Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that the hon. the Minister of Transport mentioned in his Budget Speech for 1969-’70 that investigations into the pensions of railway servants by a sub committee specially appointed for that purpose by the Joint Executive Committee of the Superannuation Funds, had proved that improvements in the benefits offered by the Railways pension funds were fully justified. Certain of the recommendations of the sub-committee were accepted at the time, and parliamentary approval obtained for the proposed improvement of Railway pensions.

It was also resolved at the time to reconstitute the committee involved in the investigation to report on the financial implications of the outstanding recommendations. The additional report of the subcommittee was received some time ago, and it has been decided, in the light of the recommendations made, to make additional concessions in respect of pension benefits, I just want to mention that the latest recommendations of the sub-committee, which in addition to improved pension benefits also include basic changes in the structure of the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Funds, have the unanimous support of the Joint Executive Committee of the Superannuation Fund, consisting of equal representation of the staff and the Administration. The Minister has already mentioned, in his Budget Speech earlier this Session, the nature of the improvements which have been decided on, and one of the objects of the Bill is to give effect to that. Fuller particulars of the concessions have been set out in the Explanatory Memorandum which has already been laid upon the Table.

Apart from the provisions which are of a purely administrative nature and which in point of fact relate only to domestic matters, the Bill contains all the most important provisions of the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund Act, 1960, along with other existing statutory provisions relating to railway pension matters; those provisions which have been omitted, along with the latest pension concessions will therefore be included now in regulations which will be made by the Minister in terms of the provisions of this Bill.

Clauses 1 to 11 and 13 to 21 contain no new principles and are merely a repetition of extant sections of Act No. 39 of 1960 and Act No. 6 of 1965.

The object of clause 12, over and above the actuarial assessment for which provision is made in clause 11, is to empower the Department to make its own five-yearly calculation in future of the expected income and expenditure of the pension fund during the ensuing period of five years on the basis of an economic approach, and to determine on that basis what its contribution should be to maintain the fund in a sound financial condition.

Hon. members will recall that during the consideration earlier this Session of the Railways and Harbours Act Amendment Bill, 1971, I indicated that I would on a subsequent occasion furnish more information on the resolution to reduce the contributions of railway servants to a uniform scale of 4 per cent. The fundamental consideration in this regard is the fact that the income of the Superannuation Fund from year to year exceeds the expenditure by a considerable amount, with the result that the balances of the funds have over the years increased to a marked degree to the amount of R585 million on 31st December, 1970.

Without detracting in any way from the importance of actuarial assessments as such, i.e. as far as they give an indication of the solvency of the Superannuation Fund at any specific time, I want to make it clear that a realistic projection of the financial results of the funds can only be obtained if income and expenditure are calculated on a dynamic basis.

In the actuaries’ report of January, 1970, they took a constant pensionable amount for their calculation while the basis on which expenditure is calculated relates to existing pension benefits which are payable and which make provision for an annual increase of 2 per cent in the annuity. This means therefore that income was calculated on a static basis but expenditure on a semidynamic one. This approach leads to a very unrealistic projection of the financial results of the Superannuation Fund, particularly in the long term.

In order to obtain a more realistic projection of the financial results of the fund, the sub-committee calculated the results on the basis of an economic approach, taking into account the outstanding recommendations of the previous sub-committee, to which I have already referred, and the amendments and additions recommended in the report of the latest sub-committee.

In the calculation of contributions by members provision is made for future salary and wage increases, and the effect of these on the benefits which will be paid to pensioners were also taken into account. This approach entails that both the income and the expenditure of the funds will in future be calculated on a dynamic basis.

