A year or so ago it was decided not to proceed with the erection of a freight building to the immediate north of the new terminal complex, a building which would have cost millions of rands, and on which a large sum of money in regard to the preliminary work had already been spent. A plan has now been made for a new freight complex further to the north of the new planned international one. But why this change in plans? Why could these plans not originally have been drawn up properly? How many man-hours and money went down the drain unnecessarily? The multi-racial hotel going up at Jan Smuts is going up at a much quicker pace than the new terminal. Incidentally, can the Minister tell us whether this hotel is a multi-“racial” or a multi-“national” hotel? There is a difference between the two in his eyes and the country should therefore like to know. Facilities at Jan Smuts Airport to-day are atrocious. There are leaky, wooden passageways, porters lolling about, dust and dirt everywhere; it is badly signposted and you have tin-voiced announcers who cannot be understood; you have a draughty and cold concourse for passengers and interminable delays at customs clearance; and you have to wait endlessly for your luggage to arrive from the plane. I think we are entitled to know when this new terminal is going to be completed. Some years ago it was envisaged that it would be completed by 1972. Well. 1972 is only 17 months away, and to-day the hon. member for Mossel Bay said by way of interjection it would only be completed by 1975. He must have inside information.

Do not talk a lot of nonsense.

But the hon. member for Mossel Bay supports me. He interjected when I asked when it would be completed and said “1975”. It is not I, therefore, who talk nonsense. The hon. member for Durban (Point) drew attention to the fact how the expenditure account of this new terminal had changed over the years, that it was originally planned for R16 million, later on for R19 million, and at the present moment for R30 million. Surely, these increases are not due only to increases in the price of labour and of material. It indicates a change in plans; they could not stick to their original plans, and even at the present moment they do not seem to know where they are with this airport. No wonder the hon. member for Middelburg has to come and ask for the appointment of a committee to do the planning for future airports. Good gracious! We would have thought that such a committee would have been in existence for the past 10, 15 years. So, one can see how far the Government is behind the times in this respect. But that is not strange for an hon. Minister such as this. He delayed the electrification of the S.A. Railways for years and years; he delayed the oil pipeline for many years and will delay the installation of facilities for giant tankers also for years and years. Now he is planning badly, thereby wasting the taxpayers’ money, when it comes to our great international airport, Jan Smuts. I believe that the new terminal at Jan Smuts Airport may only be ready for the jumbo jets when other airports of the world have already prepared for vertical take-off flights on week-end trips to the moon.

I did so hope that I would be able to congratulate the hon. member for Orange Grove on a positive contribution, but I have been disappointed. There is a saying that when you build a house, you must not bring a woman or a drunkard anywhere near it, because they understand nothing about it, and therefore see difficulties which never existed. So, too. when you are making building operations to an airport, you must not bring the hon. member for Orange Grove anywhere near it, for what he sees, is all wrong. The building operations at Jan Smuts airport are in safe hands, and when they have been completed, it will be as much of an ornament to the country as the Cape station is to-day —something we can boast of throughout the whole world. In 1975 he will see everything as he would like to have it, including the decorative grounds.

In the few minutes which have been put at my disposal, I should like to discuss the new coastal road, a road which definitely affects my constituency because it will run through my constituency for a distance of more than 100 miles. Much publicity has recently been given to this road, and not always good publicity Some newspapers have even called it a “pleasure road”. The people have been brought under the impression that the road is going to come, but they do not know where or when. To me the when is not so necessary, but the where affects many persons or bodies in my constituency. It is their interests I should like to present here to-day.

There are, in the first place, 100 to 200 farmers who are going to be affected by it. It is very pleasant to speed along a freeway without their having to open a gate, but it is a different matter altogether for the farmer whose farm is now being cut in half. His farm planning is being completely disrupted, and where he had, up to that stage, still had an economic unit, it could now mean that he will have two pieces which are separated from each other. Since that is what is going to happen, we should like to know whether the farmer in question will be given proper access from the one piece to the other. Many things are being disrupted by this—such as soil conservation, which the farmer has started with. I have sympathy for that farmer who is going to be affected by the routing of this road, and I want to ask that we should meet them halfway by announcing as soon as possible which of them are going to be affected by the road, and in what way.

Divisional councils are in the same position. They are responsible for the construction of roads in their districts. They, too, do not know how the road is going to run, and for that reason their development programme is being influenced. After all, they cannot go and construct a road now which will subsequently run parallel to that coastal road. In addition they are laying out coastal resorts including Coloured coastal resorts, to which they must construct roads, and for that reason it is of fundamental importance to them to know how this road is going to affect them.

Then, too, there are the municipalities of coastal towns, such as that of Still Bay; this municipality has a real problem in this respect. It is making a considerable number of coastal plots available to the public. But how is the coastal road going to run? After all. nobody is going to buy a coastal plot if the possibility exists that it and the house which you are going to build on it is subsequently going to be in the way of the coastal road. It affects the price of all the plots, although the coastal road may eventually affect only two or three plots. The whole set-up is uncertain. Between the mouth of the Breë River and Still Bay we have the lovely spot we call Puntjie where the houses standing there have been declared an historic monument. According to provisional indications, it seems to me as if those houses are going to be affected by this proposed coastal road. The Department of Nature Conservation of the Cape has already approached me with the request that I should try to save Puntjie. I can go on and mention other bodies which are being affected by the uncertainty in regard to this road. For me as Member of Parliament it has become an impossible position because all these bodies are coming down on me now and want to know where and when the road is going to be built. [Interjections.] I do not know where the road is going to run either.

Now I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and his Department. I know that there will be certain disadvantages attached to the routing of the road and its announcement. There is no doubt about that. Speculation may arise and land may be sold for more than it is worth. In spite of the objections which exist, I want to make an appeal for the air to be cleared. Let us route and plan this road and give the public and all bodies who are closely involved in and affected by this, clarity in regard to the precise route the road will follow. It is of no use saying to them that they will be consulted and that their interests will be taken into account. That will not satisfy them. The uncertainty which exists in regard to this position makes the life of a Member of Parliament impossible. I trust the hon. the Minister will accommodate me in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay was pleading for his own constituency. The hon. member is worried about the farms that are being cut up as a result of the new coastal road. We have had experience of that very close to Cape Town, namely on the national road to Paarl. The Cape Provincial Administration, I think, treated those farmers very well. Any farms that were expropriated, were expropriated in the whole. The farmers were given the opportunity afterwards to tender for those portions that were not required by the Administration. I think on the whole farmers came out well on that deal. One does not like to see a farm cut up. Although this road goes through some very valuable farms, that is the price of progress.

I should like to talk about our own airport, namely the D. F. Malan Airport. Jan Smuts has been described as the Cinderella airport. I however always thought that the D. F. Malan Airport was the Cinderella airport. It has in the meantime become an international airport. The Government at long last saw the light of day. They are now trying to do something overnight by putting up prefabricated buildings. Over the years we have pleaded in this House for some relief as far as this airport is concerned.

Years before the Government, we foresaw that this airport, being near the coast, would become an international airport and that it would be used as such by some of the famous international airlines. Here again there is the question of inadequate runways. We have been told that there is ample space for lengthening these runways in order to take the Jumbo jets. I have, however, been told on very reliable authority that if we were to use these very big planes the runways would have to be extended over the present national road as a safety measure. What is more, they feel that this particular airport should be constructed to international standards because for airlines using the route from South America, this airport would serve as a safe emergency airport for them even if these planes are not scheduled to land at Cape Town. It is therefore felt that these runways should be brought up to the required standard. We have also heard pleadings here in regard to the planning of airports and airfields in this country. A peculiar position, however, has developed over the years.

I am now referring to the question of divided control. The airports are controlled by the Department of Transport. The aeroplanes and operating staff of the aeroplanes are controlled by the Railways, while the buildings are built by the Public Works Department. I think it is time that the Government got down to doing some re-alignment by putting these units under one control. We know what happened when the Post Office had divided control in so far as buildings were concerned. Now at least they are going ahead. I have nothing whatsoever against the Public Works Department. But where you do have divided control, you get into trouble. Added to that we have the anomalous position that many members in this House do not know whether they are speaking on Railways or Transport. The dividing line is so thin. That should be an indication to the Minister that something should be done by bringing the whole of the control of our airports and the provision of terminals under one control.

I should like to talk about a very touchy subject, the financing of urban freeways. We heard the hon. member for Yeoville pleading the case of Johannesburg in this regard. I think that Johannesburg has a real problem. We in the Cape, and particularly in Cape Town, are probably better off but we still have a long way to go. I think everybody was rather shocked when the hon. the Minister made the announcement that he was going to throw overboard the financing of urban freeways. I remember coming into this House in 1961. when a Bill was introduced to make funds available to the local authorities via the Provincial Council to build urban freeways. Now of course that has gone by the board. It would appear that it has gone by the board as a result of a report of the chief engineer of the Department.

As pointed out by the hon. member for Yeoville, much thought is being given to whether that is correct or not. I am going to assume that he rejected it merely on the grounds of finance and not on the grounds of planning. We in this country are in the happy position of having a road research institute of the C.S.I.R. If one reads the report on the address that Dr. Rigden gave before the congress of the Associations of Commerce of South Africa, one realizes the highly complex nature of the financing and the planning of urban freeways. One also realizes the complexity of the urban planning that is tied up with the question of finance of these freeways. It all comes back to finance but you cannot divorce the control or the financing from the national aspect. In regard to those organizations that have pleaded for a commission, I should like to say that I personally do not like commissions because we have the Borckenhagen Commission, the Schumann Commission and the Marais Commission.

The final report and the White Paper of the Borckenhagen Commission has still to see the light of day and we have only seen one minor report of the Schumann Commission. The report of the Marais Commission has apparently been thrown overboard although there is a lot of useful information in it. I am certain that the Government will act on certain aspects of this report. It is strange that the Government threw the financing of urban freeways overboard because when we read the South African Digest of 25th April, 1969. we see the beautiful photographs or urban free-ways under the heading “Freeways for safety”. We heard speeches here this afternoon about road safety. One cannot really co-ordinate the Government’s thinking on the one hand publishing these beautiful photographs of the free-ways in and around Cape Town and on the other hand to rejecting any appeals for assistance from the local authorities. I was pleased, and I think most of the people in this country were pleased to hear, that the Government had at last seen the light of day as far as financing our national roads through the National Transport Commission is concerned.

In the Estimates we have an amount of R56.200,000 provided for in terms of Act 42 of 1935. I was pleased to hear the hon. the Minister of Finance tells us that, I think, another R12 million will go to this fund, thereby increasing it to R68,200,000. this year. Sir, I think the Minister has at last heard us, because we have over the years pleaded to the Minister of Transport to wean a little more from the Minister of Finance for this fund. I notice from his report I have here that this fund is in the red to the extent of R15,421,000. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether the fund is in fact in the red or whether the money has been allocated for various schemes, and is unspent because this is a large amount. We do not, however, object to his being in the red if something is being done with the money.

Various suggestions have been made as to how urban freeways can be constructed by taxation of the road user. In this connection I should like to quote paragraph 398 of the Marais Commission report, which reads as follows—

I do not think that the motorist realizes when he puts a gallon of petrol in his car that is the position. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Salt River put in a plea for two matters The first is that our Airways should be controlled under the same system as that of the Railways. I could not follow what he envisaged with that very well, because he said that, as in the case of the Post Office, it should be under one system. I am not going to follow up on what he has said in that regard.

The Second matter he. advocated. Was the question of through roads. We know that a resolution has been adopted to the effect that the cost of bypasses shall be borne in full by the Transport Commission, but the policy of building bypasses within urban areas has been departed from as a result of a very thorough investigation instituted by a departmental commission of inquiry which was sent overseas some time ago. A chief roads engineer from the Department arrived at the following conclusions after intensive investigations: The first is that urban bypasses do not offer a solution to traffic congestion within the street systems of a mid-urban area, and the second conclusion is that these bypasses require many costly and extensive areas to be expropriated within urban areas. As a result of this report which was brought out after thorough investigation, the policy has been changed in such a way that bypasses are being built and that roads within the urban area are no longer the responsibility of the Transport Commission.

My time is very limited but I should still like to raise two other matters. I want to leave the Opposition at that now, and raise a matter which has often been broached over the years. However, there is always something new to say in this connection. This is the question of the serious danger which exists in respect of our railway crossings. These railway crossings have during the past ten years claimed 703 lives and if we look at the statistics, we note that 2,598 lives have been claimed …

Order! Railway crossings are dealt with under “Railways” and not under “Transport”.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, but with all due respect I just want to point out to you that under the Transport Vote R1 million is being appropriated for the elimination of railway crossings.

These are railway crossings over national roads, and not crossings over railway lines.

Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what I want to discuss. I want to make it very clear that it is in fact at these crossings over the national roads where many lives are being claimed. If we look into the matter further, we see that it is an impossible task to think that these railway crossings over our national roads can be eliminated immediately. For that reason I should like to point out that warning signs are being put up. We know that the programme has also been accelerated, but the warnings which are being put up, such as stop signs, flashing lights, booms, bell systems and half-length booms, as well as guarded crossings are being disregarded by our travelling public. This is a matter which I feel is a very serious one. We must see to it and make an appeal to our public not to disregard the road ordinances and that they should pay heed to those signs.

Further to this, I want to discuss the slaughter of our people on our roads. One of the previous speakers has already gone into this matter quite thoroughly, and I do not want to go into it any further, except just to mention a few aspects. It is not only the figures of fatal accidents which are important, but also those of people who have been maimed. These figures are as frightening. If we take those numbers, we find that they are even worse. We know and we realize that a great deal can be done to reduce this accident rate. Road safety can for example be built into these roads, and we realize that if we can do this at one go we will save many lives. With a country of vast distances such as ours this can only be done on a small scale. That is why it is definitely not the solution for us at this stage. The broken white line on our roads is also of great importance. What I regard as the greatest danger, however, are the methods followed by our pedestrians. I have no solution but I want to emphasize that our people and our children should be taught to walk facing oncoming vehicles. This is of course the easiest, for if you see the vehicle coming you can take steps to avoid it properly. This has been my experience and because my attention has been drawn to the fact that Bantu children in particular are inclined to walk in groups. There are children who ride bicycles among them. They are of course on the wrong side of the road then. Some of these children decide at the last minute to swing back to the right side of the road and end up in front of a vehicle. This is one of the ways in which many serious accidents are caused. I do not have a solution for this problem, because I realize it is easier for pedestrians to walk in the direction of approaching traffic. That old saying “Keep left!” is not being taught to these people from an early age. Since they, when they walk along next to the road, walk on the right hand side, they sometimes drive on the right-hand side too. This constitutes a very serious danger to us.

The other matter I want to mention is the question of the speed limit on our roads. Statistics have indicated very clearly that since we have had the speed limit of 70 miles per hour on our roads, numerous lives have been saved, as has also been proved by the Road Federation as a result of the fixed speed limit. I think that on existing roads where speed is not a danger, those roads can be exempted from this limit. On ordinary roads I feel, however, that it is of the greatest importance that where the speed limit of 70 miles per hour has brought about a reduction in the death toll as a result of accidents it should be retained. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, implicit in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Co-ordination of Transport in South Africa in the relevant chapter, is a recommendation that a very large and effective road safety campaign should be inaugurated. On studying the road accident statistics for the years 1960 to 1969 I find that no fewer than 47,000 persons were killed on our roads. This is the equivalent of the population of Uitenhage and roughly 5.0 persons more than the populations of Klerksdorp, Paarl, or Potchefstroom. In addition. during the same period, nearly 123,000 persons were injured in accidents on the roads. The human suffering and misery, the blood and tears as a result of these accidents, are not tangible but what is known is that during this period of slaughter our country lost something like R600 million in wasted man hours, material, and personal damages, hospital costs and litigation during this decade of death and injury on our roads.

The accident rate in itself is disturbing. It is claimed that the rate per million vehicle miles dropped from .36 in 1967 to 32 in 1968, but the record since then has deteriorated and there is every indication that the accident rate for 1969 will be immeasurably higher. In determining the road accident causes it s essential that we should determine the basic causes of each road accident so that we can determine and process the causes as a whole and can ascertain what the reasons for this high accident rate in our country are. It is important that we should recognize from Police records the incidence of accidents which are recorded merely as due to the driver, and accidents which are recorded for a large number of other determinable causes, such as the weather, road speed, manpower, etc. The main purpose of accident statistics should then be to determine the relative importance of each factor so that appropriate and comprehensive measures aimed at accident prevention can be recorded. I take, for instance, one example of an accident report that speed may have been excessive in terms of road layout and prevail-ing traffic or weather conditions but to blame speed in isolation appears to be an intrusion of opinion into what should be treated as a fact. Accident investigation involves the dependability of the judgment of the investigator and should be restricted to causes which reveal themselves from evidence at the scene of the accident.

If it can be accepted that the primary purpose of accident statistics is accident prevention, we should seek ways and means of establishing a central bureau, fully automated, in which the overall picture, as affecting our nation, can be determined. To illustrate this point, let me refer to a measure which has been the subject of contention ever since its inception. I refer to the introduction of the 70 m.p.h. general speed limit which was firmly decided upon and in fact became law in 1967. In this instance many people refuse to recognize that this is law. They regard it rather as an experiment, one to be tried and tested and abandoned if found impracticable. At the same time others, protagonists of the measure, have evidently felt that unless the speed limit was continually defended and justified, it would be repealed. However, Sir, this is law and will not be repealed in the ordinary course of circumstances. But this situation has given rise to an unprecedented spate of unfounded claims and wrong deductions from the facts released periodically by the Bureau of Statistics.

From where are you quoting?

I am quoting statistics over the last 10 years available from the Automobile Association. There is a growing awareness of the road accident problem both by the general public and governmental authorities. Such an awareness, however, while giving impetus to the promotion of road safety programmes, has its disadvantages. It would appear that most authorities operate some form of accident investigation and a reporting system and certain provincial authorities have approved in principle the appointment of officers charged specifically with the task of collecting accident statistics.

This is a step in the right direction, but it would be regrettable if the eventual success of the whole operation is jeopardized through its restricted scope. It has been estimated that one of the provincial administrations is required to deal annually with 60,000 accident reports. A single city such as Detroit deals annually with 90,0 reports of accidents. The indication is that computer technology and modern coding systems must be applied to process this volume, so that adequate manpower and equipment are made available, it is logical that a central administration should administer this office.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Gardens raised the important question of road accidents. But I have often wondered whether we should seek the blame in the Department of Transport or in ourselves. My honest opinion is that we should seek the blame in ourselves. I, who often drive long distances, have often noticed that one comes across careless drivers. They come from behind at a very high speed, 70, 80 or 90 miles per hour, and cross two or even three white lines to overtake you. They overtake you on a blind rise where a head-on collision will be unavoidable. In the same way they overtake you on a blind corner, and once again a head-on collision will be unavoidable. These are the people Who cause accidents. I recently noticed when I undertook a long journey from where I stay to Cape Town over the Easter week-end, how a motorist weaved through the traffic at a tremendous speed and eventually overturned his motor car in Du Toitskloof. He went over the precipice. If he had been a little more careful, this would not have happened to him. There is another reason, Sir; people try to drive as far as they possibly can in one day. They want to cover 600, 700, 800 or 900 miles in a day. Eventually the driver becomes tired; eventually he falls asleep; he drives off the road and involves not only himself but also his wife and children in an accident.