The present arrangement in terms of which the pension funds are credited with a constant interest rate of 4½ per cent per year on investments with the Public Debt Commissioners, regardless of the actual interest rate earned on securities, has applied ever since 1925. This arrangement entails that the earnings of the funds are directly determined by the interest rate of 4½ per cent, and not by the actual interest yield of the investment. The present interest rate structure of the political economy is. as hon. members know, considerably higher than in 1925, and since the constant interest rate has not been accordingly adjusted, the financial results and actuarial assessments of the funds are less favourable. In fact, unfavourable criticism in this connection has already been received from various quarters and the actuaries quote this regularly as one of the reasons for the actuarial deficit in the Fund. Consequently it is now being envisaged to increase the guaranteed interest rate on the balances of the Funds to the average interest rate earned from year to year on the Administration’s permanent investment with the Public Debt Commissioners.

The income of the Funds is far higher than is necessary to pay the current pension benefits, with the result that the balances of the Funds have increased to an exorbitant extent over the years. To relate the income of the Funds more closely to the expenditure in order to restrict their further growth to a realistic rate, Parliamentary approval has already been obtained to reduce the contributions of members to a uniform scale of 4 per cent of pensionable emoluments. It has been found that this scale is adequate to ensure the sound economic growth rate of the Funds.

It is also the intention not to fix the Administration’s contribution on a permanent basis in a specified ratio to that of members, but to adjust it from time to time so that the income of the Funds is only supplemented to the extent required for the purposes of the Funds. For the next five years the Administration’s contributions Will be in the proportion of 1.6 to that of members of the New Fund. After that the financial state of the Funds, as provided in clause 12, will be reviewed at five-yearly intervals in order to determine the tendencies of both income and expenditure so as to be able to take steps in time to deal with any prejudicial developments.

Hon members will recall that I also undertook on a previous occasion to inform the House of how the pension funds would be affected by the contributions of the staff at the uniform rate of 4 per cent and of the opinion of the actuaries in regard to the matter.

As far as the 1971-72 financial year is concerned, the contributions of members are estimated to amount to R13,5 million, while the Administration’s contribution, on the basis of 1,6 to 1, will be R21,5 million. Interest on investments under the new dispensation will amount of R33,7 million while the Administration will in future no longer make the annual special contribution of R1,2 million to supplement the actuarial deficit.

I hear that hon. members are commenting on the fact that I am using the decimal comma. As a matter of fact, this is history, because this is the first time that the comma is being used in a law.

The estimated income of the Funds for 1971-72 under the old dispensation would have amounted to R82 million, while it is now expected to amount to R68,7 million, i.e., a decrease in income of a little more than R13 million. This decrease is the direct result of a closer adjustment between the income and expenditure of the Funds, but with the retention of their realistic further growth—estimated at 2,75 per cent per year.

The improved pension benefits and in particular the reduced contributions by the staff, will increase the actuarial deficit in the Funds. Although an actuarial assessment has not yet been made on the new basis, that is the reduced contributions by the staff and an increased contribution by the Administration, the actuaries have indicated that reduced contributions at the rate of 4 per cent, with a R-for-R contribution by the Administration, will result in an additional deficit of R185 million. However, because the Administration is now going to contribute to the Funds in an increased proportion, the expected actuarial deficit will be considerably less.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill which gives effect to the improvements announced by the hon. the Minister of Transport during the Budget debate, is welcomed by this side of the House. Obviously, any improvements to the legislation in this regard and to the Superannuation Fund, is of great importance to the employees and, indeed, of great importance to this House. We have awaited this particular Bill with interest in view of the fact that there was an amending Bill before the House which was passed, whereby the contributions by employees were reduced to a constant amount of four per cent of their earnings. The position the hon. the Deputy Minister has outlined in his speech indicates what the effect will be in view of the reduced contributions by the employees and also the position as far as the increased contribution on the ratio basis by the Railway Administration is concerned. That is why it is difficult for us on this side of the House, without having the opportunity of studying the actuarial report, to see the significance of the alteration in the income and expenditure that are anticipated as a result of the change brought about in this legislation. However, the overall improvement which is obviously envisaged by this legislation, is indeed to the benefit of the Railway employees. This is important in that the fringe benefits of the employees must be altered and amended from time to time and cannot remain static.