Then there is a third malpractice, and this is a very grave one. Some drivers, to keep their strength up, stop off at every town to have a drink, and sometimes they also take something along for the road. Recently I had a case where a man caused an accident when he was driving through my home town. The police caught him and then he phoned me with a request that I should help him. I asked him what they had done and he replied: “Sir, we had a few tots of gin when we set out and we also bought a bottle of vodka for the road.” Eventually they finished the vodka and while they were driving through the town they meandered all over the road and ran into a Coloured.

This is the kind of thing that causes accidents, and I do not want the Department of Transport to be blamed for this. One must sometimes examine one’s own conscience. I am talking now about drivers who drive during the night. We have provincial traffic inspectors but I almost want to say that they do not serve their purpose, because they catch people who may perhaps have been driving at 75 miles per hour. In my opinion a good driver who drives between 70 to 80 miles per hour, is a much safer driver than a poor driver who drives at 40 miles per hour. I think that drivers—and I include myself—should be examined from time to time to see whether they can still drive at a high speed. The trouble is that everyone wants to drive at 70 miles per hour, because there is a speed limit of 70 miles per hour, and many drivers simply cannot do it. They lose control of their vehicle. These are all matters which one should take into consideration.

Then there is a matter in regard to which we as members of Parliament receive many complaints, and that is the routing of national roads. It has already been mentioned here and I should like to mention it again because I think we cannot place sufficient emphasis on this. So often the route is planned so that it goes through a farmer’s lands. I want to ask the Department of Transport to plan the road routes in such a way that the road will not go through the farmer’s lands. One could rather drive an extra half or quarter mile. I know that tarred roads are very expensive, but I think that the road route should be planned in such a way that the farmer’s lands are spared. We know what a farmer’s lands are worth to him. What happens when a farmer’s lands are cut in half by a road? Land remains on both sides of the road, but now you have tremendously heavy traffic on that road running through the lands and it upsets the animals; they are not able to utilize the grazing they would otherwise have been able to utilize. I therefore want to ask the Department of Transport to give serious consideration to ensuring as far as possible that roads do not run through lands. Then, too, there is the problem where a road runs through a farmer’s farm; the road runs through one of his enclosed fields and then there is no access for the farmer’s animals to that part of the farm where the water is. If often happens, when a road runs through a farmer’s enclosed field, that there are 200 or 300 or more morgen on the one side of the road which cannot be utilized. Sir, these are all matters which I want to ask the Department to take into account so that there can be satisfaction among the farmers. We are not opposed to national roads; we know that we must have national roads, and we would also like to have them. All we want is that they should be constructed in the most effective way possible.

Mr. Chairman, we are living in an era of traffic, transport and the constructions of large airports, the building of splendid national roads, and you will then pardon me for availing myself of this opportunity of conveying to Mr. Driessen my congratulations on his appointment as Secretary for Transport. I know that he has already been welcomed to this post, but I want to welcome him in particular, to this post. I want to express the hope that he will enjoy many years of service and prosperity in this Department. In addition I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Deputy Minister and say to them that we must simply ignore the lamentations of the hon. member for Orange Grove. We know that with our fine roads under their control, things will go well with our transport system. Sir, Orange Grove is a wonderful place. It is only a pity that the attractiveness of Orange Grove cannot be transplanted into its representative. When I listen to his speeches here, his remarks and his lamentations of Jeremiah …

Order! What has this to do with the Vote?

Sir, it has something to do with it because the hon. member complained again to-day that nothing was going to come in future from the alterations to and the rebuilding of Jan Smuts Airport. I want to give him the assurance that since extensive building operations are taking place there, that airport will in future be a model airport.

Sir, we do not, like that hon. member, merely want to complain; we want to say thank you for that fine road between Johannesburg and Pretoria. For us who come from the rural areas it is a pleasure to drive along that Ben Schoeman Avenue. I also want to say thank you for the fact that we no longer need to drive at 70 miles per hour, because I also, like speed, and that we can now at least drive at a speed of 80 miles per hour. I only hope that it will be allowed in the Cape Province as well, and that the Cape Province will again learn something from the Transvaal. I also want to say thank you for the road from Krugersdorp to Pretoria which is under construction. It is a beautiful road, and for those of us who live in the Western Transvaal, it will be easier to make use of that route to Pretoria.

Then I want to ask what the Department is going to do about the traffic in Johannesburg and Cape Town, to mention only two cities, which is to-day getting out of hand. Cannot something be done to limit the number of motor cars on the national road in and outside the cities? Sir, when one makes use of these fine national roads in the mornings, when one sees that in nine out of every ten motor cars there is only the driver in those motor cars, and occasionally a second person. Take for example this fine national road between Cape Town and Paarl. I want to ask, while land can still be obtained reasonably cheaply, whether facilities cannot be created now already to alleviate the traffic problem in Cape Town by constructing large parking areas next to the road, and by introducing a national bus service under the control of the Minister. Only it must not be under the control of Cape Town. Then the Minister can, by means of road transport, bring the people from the northern suburbs, from Bellville, to Cape Town. I think that would be a good plan, i.e. that the people can be collected there and transported to Caps Town by bus. I do not think that it will be possible to do so in Johannesburg, because the city has expanded to such an extent that there is no more land available to-day.

Pleas have been put forward to-day, particularly by the hon. member for Welkom, for the establishment of an airport at Welkom. I want to tell you that traffic has increased to such an extent, and I have already in the past asked for an airport to be established in the area of Klerksdorp which could serve the Western Transvaal and Western Free State. But there are various interests, and the hon. member for Welkom put his case so well and made the Department of Transport such a generous offer, which actually amounts to a donation of R400,000, that it will be very difficult for me to advocate that that airport should be established at Klerksdorp or Stilfontein. But I want to say this in regard to the serious nature of the matter: In the Western Free State and the Western Transvaal— and now I am including all the towns—where tremendous expansions are taking place today, it is almost impossible for us to get from there to Jan Smuts Airport. You must pass through a large part of the city centre on your way to Jan Smuts, and how long the fly-overs which are being constructed there will still take before the ringroad has been completed which will bring us easily to Jan Smuts, I do not know. But many members of the public of the Western Transvaal make use of the Kimberley Airport, which is very far away, and also of the Bloemfontein airport. Now I do not merely want to put in a plea for Klerksdorp or for Welkom, but if such an airport can be established in the Western Transvaal or the Western Free State which will help make it possible for our people to use that airport instead of Bloemfontein or Kimberley or Jan Smuts, it would mean a great deal to us. In that case I want to support the hon. member for Welkom and say that I hope and trust that the hon. the Minister of Transport will give that offer from Welkom favourable consideration, for it will then be easier for us in the Western Transvaal to use that airport.

Then I want to say this. There were some of our colleagues here who supported the speed limit of 70 miles per hour very enthusiastically. I am pleased that the Transvaal province has done away with that 70 mile per hour limit on the main roads and the bypasses. I merely want to express the hope that the Cape Province and Natal will follow suit. We are building wonderful roads and are spending millions of rands on them. Motor-cars are being modernized and are being made larger and faster and more comfortable. Then you are held down to 70 miles an hour when you have to cover long distances, and there is nothing I find irritating more as that monotonous speed. No nagging housewife would ever be able to irritate me more than to drive at 70 miles per hour on a beautiful road like Ben Schoeman road. With that I hope and trust that in future, since fine roads are being constructed, that speed limit will fall away completely in the other provinces.

The hon. member for Stilfontein mentioned the money being spent on the improvement to our main roads, and he made a plea for the other provinces, particularly Natal, to lift the speed limit higher than the 70 miles per hour it is at present. I know that there are some members on this side of the House who agree with him when he says he gets irritated by the 70 miles an hour speed limit which obtains on our modern roads. But I would like to ask the hon. member and any other hon. member on either side of the House whether they are not overlooking the fact that in the last 20 years the speed limit being set at 70 miles an hour is one of the very few positive ideas that we have brought into road safety. Our roads have got better and faster and the 70 miles an hour speed limit is one of the very few positive things we have suggested in regard to road safety. As a result it has been estimated that something like 900 lives have been saved. So when the hon. member says he likes speed on a good road and he is not alone in that, I would like to suggest to him that road safety is something we have not been able to make a great deal of progress on. We have built our very fast and modern roads, but we have made very little real progress in regard to road safety, as evidenced by the alarming figures and the fact that South Africa has an accident rate which throws shame on all of us.

But before I deal generally with road safety, I should like to mention something which the hon. member for Parow said a little earlier when he asked the Minister about motor vehicle insurance and suggested that perhaps the Consortium could now reduce the commission because the fund has become stabilized. If the amount of commission to the companies could be reduced there would be more money in the fund to cover claims. I was very pleased to hear this, because it is in line with the plea I have made over the last two years, that the fund has been making too much money. When the hon. member for Parow says they can now take less commission it supports the view I have that the consortium companies have made too much money. Last year the consortium companies in fact received a gross figure of R26 million, and the handling of claims under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act has deteriorated because the companies are not concerned with the amounts of the claims since the claims are settled by the fund. I would be very pleased to see the Minister admit all the insurance companies to the fund, as I have asked before. Some of the biggest companies in the country are excluded and there is no justification for this, as we have said year after year.

Coming back to road safety, I have been criticized recently for stating that 30,000 people will be killed on our South African roads in the next five years. I was criticized for saying this, and the person who did so said that I had been too conservative and that in fact the figure was likely to be 33,000. The hon. member for Gardens mentioned the various towns in South Africa whose population would be eliminated in this period. I think he mentioned the towns whose populations had been wiped out in theory, in the last 10 years. My concern is that we have a number of bodies wholly dedicated to road safety. We have the different research councils and we have people who have dedicated much of their time, or the whole of it, to road safety. And yet we seem to be achieving very little; the accident rate continues to rise. Hon. members seem to have their own ideas about what is causing accidents. But here lies the crux of the matter: What in actual fact is the cause of our high accident rate. Everyone of us has his own ideas. I should like the Minister to call a national convention on road safety. The Minister himself admitted that he had no real power in so far as road safety was concerned. Well, I suggest to him that it is time that he takes that power. He can no longer play about with road accidents. There is not a single member in this House who cannot say that anybody near or dear to him has not been hit by this high accident rate. So I say the Minister must take the necessary powers. Often we on this side of the House begrudge giving powers to the Ministers, but in this instance there is not a single South African who will complain if the Minister takes powers to implement some of the recommendations of those organizations who have devoted so much of their time to road safety only to see all their efforts being nullified just because there are no means to implement them.

I referred to the speed limit earlier on. Even the provinces themselves are not at one in this regard. How are we going to do anything to improve road safety if regulations vary from province to province? As there seems to be no other way to enforce uniformity on the provinces, I suggest that the Minister seek the necessary powers to bring about uniform road safety regulations. I have made a study of road accidents. Some people say driving tests are to blame. Well, that needs investigation. To-day a person can obtain a driver’s licence at a very young age and is allowed to operate on that driver’s licence until he is past his mature age, even though his health may have deteriorated. Obviously, the time has come that drivers should be re-tested. Another question is, are penalties sufficiently high? I have mentioned before that if one catches a crayfish in Natal illegally one can face a fine of R500. but for driving under the influence of liquor one may be fined anything from R30 to R150. We seem to have our priorities wrong. In the circumstances, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to obtain the necessary powers to enforce road safety on a reluctant and very guilty South African public.

The hon. member for Port Natal must pardon me for not following up on what he said since I want to deal with something else. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the increased amount for the Weather Bureau which appears in this Budget. Recently, the functions of this Bureau have expanded tremendously. It would not be a vain prediction if I said to-day that the amount which is being made available for the Weather Bureau will have to be increased drastically. As far as meteorological observations are concerned, South Africa has an outstanding record. In fact, our achievements in this field have already placed South Africa in the front line as far as world meteorology is concerned. That position we must retain at all costs, and consolidate even further. Not only do we owe it to ourselves, but we are also under a moral obligation to the international world of science. South Africa is a country which figuratively borders on the Antarctic region.

Now I wish that, in the limited time I have at my disposal this afternoon. I could be afforded an opportunity of going into the scientific programme which is already in progress in respect of the Antartica in full. This is a programme which is being undertaken in co-operation with our South African universities and which already appears to be internationally indispensable. It is a programme which has really placed South Africa on the world map. In passing I just wanted to touch lightly on a few aspects. I wanted to mention to hon. members a programme such as the airglow programme of the University of Stellenbosch. The phenomenae of celectial space have proved that our base at Sanae is geographically exceptionally suitable for astrophysical research. Then there is the whistlers programme which the University of Natal is carrying out. As you know, Sir, whistlers are the energy from a bolt of lightning which is propagated via the magnetic line of force from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. Then, too, the University of Potchefstroom is engaged on a cosmic rays-programme. It is expected that the data which South Africa will obtain in this connection may throw light on the actual danger of those areas with radiation anomaly for space travellers. Rhodes University, on the other hand, is engaged on a programme on the ionosphere which plays an extremely important role in our radio communication network for shipping and air traffic. South African scientists have already gained international recognition for the discovery of a major additional alien phenomenon in the ionosphere. We can with justification and without fear of contradiction say that radio communication in the southern hemisphere has been vastly improved since the introduction of this programme. Then there is, briefly, the programme on geomagnetism and aurora which play an important role in the observation of earthquakes and earth tremors.

I have said, Sir, that I only wanted to mention a few aspects to indicate that South Africa’s contributions to scientific research in Antarctica has gained international acclaim and that that programme of ours is still expanding. I now want to come to my actual problem which is that in all these research projects and so on the research and supply ship of the Department of Transport, the R.S.A., is playing an extremely important role. My plea today is that this ship has basic shortcomings and that as a result of development in the field of science she no longer serves her pur-pose. If we wanted to maintain our leading position we will of necessity have to replace the R.S.A. soon. The R.S.A. was acquired in 1962 as a research ship. When it was commissioned, it was a ship which was designed to work under ice conditions although it was not an ice-breaker in the true sense of the word. She has little power, only one screw and is only capable of 11.8 knots. She does not have enough space for a helicopter deck. The ship was initially designed for 25 passengers because that was the accommodation we needed at the time. As a result of the expansion in scientific programmes, as I have tried to indicate, there is an increasing demand for accommodation on the R.S.A. by our scientists. Since then the accommodation has been increased from 25 to 31 which has entailed that the other essential facilities on this ship have suffered. The fact of the matter is that journeys to Antarctica are probably not among the most comfortable one could imagine, not only because there is a lack of space on the ship, but because the ship is designed for ice conditions and has not been stabilised for journeys on the stormy open sea. If one is not immune to sea-sickness, one must definitely not think of sailing on the R.S.A., because it will only be your spirit which reaches Antarctica.

The Japanese have a research ship, the Fuji, which, if we consider our present needs, is the closest answer to a replacement ship. This ship is a true ice-braker which has considerable power, two screws and is capable of 18 knots, as against the R.S.A.’s 11.8 knots. Because a new ship has to be designed for unusual circumstances, we will of necessity have to look to other countries, who already have the necessary know-how, to build it. Our scientists and the men on these weather stations are people who are exposed to intense dangers, and we dare not place an experimental ship as their disposal. My plea to-day is therefore that we should try to replace the R.S.A. as quickly as possible, even though it cost us several million rands.

In the minute which is left, I want to re-turn to a matter which I raised in 1967 under the same Vote, namely the question of a meteorological station on Bouvet Island. At that time the hon. the Minister reacted very favourably to that. He indicated that investigations were in progress, but that the island was very dangerous as a result of its situation, its rocky surface, and so on. It seems to be a fact that we will hardly be able to establish a meteorological station there if we do not have a ship with helicopter facilities. As I have indicated this is in fact one of the greatest short-comings of the R.S.A. If this investigation is completed, I just want to ask whether the hon. the Minister cannot in the mean time make arrangements with the S.A. Navy to make helicopter facilities available in order to establish that meteorological station there.

I have tried to indicate why it is so imperative, i.e. because our present two meteorological stations at Gough Island and Marion Island, are situated 2,000 miles apart. They are so situated that they more or less form a funnel with the southernmost point of Africa. We then find that Bouvet Island is situated more or less in the middle of that funnel. That gives us an indication of what a vacuum may exist in our weather forecasts. Consequently I want to ask that if this matter can in any way be expedited, we should do so, since weather forecasts to-day play such an extremely important role for South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to tell the hon. member for Tygervallei, who made a very thorough study of the subject he discussed, that a new ship to replace the R.S.A. will cost us between R6 million and R7 million. We know how essential this is, but with the shortage of loan funds we have already decided to start getting the plans in order so that when the funds become available, we shall be able to get such a ship which will already have been planned in full.

In regard to his request for a meteorological station at Bouvet Island, we have a problem. It is an island which is going to be covered by floating ice. We can only reach the island if we land on it by helicopter. At the moment the R.S.A. cannot carry a helicopter. Investigations are being made into the possibility of constructing a steel deck on it so that it may in fact be able to carry a helicopter, should it become necessary for us to take such a decision. We cannot think of establishing a meteorological station there before we have done this.

Now I should like to reply first to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about the urban congestion, and the hon. member for Parow also spoke about this topic. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that it was not necessary for him to say that the hon. member for Parow knew nothing about this, for the hon. member for Parow made a very thorough study of the matter. The hon. member for Westdene also spoke about this matter. Therefore. the problems in respect of this congestion have already been put to us. The hon. member for Yeoville himself said that freeways were not the solution to this urban congestion. This is true, for in fact those big freeways, which cost millions, serve to aggravate the congestion at those points where the through-traffic flows into the urban area itself. In presenting the Budget, the hon. the Minister of Finance told this House that he hoped to table during this very session the White Paper in regard to the inquiry into the financial relations between the Central Government, the provincial administrations and the local authorities. This whole problem which the hon. member discussed, deals with one aspect, i.e. the available funds and the existing financial relationship. It is true, as the hon. member said, that exceptionally high taxes were already being paid in the urban areas, and that every organization should only have certain permissible notches of taxation. I just want to point out that the hon. the Minister did not reject the report of the Marais Commission in toto. The hon. the Minister stated in a previous debate what parts of the report he did not accept and why he did not accept them. Furthermore, he motivated his standpoint. The report of the Marais Commission contains certain recommendations in regard to this problem of traffic and mass transport in urban areas. This matter has already been raised by the hon. member for Parow. I want to say at once that the toll-gate idea has not been rejected. It is something which is still being investigated. It is possible that it may be of assistance here. Decentralization is not relevant here at all. I do not know why the hon. member mentioned it in this respect. It has nothing to do with it. The actual fact is that it is being said in this report that this is actually a matter which belongs under the provincial administration and also under the National Transport Commission. I myself am convinced that the urban areas cannot undertake and solve this matter individually. Fir instance, it would be of no avail to the Johannesburg City Council to solve the problem for itself only, for it is surrounded by Benoni, Boksburg, Brakpan and the other suburbs. In other words, there has to be co-ordination. The matter should be undertaken on a regional basis. As this is the case, I want to say that the Department has very explicitly point out that this is a matter which primarily belongs under the provinces. In terms of the Constitution Act the province is actually the father of the local authority. The provinces are responsible for the local authorities. There is at present an inter-provincial council on road traffic under the chairmanship of an administrator; the members of this council are the M.E.C.’s charged with the road traffic of each of the provinces, and the Secretary for Transport. I think that we should adopt the attitude that this House is a good starting-point for taking the recommendations of the Marais Commission further. In other words, if we look at the recommendation made in paragraph 824 of the report of the Marais Commission—I do not have the time to read it out now—and I say that this interprovincial road traffic organization can do it, then the point of departure is, and so it must remain, that this is the organization which must undertake that matter in the first place. However, I want to point out—the hon. member for Parow has already done so—that the Government has already done a great deal in this regard. We made available R51 million— i.e. R10 million to Durban, R5 million to Port Elizabeth, R15 million to Johannesburg, R11 million to Cape Town and R10 million to Pretoria—for the purpose of helping them with this urban throughtraffic. This has had the effect that some of the cities, since they are not the people who have to pay for this, have undertaken such extensive and grandiose schemes that it would cost millions of rands too much and would not solve the problem. We do not stand aloof or adopt an attitude of indifference towards the problems created by this traffic. For that reason, we have already, apart from these amounts which I have just mentioned, built bypasses or ringroads. And on that we have already spent, as was indicated by the hon. member for Parow—and I am not going to mention the various towns and cities now—an amount of R122 million. On the Johannesburg ringroad along, an amount of R47 million was spent. This was done in order to keep out of the Johannesburg complex traffic which flows from the West Rand to the East Rand or Pretoria but which does not have to go through Johannesburg, and vice versa. In this manner attempts are being made at bringing about relief in the urban area.