The principal Act of 1960 is being repealed in terms of the legislation that is now before the House. Therefore it does give us an opportunity of comparing some of the provisions of the principal Act of 1960 with the provisions that are embodied in this Bill. I think one of the most significant factors is that a considerable number of the provisions of the principal Act are not embodied in the clauses of this Bill, but are to be embodied in regulations. This is a trend which has developed over the past few years, namely that instead of having a large number of administrative matters embodied in an Act, it is done by regulation. If one looks at this Bill, one sees that there are a considerable number of matters which are attended to by regulation. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum that has been tabled on this Bill, certainly indicates that the amendments in connection with almost all the improvements announced by the hon. the Minister of Transport during his Budget Speech, will be done by regulation and that additional regulations will be promulgated to meet these various improvements. I think it is an important principle that is involved in view of the fact that, as a good deal of the administration of this fund is to be undertaken by regulation, every effort should be made to have the greatest degree of consultation between the Administration, the staff associations and Parliament.

If one looks at the Bill, one sees that in terms of clause 4, which deals with the regulations, these regulations will be promulgated after consultation with the Railway Board. It then indicates the various matters that are to be dealt with by regulation. These are indeed most important matters concerning the rates of contribution, the calculations in regard to the pensionable emoluments, the benefits payable and the calculation thereof and various amendments that can be made to these regulations.

In the last portion of this clause it is stated that these regulations, “made by the Minister, in consultation with the Railway Board, in terms of this Act shall be laid upon the Table of the Senate and of the House of Assembly within 14 days after its promulgation if Parliament is in ordinary session or, if Parliament is not in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session” … These regulations contain very important provisions which were not dealt with by regulation in the principal Act. Therefore, it seems fair, that a good deal of consultation should take place; not only between the Minister and the Railway Board which is appointed by the hon. the Minister, and represents the Administration, but also by the Staff Associations which represent the employees. For this purpose clause 3 of the Bill further enacts that a joint committee on pension matters shall be appointed. This was also enacted in the Act of 1960. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is responsible for the Bill which is before this House this afternoon, to give consideration to having consultation between not only the Minister and the Railway Board, but also the joint committee. The joint committee as defined in the Bill is the committee which consists of an equal number of members from the Railway Administration and the Staff Associations. In matters pertaining to the Superannuation Fund—and this after all belongs to the Staff Association and the employees who have made the contributions and who have built up this fund to the extent of R582 million—they should at least have the right to be consulted before these regulations are promulgated. This should be done because these regulations are far-reaching ones and it should be done before they reach Parliament.

Parliament itself has the right to see these regulations and to study them, but the persons who are greatly concerned, the employees, are to be precluded from being consulted in terms of this legislation. The hon. the Deputy Minister might very well say that they are merely re-enacting the provisions of the 1960 Act. I hope that I have indicated that there is a difference between this Bill which is now before us and the Act of 1960 because the terms of regulations that could be taken as part of the Act, were not nearly as wide as the powers which are taken in terms of this Bill. Therefore, we hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give consideration to this point as there are other matters which affect the regulations which again occur in clause 4 of this Bill. In terms of this clause, the Minister can amend, alter or cancel any of these regulations in consultation with the Railway Board.

There are other aspects which the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned and they concern the financial position of the fund as a result of these amendments. Here the hon. Minister has referred to the question of a realistic economic growth rate in the fund. He has indicated how the position of the fund has improved considerably during recent years. He told us that for this reason the contribution is now being amended to a constant contribution of 4 per cent rather than a varying contribution. In addition the contribution from the Railways Administration will be increased. He has given us certain figures and estimates to illustrate this. I think the main basis is what one determines as being an economic growth rate as far as the fund is concerned. I think that the hon. the Minister has indicated that it was the aim of the Administration, acting on the report of the actuaries, to try to assess an economic growth rate in the fund of some 2,75 per cent. This would appear to be the figure that was taken as being a realistic growth rate. In this regard I would like to say that we on this side of the House welcome the idea that is embodied in this Bill whereby the fund, at five-yearly intervals, subject to actuarial reports and the quinquennial reports will be maintained at a realistic growth rate. There are many Railway pensioners today who are indeed grateful for the increase of 2 per cent per annum in their basic pensions. This is also mentioned in the White Paper, and has also been mentioned by the hon. the Minister. I do feel, however, that there are many occasions when this increase of 2 per cent per annum in their basic pension falls far short of what they are actually losing as a result of the increased cost of living.

The other point I would like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister concerns the right of a person who has the option to make a contribution for periods of previous non-contributory service. Here I refer to clause 17 which I think the hon. the Deputy Minister did not mention in his Second Reading speech. I have certain difficulties to ascertain exactly what is involved and what the principle is whereby a person will now have a further option to make arrear contributions to the fund to enable him to take into account as pensionable service periods of employment which were performed in a temporary or casual capacity and which would previously not have counted as pensionable service. Provision is further made that the employee shall not be precluded from electing to so contribute because he had exercised or failed to exercise any option that had previously been available to him under any other law. This is an important principle for it gives a person the right to make these arrear contributions so as to improve his own end result as far as his pension is concerned. It also affects the commutation factor which is involved. I therefore hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give the House further information in this regard so that we will be able to ascertain whether it is the intention to assist people in this way for services rendered. I am thinking of the practical implications in particular. There are some people with breaks in their service who have found that the only avenue open to them is a petition to this House to try and receive a condonation of such a break in service which will give them the opportunity of purchasing a higher pension.

In general terms we believe this is a good Bill and one which is important to the many employees of the Railways Administration. We believe it is a Bill which will go towards making the position of pensioners and future pensioners a little more secure. We know that in terms of increases in the pensionable emoluments of these employees together with the new factor involved in calculating commutation and the annuity they are entitled to, their position will be improved. This applies particularly to those employees who are not yet on pension. That is why the White Paper clearly indicates the percentage increase which will be made available to those who retired prior to 1968, and then on a sliding scale to those who retire after 1st June, 1973. We on this side of the House support this Bill and we hope that perhaps, during the Committee Stage, the hon. the Deputy Minister will give favourable consideration lo improvements which we believe will assist him in the administration of this Bill,

Mr. Speaker, in genera] the hon. member for Umbilo expressed his appreciation for the legislation before us, but was nevertheless critical of the fact that matters in this regard were once again being dealt with by way of regulation and to a lesser extent by way of legislation. I do want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that, as is also stated very clearly in the Explanatory Memorandum, those matters which will in future be dealt with by means of regulations are purely domestic matters. I therefore do not find it strange that this method is being used. Whether or not the staff associations in question now have statutory rights in this regard, the fact remains that the staff associations in question will subject any changes in these regulations to a close scrutiny and that these matters in regard to which they do have grievances will in fact be thoroughly discussed by their representatives and will receive attention in this House. I therefore take it that the steps taken will be in the complete interests of the Railways employees and that no injustice will be done because more matters are being dealt with by way of regulation.

On our side of the House, particularly among those who represent large Railway constituencies, there is also a feeling of gratitude towards the hon. the Minister and the Administration for the considerable concessions which are contained in certain clauses of this legislation, for example clause 12 and the regulations which will be announced. I should also, on our part, like to express particular appreciation for the fact that, apart from the actuarial assessment of the Funds at five-yearly intervals, there will also now be an economic approach, that it will be ensured in future that the growth of the Fund will be determined according to a realistic rate and that the growth of the Funds will not be unreasonable. Then, too, I want to express my appreciation for the guarantee that the Funds will be reviewed every five years. If we take into account the fact that we now have here an assurance from the Administration that it will guarantee at the five-yearly revision that the stability of the Funds will be ensured, we realize what a great advantage this constitutes when compared with some other private pension funds.