But then we come to the question of mass transport. The hon. member said that investigations had been made in regard to underground trains, the monorial or other types of transport. In these cases it is a matter for the local authority, but, to my mind, on a co-ordinated basis with the provincial administration as the body which has to undertake it. Furthermore, the Transvaal Provincial Council has already indicated that it is interested in this. They have already, as the hon. member himself admitted, taken the necessary first steps. I say: Do not proceed with this Johannesburg scheme. Let us look into it once again on a co-ordinated basis.

The hon. member for Parow asked a number of very important questions. In this regard I am going to reply, at the same time, to the representations made by the hon. member for Port Natal. The latter have a bearing on third party insurance. The hon. member for Parow wanted to know whether the amounts which were being paid out, were not simply being wasted. In regard to this problem there was a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Adv. Moll. This commission of inquiry sent out a proper questionnaire which was answered by various persons and bodies, including welfare organizations, etc. Apart from this evidence, the committee also caused a number of cases to be investigated personally by officers of the Department of Transport in order to determine beyond any doubt what the circumstances were in each case where compensation amounting to R10,000 and more had been received by persons who were involved in accidents. In the number of cases investigated only one case could be found where a young unmarried person had used his money injudiciously. However, he is fully capable of leading a normal life, as he is working again and has an income. It is interesting to know that in the other cases it was found that the money had been spent well. Some of them bought houses, and in other cases the money was invested at building societies and in shares. If it is borne in mind that the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund pays out approximately R16 million in claims every year, I think that this Committee will agree with me that there is actually no cause for thinking that money is being wasted. The money was spent properly. The committee found that in the light of all the evidence submitted to it, there was at present no such problem of the compensation being wasted to such an extend that it would justify the promulgation of regulations to control the situation. In other words, we are still safe in this regard.

Then the hon. member asked in regard to the aspect of commission, whether the consortium was not receiving too much. The hon. member mentioned that the consortium received 20 per cent for administrative costs plus 5 per cent in respect of their agents. Now, I must tell you, Sir, that we have a consultative committee and an advisory committee. As I said during this debate the previous year, this aspect is being investigated by this committee every year. All the documents are placed at its disposal. The profit and loss accounts, etc., of these insurance companies are examined. And if they charge an increased premium, this matter must also be investigated first by this committee. They advise the Minister. As I promised on a previous occasion, the committee has once again carried out a thorough investigation and I am very pleased to say that they held their last meeting on 5th August, and having examined the documents, they found that in view of the present financial strength of the fund, the commission received by the members of the consortium could be reduced. They found that it could be reduced from 20 per cent to 18 per cent. This reduction will take effect as from the beginning of the 1971-’72 insurance year. The direct saving for the fund as well as the public—for this is money belonging to the public which is being held in reserve—will amount to between R800,000 and R1,000,000.

However, there is one thing which we must understand very clearly. Sometimes there are complaints to the effect that the premiums are too high. In this regard, however, we should draw a comparison between the claims that are put in and the premiums. I shall furnish a few examples in this respect. Hon. members know, of course, that there are two groups i.e. Group X and group Z. Group X represents the rural areas. As regards private motor cars, we find that the claims have been slightly less than the premiums every year. In 1968-’69 the premiums were R17.00, whereas the claims in respect of private motor cars in the ZZ area amounted to as much as R17.12. In 1969-’70 the premiums were, once again, more than the claims. I just want to mention one example, as I do not want to waste the time of the House. Now, you should not lose sight of the fact, Sir, that in 1969-’70 2,208 claims in respect of private motor cars were outstanding in the rural area. In the urban area 8,946 claims were outstanding. Apart from this, Claims can still be put in during the next two years, and only then will such claims be paid out over a number of years. In other words, if the contract between these companies and the fund terminates in 1976, claims can still be lodged until 1978. However, it will still be possible to pay out such claims until at least 1981 or later: Therefore, although the companies have a large amount of money at their disposal, it cannot be said that they are keeping too much money.

Then the hon. member also wanted to know why there were claims which became prescribed. There are many of my colleagues who are making representations to me and asking me to be so kind as to permit prescribed claims to be awarded. I want to state very positively that this cannot be done. Once we open that door, we shall never see the end of it. We cannot do so, especially because of the fact that people who allow claims to become prescribed are, in 95 per cent to 99 per cent of these cases, those persons who have to put in these claims or the attorneys who have to put in these claims on behalf of the claimants. I do not want to mention names. However, I specially investigated the position, and I have here with me a list of such claims that have become prescribed. There is one firm of attorneys which was guilty of no fewer than 12 cases during this year. Now, I can tell the Committee that I thought we should even go so far as to report these people to the Law Society; if not, we should ask the Law Society, and I think we should consider this matter to force these attorneys to take out a policy which, if there are such claims which become prescribed, could cover these people who are not taken into consideration for a payment from this fund. After all is said and done, this man is the one who is on the losing side.

The hon. member for Maitland put forward a case here in regard to the bus passengers in Cape Town and the four companies involved in this matter. In the first place, I want to tell him that this case is actually sub judice, because an appeal case serving before the National Transport Commission at the moment. In other words, I cannot give him a reply in regard to this specific case. However, I want to point out to the Committee that the National Transport Commission is an autonomous board established by law. That autonomous board is, in the first instance, the watchdog between the existing transporters and the new applications. It was also established for the purpose of inquiring into the needs which exist or arise, and to grant applications if such applications are justified. It can even go beyond that. In terms of the Act the National Transport Commission is obliged to carry out investigations, and if needs for more transport services arise and it is found that there is a monopoly, it is its duty and task to ensure that such matters are remedied and that the necessary transport services are provided there. In this connection I want to refer to section 13bis of Act No. 39 of 1930. I am quoting from subsection (1) —

In other words, the necessary statutory machinery exists for preventing the fear of the hon. member for Maitland from coming true, i.e. that a monopoly may develop.

The hon. member for Middelburg put forward an interesting case, and I should very much like to reply to it. It relates to our civil airports. In the first place, I want to tell the hon. member very briefly that the C.A.A.C. also submitted recommendations in this regard. As the hon. member knows, there is a standing committee, i.e. the Master Planning Committee, in regard to State-owned airports. There is, therefore, a standing committee which has to do that work. Now I must tell the hon. member something, and I should like to do so in the form of an announcement. I have personally made a thorough study of the recommendations of the C.A.A.C., i.e. the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee, as well as the recommendations of the Auxiliary Committee on Combating Noise and Ensuring Safety at Airports—the hon. member called it the “Noise Committee”—and the recommendations of the Marais Commission. We discussed these recommendations, and the hon. the Minister has granted his approval to our announcing that an inter-departmental committee of inquiry into the planning of aerodromes in South Africa, excluding State-owned airports, will be established. The announcement reads as follows—

1. (a) the statutory provisions which are applicable to civil aviation,
2. (b) urban and rural development,
3. (c) existing aviation facilities,
4. (d) financial relations between the Central Government and the Provincial Administrations and local authorities, and
5. (e) representations made by the United Municipal Executive and any other representative aviation bodies and persons,

will be ordered to inquire into and make recommendations on—

1. (1) the planning of aerodromes in South Africa, excluding State-owned airports,
2. (2) the formulation of short and long-term aerodrome development plans,
3. (3) the line of conduct for the provision, reservation and/or the acquisition of land for the establishment and/or the improvement of aerodromes,
4. (4) the implementation and financing of the aerodrome development plans and the responsibility for them,
5. (5) the charging of fees for persons making use of aerodrome facilities, and the rates of such fees, including maximum fees,
6. (6) the provision of passenger and operational facilities at aerodromes and the responsibility for them,
7. (7) any financial support by the State in respect of aerodromes, as well as the scope and conditions of such support, and
8. (8) any other matter which may be entrusted to the committee.

A senior official of the Department of Transport will be appointed as chairman of the committee, whereas the Department of Transport will act as convener and be responsible for the secretarial work attached to the proceedings of the committee. I think that, once we have this committee, we shall also comply with the representations of the hon. member for Middelburg. However, I want to add that such a committee will also be able to handle the courteous and capable representations made by the hon. member for Welkom. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Welkom, not only because he worded his representations so well, but also because his town has for the second consecutive year won the safety cup for the safest driving and the smallest number of accidents in any municipal area. As the hon. member said, it is a fine airport, and I want to congratulate him on it. However, basically there is an essential requirement when a State-owned airport is being built. Such an airport must fit in with scheduled services. This is an important factor. At the moment the South African Airways cannot fit in such an airport with its scheduled services. In the first place, such an airport would be too close to the others, and, in the second place, at the moment the traffic it can offer to such a service, is not economic as yet. However, as I said, this is a matter which can be referred to the committee which is being appointed.

Now I come to the hon. member for Durban (Point). The hon. member for Durban (Point), as did the hon. member for Orange Grove, levelled the accusation that action was being taken in an unplanned manner, that the development of the Ian Smuts airport had been delayed and that nothing was being done. He went on to say that the Durban airport was quite inadequate. What are the real facts? As far as the Ian Smuts airport is concerned, the international trading hall will, in accordance with Contract No. 2, be completed in August, 1970. In accordance with Contract No. 3 the office block will be completed by February, 1971. In accordance with Contract No. 5 the provision of water will be completed by May, 1971. In accordance with Contract No. 6 the foreign wing will be ready as soon as possible after that, i.e. in October, 1971. In accordance with Contract No. 7 underground parking will be available in September, 1971.

And the passenger terminal and the freight terminal?

I am coming to that in a moment. I said that everything the hon. member was requesting, would be ready in October, 1971. But we must look into the accuzations made by the hon. member. The hon. member for Orange Grove told this Committee that the facilities there were miserable; they were a disgrace; it was not an airport which complied with international standards. Then he went further. He said, “It’s a snail’s pace.” I have just told him that these services would be ready in October, 1971. But he told this Committee an untruth. He said that the hon. the Minister had informed him a year or two ago that no plans had been or were being devised for the landing of supersonic aircraft at the Jan Smuts airport. Then he said that the plans had been changed from time to time. He said that those plans had been changed on several occasions.

Yes.

There he says “yes” again. He claims that, after a start had already been made with the plans, they were changed again. Where did he get that information?

But it is stated in the report.

Surely that is not the truth. The basic plans have not been changed. On the contrary; he must accept that an airport is a living organism. It is not a dead thing. I want to give him an example. Once this part will have been completed in 1971, a finger will immediately be constructed on the north-western side in order to make additional provision for extra Boeing 747s. The whole airport has been planned. Its foundations have been planned in such a way that, as the traffic increases, as various demands are being made by the incoming aircraft, it will be possible to enlarge and change the airport from time to time. To give but one example to the hon. member: Provision has already been made in the foundations for an underground tunnel so that when more aircraft have to be served further away along the runway, there would be no need for one to walk across the runway. It remains a living organism. But what the hon. member for Stilfontein said, is true. The hon. member for Orange Grove can only see the matter through a wrong pair of spectacles, so as to play off one airport against the others. Let me tell this Committee and that hon. member that no alterations have been made to the basic plans. There is no delay. On the contrary; we have the services of the best architects South Africa could obtain. Secondly, we have the services of the most capable building contractors South Africa could obtain. We have expedited the whole matter in order to have the airport ready for the 747s as soon as possible. I also want to tell this Committee that that airport, as a living organism, will, once it has been completed—it will never be completed altogether, for it stays alive—be one of the most beautiful airports in the whole world, one in which South Africa will be able to take great pride. But that is something that hon. member will never admit or realize.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? You say that there has been no change in the plans. Do you mean that no change has taken place in the plans since 1964?

I repeat, no new plans have been devised. As one goes on with the development of a living organism, adjustments to the plans simply have to be made from time to time, because of the fact that we do from time to time send staff members of the South African Airways, but also of the Department of Transport, to the best airports in Europe so that they may investigate the methods followed by them—for instance, a conveyor belt for offloading, distributing and handing out luggage—and to make adjustments so as to build up an airport in the most modern manner.

In 1964 they did not even think of 747s.

Precisely; in 1964 a 747 was not even thought of, but now the hon. member comes along with this story. Sir, to show how bankrupt that hon. member is, I just want to remind you of the question he asked here as to whether that hotel would be a “multiracial” or a “multi-national” hotel. Of course, he asked that question so that his friends who are not sitting here in the House of Assembly, might use it. I want to tell him that it will be an international hotel, and that it will comply with all the requirements of an international hotel.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also wanted to know what the position was at the Durban airport, the Louis Botha airport. I find it interesting that he no longer wants to accept the names “Louis Botha” and “Jan Smuts”; he wants names that are more modern; he is rejecting his former two leaders. [Interjection.] Yes, it was probably a “slip of the tongue”. As regards the construction of the Louis Botha airport in Durban, I may tell him that the tentative tender date is June, 1972, and that the work is expected to be completed during 1975. But this I can tell the hon. member—and here I am also replying to the representations made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) —i.e. that it has been decided to look for another airport. I am referring here to La Merci. Investigations into the location of such an airport are still being Carried out, but it will be located to the north of Durban, and when it will have been completed in approximately 10 years’ time, it will comply with all the requirements of an international airport. I want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) straight away that we are not thinking of building an international airport on the northern side of Durban, i.e. an airport which could partially serve Richard’s Bay as well. The representations made by the hon. member may be investigated further by the committee which has been appointed.

Will Louis Botha have to struggle along as it is for another five years?

No, it is not struggling. Louis Botha compares favourably with very good airports which are rendering the same services in the rest of the world. Recently I went to Southern America to look at the airports at a few places which are much bigger than Durban: they offer fewer services, but they do nevertheless manage.

The hon. member also said that the catering services were inadequate. I want to agree with him in one thing. I, too, should like to see the refreshments offered on aircraft by the catering contractors, being offered in a much more attractive and refined manner. I am not referring to the main meals now; I am referring to the snacks which are offered. The hon. member’s complaint is that the service in the catering sphere is very poor. He wants to know why we do not make use of the services of non-white stewards. I want to tell him that I do not think that the Minister or I have any fundamental objection to non-white stewards being employed, if there are no white stewards. I find it strange that the hon. member immediately became dissatisfied when I asked him whether Mr. Douglas Mitchell would be prepared to be served by a non-white steward; whether the hon. member for South Coast would think that the non-white steward was responsible enough to serve him. He was very sensitive in this case. But I repeat that we shall have no objection to it, for we know that in hotels and other places non-white stewards are being employed. If there is a shortage of white stewards, we will perhaps be compelled later on to employ non-white stewards ourselves. The hon. member also asked for liquor to be served after hours. Liquor is served with meals at the airports. The question of whether liquor is to be served after hours, is one which I would rather investigate. for it has certain implications.

The hon. member did something else which I find very ugly. He made the statement here that all the road inspectors were Nationalists.

Where did I say that?

He said that 100 per cent of the Natal road inspectors had been prosecuted for fraud, and then he said that this had now become the home for defeated Nationalists.

No.

I made an interjection while he was speaking; then he started mentioning names. He mentioned the names of a Mr. Stander and of Robbie de Lange. I told him at the time that they were not road inspectors, that they were members of road boards, but he was slightly confused, and he said this merely for the purpose of casting suspicion.

No, you are confused.

You did not listen properly.

The hon. member said that these road inspectors had been prosecuted; that they were totally incompetent and that they were dishonest, and immediately after that he said, “After all, this is the home of defeated Nationalist candidates.” I shall set the hon. member right. What are the real facts? I want to ask that hon. member and the hon. member for Orange Grove whose advocates they are. The ninth inspector who was convicted in the regional court, Johannesburg, on 27th March, lodged an appeal, and when his case was taken on appeal, the Judge expressed himself in very strong language on certain aspects. I want to repeat the Judge’s remark to the hon. member—

Is the hon. member the advocate of Bakos, who was used as a witness against all these people? He is the man who made all the profit.

I am interested in the principle of honesty in the service.

My question to the hon. member is whether he is the advocate of Mr. Bakos? In this case the Judge said—

Here a person was used for the purpose of trying to lure six of our inspectors into a trap. He made huge profits; he was used as a State witness, and this is the verdict of the Judge in this regard. But now the hon. members for Orange Grove and Durban (Point) are coming along here and saying, “Look there; the inspectors of the Department of Transport are a lot of crooks.” The hon. member went further than that; he said that the whole Department did not amount to anything. [Interjection.] The hon. member should read his Hansard. I took notes of what he said. I am asking again: Was the hon. member the advocate of Mr. Bakos and of that group?

No; I do not even know him.

The Department is taking such a serious view of this matter that it has referred it back to the Minister of Justice, together with the Judge’s verdict, and has requested a further inquiry in regard to the prosecution instituted against inspectors who were lured into traps just like that. I wonder whether the Attorney-General will be able to help us to try to protect in future people who may be innocent and who have been lured into traps, if members on the other side are denouncing those people here as crooks.

Were they guilty or not guilty of fraud?

I shall tell the Committee what their salaries are. I very explicitly agree that their salaries were far too small initially, but we did effect an improvement. The salary of a chief transport inspector was R3.600 × R150 — R4,200; this has now been increased to R4,200 × R150 — R4,800. The salary scale of a principal transport inspector was R3,000 × R120 — R3,600, and at present it is R3,600 × R150 — R4,200. We did, therefore, effect an improvement. I know that hon. members will tell me that this is still not enough. But then hon. members should not at the same time tell us here in the Budget debate that the Government is spending too much.

What is the salary of an ordinary inspector?

The salary of a senior transport inspector was R2,400 × R170— R3,000 at present it is R2,400 × R120 — R3.480. The salary of an ordinary transport inspector was R840 × R90 — R1,560 × R120 — R2,400: at present it is R1,560 × R120 and it goes up to R2,760.

Then he is a pauper.

But I want to say more. The hon. members for Durban (Point) and Orange Grove may not merely say. because six people were lured into traps and Bakos was used against them, that the inspectors of the Department of Transport are a lot of rogues and crooks. [Interjections.] You said 100 per cent of the inspectors were rogues. In other words, all the inspectors of the Department are a lot of rogues. I think the Department will take note of that, and not only the Department, but also these inspectors throughout South Africa will take note of their being accused of being rogues.

That is not true.

If 100 per cent are rogues, them, surely, all of them are rogues, and the hon. member said that 100 per cent of the inspectors were a lot of rogues. In that case, surely, all of them are rogues.

In Natal, at a certain stage.

It is just as well that the hon. member explains this again. It often goes like that, i.e. that when one gets out of step while walking on sleepers, one has to correct one’s stride again. [Interjection.]

The hon. member for Koedoespoort and several other hon. members spoke about road safety. I want to tell these hon. members that a committee of inquiry has been appointed, and its terms of reference are very clear, i.e. to inquire into and to report on (a) whether the expenditure incurred in maintaining the S A. Road Safety Council and causing it to function is in sound proportion to the results obtained; (b) the way in which such a council ought to be constituted and with what functions and authority it ought to be invested in order to promote effective road safety in all its aspects, and (c) any other matter concerning road safety which may be relevant in the opinion of the committee. Well, first of all I want to promise hon. members who spoke about road safety that I shall see to it that the Department makes the Hansard available to this committee of inquiry.

But I am going further. I am pleased that hon. members are concerned about road safety. and I think this committee affords these members who spoke on road safety a very fine opportunity for giving evidence before this committee in person, if they wish to do so. In his speech the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) virtually delivered a funeral oration on the Road Safety Council. He said that this council had served its purpose; it could not function this way and had to be reconstituted. There may be a great deal of truth in what he said.

On a point of order. Sir, unfortunately my speech was cut short.

I want to tell the hon. member that he has every opportunity of putting that case as well. At the moment I can tell you something pleasant about the Road Safety Council, i.e. that they have published this fine booklet, “Enjoyable Motoring”, which is based on the laws of nature and on the thoughtfulness of man, etc. But I do not want to say any more about this.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay put forward a case with which one has a great deal of sympathy. He mentioned a few matters, the first one being the location of the road along the coastal route. I want to tell the hon. member that that location is not final as yet. But I want to tell the whole Committee that, since the hon. member spoke primarily about expropriation, the present position is still that the provincial administrations deal with the expropriation of land for national road purposes; this matter is not dealt with by the National Transport Commission. However, there is an amount which the provincial administrations have to pay out. Unfortunately the four provinces are not applying the same policy. The method of valuation followed by the one, is different from that followed by the others, etc. I hope this position will be remedied soon. I do not want to anticipate that matter. But then the hon. member wanted to know whether in cases where a national road cuts through a farm, access to the other part of the farm had to be provided. Wherever it is practicable, such access is provided by way of a subway or a crossing, if the topography does in any way lend itself to this being done. I know that this causes disruption, but in cases where a part of a farm is cut off and where such part then becomes uneconomic and can no longer be included in the farm, that farmer is free to say, when the expropriation order is served on him, that that part has now become uneconomic and that he does not want it, and then that part has to be valued as well, and if it is found that it is uneconomic, he will also receive compensation for that. The hon. member wanted to know what route this coastal road was going to follow, and he mentioned the hamlet of Puntjie. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall not destroy that hamlet. Puntjie, which is a historic place. We have already decided that the road will virtually bypass it. That inspection has been completed. But then I also want to tell the Committee that once such a road has been finally located, bodies and persons, be they municipalities or whoever, have the opportunity of lodging their objections with and making their representations, etc., to the National Transport Commission. But in the final analysis it is. therefore, the National Transport Commission which takes all these things into consideration, and with the finances at its disposal—for it has to see what the road is going to cost—it has to decide what the location is to be, due regard being had to all the other circumstances. I want to give an example. This road which has to go through the tunnel through Du Toit’s Kloof, would have led to Rawsonville on the other side, and it would have gone right through a number of grape-farms. Subsequently the National Transport Commission relocated that road so that it followed the boundary lines of these farms without destroying all those fine vineyards, and this was done in order to preserve those production units and to prevent productive land from being destroyed. But for the sake of interest I may tell you, Sir, that the farmers’ associations and the other persons living there requested that another tunnel be constructed so that no grape-farm might be affected by that road. But that other tunnel would, approximately, have cost us another R23 million. It stands to reason that the National Transport Commission cannot incur that tremendous cost and waste the taxpayers’ money in that way simply to save these two or three farms.

Has the location of the road between Hermanus and Mossel Bay been published as yet?

Only parts of it have been located.

The hon. member for Salt River said that the D. F. Malan Airport did not comply with requirements, and he was very dissatisfied about the prefabricated building which is being erected there. I just want to tell him that prefabricated buildings are not a disgrace. If he will take a look at that building once it has been completed, he will see that it is a very fine building. It will comply with all the requirements of an international airport for handling the passengers there. The present runways are already capable of taking the 707 aircraft. Therefore, they are good enough for the present service, but they are going to be extended, if necessary, so as also to take the 747 aircraft in the future. Therefore, the fear the hon. member expressed, is unnecessary.

The hon. member also proposed that the control over an airport should vest in one body. I do not know whether he was referring to the construction of an airport, but when an airport is being constructed, it is the Department of Transport which determines what needs there are. Then the Department of Public Works acts as the agent for the Department of Transport by erecting the building complex in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Transport. In regard to the actual control over an airport I want to say that this is the sole responsibility of the Department of Transport. It is rot the responsibility of divided bodies. The Airways and the aircraft are the responsibility of the South African Airways, but the other aspects are the responsibility of the Department of Transport.

The hon. member came back to expressways. I think I have already replied to this. The hon. member also said that the National Transport Commission had to undertake planning in regard to expressways and that the facilities of the research division of the C.S. I.R. had to be used. I think the body. I mentioned a moment ago and the provincial administrations, which can undertake this matter on a regional basis, are the bodies which should make use of the research division of the C.S.I.R. The hon. member also wanted to know whether the National Road Fund was showing a deficit. It is true that the National Road Fund showed a deficit in respect of 1968-’69. I want to analyze in brief the position in respect of that year. Duty on petrol amounted to R47,042,500. Miscellaneous receipts amounted to R3,534,968. Interest on investments amounted to R1,186.401. Total revenue amounted to R51,763,000. Total expenditure mounted to R67,184,395. Therefore there was a deficit of R15 million. However, on 31st March, 1968, we had an accumulated amount of R21,776,000. For the very reason that we knew that as a result of the costs involved in the construction of national roads we would find ourselves in debt, we approached the Minister of Finance, and I am very grateful for his having said in his Budget speech that he would grant an additional amount to the National Road Fund in order to expedite the work.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) spoke about railway crossings. I should like to refer him to the reply given by the hon. the Minister in the course of the Railways debate. The hon. the Minister referred to the 380 railway crossings and said that 129 of them had already been eliminated and that a great deal of progress had been made in regard to another 29 crossings; negotiations were also taking place in order to eliminate another 19 railway crossings by way of 15 schemes. He continued by saying—

The hon. member knows that every year an amount is being set aside by the Railways, the National Road Fund and the Central Government for the purpose of finalizing that matter.

The hon. member also spoke about road safety. I should be very pleased if in this regard the hon. member, too would approach the commission I mentioned with his evidence. The same applies to the hon. member for Colesberg. Much of what the hon. member for Colesberg said, is true, and cognizance will be taken of it.

In regard to the location of roads, which the hon. member for Colesberg mentioned, I have, as I have already said, every sympathy with the farmers, but the House must appreciate that we have to build a road on the ground. We must take certain standards of road safety into account. In other words, curves should not be too sharp; the visibility and the gradient must be right. However, we also have to do with a cost factor. We weigh the cost of a road against the cost it may entail to a farmer in respect of his production capacity, Subsequent to that the national Transport Commission acts in the best interests of the whole of South Africa, but their door is open to representations requesting them to reconsider their decision.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Stilfontein as regards his congratulations to and gratitude towards the Secretary for the Department. He also raised a very important matter i.e. that there should be parking areas along the national roads, with bus transport leading there. The hon. member for Yeoville and the other member who spoke about congestion, should also give thought to this suggestion. On our national roads, where we have clover bridges, we have four stopping-places. In the rest of the world there are two stopping-places at such places. In South Africa, as a result of the policy of separate development, we have four stopping-places. People often complain that those stopping-places should not be there. The idea of these stopping-places is in fact that it will be possible in the future to offload mass traffic at these clovers. From these points bus transport may then be used, which will eliminate congestion to a large extent. However, the question of parking areas there, is a matter which falls under the local authorities served by these expressways. I think that in Durban there are two cases where the necessary parking bays have already been reserved outside, in order to comply with this requirement.

The hon. member for Port Natal complained that the M.V.A. Fund had made too much money. I have already dealt with this matter, and I should not like to occupy the time of the House with all these statistical data. The fact remains that the Fund has to make allowance for such claims as may be lodged later on. If one analyses the Fund having due regard to this question, one finds that it is not a profitable organization. For the sake of interest I should like to tell the House that since we appointed a manager and since we started running the Fund, we have brought about tremendous savings. In regard to the disposal of claims, as well as attorneys’ fees, we have brought about a tremendous saving, in comparison with what the position was previously. Therefore, the fund is now being run in a much better manner than was the case previously.

I told you the companies were making too much money.

No, I am referring to the savings we have brought about. The companies did not make the money to which I am referring now. On the contrary; as a result of the handling of investigations by the companies and the assessors appointed by them, claimants received less or sometimes had to incur greater expense in order to obtain the money to which they were entitled.

You have cut their commission.

No, they were not really geared for handling the matter correctly. Sir, I think that I have dealt thoroughly with the matters raised by hon. members. If there are more members who want to put questions briefly, I shall reply to them.

Mr. Chairman the hon. Deputy Minister has replied in detail to many aspects of hon. members’ speeches but I am afraid that in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville, he referred only to minor aspects of that speech and disregarded the major points which the hon. member for Yeoville made. I want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister whether he can answer the question as to where the local authorities and the provincial councils will find there source of income? Then there is another very important aspect of the matter. Can the hon. Deputy Minister tell us when this hon. House is likely to have the reports of the Borckenhagen Commission and the Schumann Com-mission or the White Paper which has been promised for some time?

Then I want to come to what the hon. Deputy Minister said about my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Point). I want to suggest to the hon. Deputy Minister that before he goes into verbal orbit propelled by a wrong conclusion, he should read the Hansard of the hon. member for Durban (Point). I listened very carefully to what the hon. member said. He made two specific statements, the one dealing with the appointments to the transportation boards, and the other dealing with the inspectors. At no time did he marry those particular points, although they both came under the Minister’s Vote. There was one question to which the hon. Deputy Minister did not reply, namely what measure of control has been exerted by his department over these inspectors who have committed these faults.

Then I want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Stilfontein because he dealt with the important question of congestion. I want to refer to congestion in the cities and put a suggestion to the Deputy Minister which I believe could help alleviate the growing congestion in our major cities in South Africa. I want to say that the time has come seriously to consider the introduction of the roving taxi system. Anyone who has enjoyed this facility in the major cities of the world will realize what a convenience it is both to visitors to, and residents of those cities and, I believe, to what extent it can avoid a great deal of unnecessary congestion of public transport and private vehicles. I therefore ask the hon. Deputy Minister to give consideration to this suggestion. I say to him that there has been criticism of South Africa by visitors because we have not adopted this facility.

Then I should like to come to the question of road safety with particular reference to speed. I believe that we can say that many members of our society form part of a “susceptible society” because many people are un-conscious victims of the high promotion tactics and skill of the advertisers. One could almost liken the position to a tug of war. On the one side we have the road safety council doing everything possible to ensure the safety of members of the public and on the other side we have the glamorization of speed. In this latter instance it is represented by people with vested interests, such as motor salesmen and advertising firms.

Another aspect of the problem of course is the insurance companies. My hon. colleague from Port Natal pointed out that in the long run they do not appear to lose. But who does, lose? Only the citizens of South Africa. They lose their lives, they lose their health through injury and they lose their wealth through damage to their property as a result of motor accidents. In any exercise where the citizens of a country lose, the State must lose as well because it will lose in productivity and manpower. I ask what the department is doing in this regard. We know that the department sub-sidizes the Road Safety Council and the department has to a certain extent been respons-ible for introducing a 70 m.p.h. speed limit. I do not believe that the department is a participant in the contest between the car salesmen and the advertising pundits on one side and the car user on the other. I believe that it is time for the department to act in this regard. I submit that there is no need for a survey. There is no need for positive statistical proof in this matter because I believe the department should act on the reasonable grounds that it would be of benefit to the safety of the public if certain aspects of advertising were at least investigated and possibly controlled. What avenues are there open to the department in this respect? There is the one where there would be voluntary control or discipline imposed by the advertisers themselves, and then on the other hand there is control by the State. I have no time to go into the other aspects where control and advertising are exercised by the State but I suggest that it is premature at this stage to decide which form of control should be introduced. It would be premature until the department has examined the extent to which the glamorization of speed in advertisements, in which speed and the performance of motor cars are highlighted, where they boast of the maximum speed and the acceleration of vehicles, is affecting road safety.

That is good sales talk.

Then, the second point is the possible exaggerated claims in respect of various accessories of a car which could lead to recklessness. By that I mean advertisements of tyres, brakes or other accessories. Thirdly, and this is a most serious point, there is the combination of the glamorization of speed and alcohol in the driving of motorcars. If the hon. the Minister wants examples many will be forthcoming. People who have taken an interest in this matter have in their files a great deal of evidence which should convince the hon. the Minister in this respect. Any measures which the hon. the Minister may care to introduce can only result in an improvement. Nothing he could do in this respect would increase the death on our roads or the fatalaties which could arise as a result of excessive speed. I want the hon. the Minister to look at it from this point of view. We must remember that it is serious because it primarily affects our youth. Most of the advertisements which glamorize speed are directed at our youth because they are the “susceptible society” in this respect. I want to quote briefly a senior traffic department official in Johannesburg. He talks about the one-upmanship that comes about when young people drive the fast and small high performance cars. He says—

I think the hon. the Minister will go along with me and he will most probably remember the first car that he bought. He will remember that he was not satisfied until he had it “flat out” to find out what speed it could go. To-day there are cars …

He still does it.

Now he tries to see how fast a wheelbarrow can go.

There are cars which boast of a maximum speed of up to 125 miles per hour. I believe that to put that thought in the minds of young drivers is sufficient to court disaster. I am not alone in my plea. Many prominent South Africans who are distinguished in various fields, fields, like medicine psychology, mental health, mathematics, science and engineering, have expressed the opinion that the glamorization of speed could have unfortunate results and should be investigated. I believe that the time has come that the hon. the Minister should do something about it. The insurance companies are aware of it in that they almost discourage young people to drive fast cars by way of charging higher premiums and by stipulating other stringent conditions.

Any parent who has to pay the premium or who has to insure a vehicle driven by a member of his family between the age of 18 and 25 will sympathize with me and will realize what the effect is of the insurance premiums and requirements laid down by the insurance companies. They acknowledge that people in that age group could be accident prone and that they must be more susceptible to the challenge of speed. If speed advertising is directed to them, they will therefore fall for the gimmick. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Berea rushed in to protect the hon. member for Durban (Point). All I said about the hon. member for Durban (Point) is that he said that 100 per cent of the inspectors were found guilty.

In Natal.

But there are only six of them there. He then immediately named the persons, namely Mr. Robbie de Lange, Mr. Stander …

Those are members of the board.

But he coulpled them with his first accusation.

The hon. member for Berea pleaded for a roving taxi system. Any person or any public body can apply to the National Transport Commission and they will be granted a roving taxi licence if the Transport Commission finds it necessary to have such a service. That is no problem.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Are there any precedents in regard to these applications?

There has never been an application yet as far as I know. If an application is received by the National Transport Commission, however, the matter will be investigated and decided upon on merit.

As far as road safety is concerned I again want to point out that a committee of investigation has been appointed. This committee of investigation will take note of what is said in connection with road safety. I do not know if the problem of advertising falls within the scope of this committee. I think it is the task of the Censor Board, but I cannot see how they will be able to act either.

In answer to the question about where the money will come from to solve the problem of congestion in our cities, I want to point out that the hon. the Minister of Finance during the Budget debate mentioned to this House that we hope a White Paper will be tabled during this Session. That White Paper is based on the Schumann, Borckenhagen and Marais reports and in that paper I hope the necessary provision will be made for the financing of the Provincial Administrations, municipalities, and so on.

When will we get that?

The hon. the Minister of Finance made the announcement in his Budget speech and I think that question should be asked when the Budget is discussed later.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 6.— “Treasury”, R10,470,000, Loan Vote A.— “Miscellaneous Loans and Services”, R281,417,000 and S.W.A. Vote No. 2.— “Miscellaneous Services”, R5,020,000:

Mr. Chairman may I ask for the privilege of the half hour? There were one or two references in the hon. the Minister of Finance’s speech yesterday which I think I should refer to. It was interesting to note that the hon. the Minister did not deal with anything I said in the Budget debate. What he dealt with was speeches I had made during the general election. But those speeches the hon. the Minister has already replied to. I have seen in numerous newspapers that every time I make a speech within a day or two the hon. the Minister makes a speech and replies to my speech. In both cases he dealt with yesterday he had already replied to those matters. It seems to me that there is a certain sparsity of argument by the hon. the Minister in this Budget debate that he now has to refer back to speeches I made and to which he had already replied, which took place during the period of the general election. There was, however, one thing he said relative to the Budget when he gave me a little advice. I am always glad to have advice from the hon. the Minister. I am very sincere about this.

He warned me not to follow in the steps of the previous member for Constantia and become a Jeremiah. Really, Sir, this is an old play by the Government, trying to give the impression that we on this side of the House are Jeremiahs and prophets of doom. There is a whole host of cliches and phrases they use to try and make the public believe that we are that type of opposition. I know the hon. the Minister was not able to be present in the House during the Censure debate. He was not well. But perhaps he should read some of our speeches. I only want to quote one thing which I said during the Censure debate to disabuse the hon. the Minister’s mind of the fact that he might think that I am a Jeremiah. I said this:

This is our point of view. If we use our resources wisely, we have no fears for the future.

Then the hon. the Minister went on to deal with two speeches I had made during the recess and to suggest that I was misleading the public. The first reference he made was to the fact that I had said that the Government from 1948 to 1970 had accumulated surpluses of R1,400 million. I do not think the figure is in argument. I accepted the figure which the hon. member for Constantia had used in the House and which was never challenged by the Government—I think the question is, does the hon. the Minister admit that from to 1970 the Government has had extremely large surpluses? I think that is the point at issue. The hon. the Minister says, and he is right up to a point, that some of these surpluses have gone to Loan Account. But our objection is, when the hon. the Minister budgets for a surplus of R2.8 million, and then comes to the House to tell us that he has a surplus of R113 million, as was the case this year, we do not think that the public is being told the correct facts. If the hon. the Minister wants to budget for his Loan Account, he must not say to the public “I am going to have a surplus of R2.8 million”; he must say “I am budgeting for a surplus of R113 million, of which I propose to put so much to Loan Account”. This is honest, good budgeting. The hon. the Minister has done it, but to a very small extent. I think the maximum amount he has ever mentioned —I stand subject to correct—which he intended to transfer to Loan Account, was R10 million. But the amounts that he has transferred, have been enormous. He must tell the public. This is our objection. He must tell the public what he is doing; then we will have no complaints.

If the hon. the Minister’s reason for his overbudgeting is that we have to fight inflation, exactly the same rules apply. If he wants to say to the public “I want to take R50 million, R60 million or R10 million, whatever it may be, out of the pockets of the private sector in my fight against inflation” then he must tell the country that he is overbudgeting and then the country will know what is happening. But at the moment they do not know what is happening. I do not think the hon. the Minister has been quite frank with the country, because certainly something between R400 million and R500 million was not transferred to Loan Account. It is still lying in reserve, in his Stabilization Fund. I do not know the final figures. We have not had them up to now. But there are large sums of money. We are not debating the point whether they should be or should not be there, whether they should be used in the fight against inflation or not, but they were certainly not transferred to Loan Account.