A considerable concession, to which I should also on my part like to focus attention, is that the 4½ per cent guaranteed interest rate will after so many years now be increased to the average interest rate the Administration itself earns on its permanent investment with the Public Debt Commissioners. As far as I know, the prevailing interest rate is at present 6½ per cent. A figure of R6 800 000 has been mentioned to me, the amount by which these Funds are now going to be strengthened as a result of this concession. What is important, is that all these concessions are of course non-inflationary. Another considerable concession, is the reduction of the contributions of members to a uniform 4 per cent. I have been told that these amounts varied in the past from 6 to 10 per cent. This is therefore a considerable concession for the staff. This also entails that while the Administration’s contribution was previously calculated on a R-for-R basis, it is now being increased to R1,6 for R1.

As far as the annuities as well are concerned, there are considerable concessions. I am referring to the question of the increase of annuities and, inter alia, to the fact that the addition of 2 per cent per annum to annuities will now no longer he restricted to twenty years—which is a great concession—and also to the fact that the minimum income level of annuitants has been increased considerably. I want to say that this legislation before us proves that the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Management have lent an car to the Railway employees and granted them considerable concessions.

I want to thank 1he hon. member for Umbilo for his support of this Bill, as well as the support of his party for it. The hon. member for Umbilo made the request that in clause 4 an amendment should be inserted. I want to point out that clause 4 reads as follows—

In practice, what happens? In practice the Minister will only make regulations on the request of the Joint Committee as stipulated in clause 3, which says that the Joint Committee on pension matters representative of the Administration and the staff organizations shall be appointed and regulated in the prescribed manner. In other words, this Committee is the responsible body which will come to the Minister with a request in connection with regulations pertaining to ail the matters from (a) to (m). That being so, I do not think it Would be practicable for the Minister, after he has received a request from the Committee, to provide that the regulations will then also be passed in consultation with the Committee again. I am just pointing that out to the hon. member. I also want to point out that Parliament still has to pass those regulations within 14 days after they have been promulgated by the Minister of within 14 days after the commencement of the session.

*In other words, I do not think it is necessary in practice. However, I am prepared to discuss this with the Management, and when we reach the Committee Stage, to discuss it again there.

†The hon. member also referred to clause 17 of the Bill. This clause contains no new principles, as it is exactly the same as section 78 of the Railways and Harbours Acts Amendment Act of 1965. Act 6 of 1965. There is nothing new in this. It is just the provision of the old Act which has been inserted here.

*Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I should very much like to thank the hon. member for Kroonstad for his support and the points he raised.

Sir, I wish to move the following amendment, which stands in my name—

These provisions seem to cut right across the accepted practice in this country whereby the establishment of townships is dealt with by the Townships Boards under legislation passed by the various provincial councils. These provisions seem to constitute an invasion of the rights of these bodies because we find that “township” in terms of this Act means an area divided into erven or plots and “recognized by the commission as a township for the purposes of this Act”. An “urban area” is then defined as meaning the area comprised in that particular township provided that notice has been given in the Gazette declaring that area to be an urban area for the purposes of the Act. Sir, one wants to know why the hon. the Deputy Minister seeks this particular power, which is a most unusual power. If one looks at the Town Planning Ordinance of the Transvaal or, for that matter the Town Planning Ordinance of any of the other provinces, one finds a most elaborate system laid down for the establishment of townships. Such townships have to be approved; plans have to be prepared, and provision must be made for all sorts of things for such a township to be properly and correctly established. Sir, this is a matter which is not lightly dealt with. The Township Boards established by the provinces have to satisfy themselves on many points and the entrepreneurs who apply for permission to establish such townships have to make provision for roads; they have to make satisfactory arrangements for storm-water, for open spaces, for schools and for many other things to ensure a proper and well-laid-out township. Sir, the Physical Planning Act also enters into the picture. That Act deals with the group areas side, where land is required in townships and thereafter used for various purposes. All this is to ensure the establishment of properly planned townships under the direction of the Townships Board. One does not understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister seeks these powers. There seems to be no good reason for it. This seems to be purely an ad hoe provision which is intended to meet any problem which might occur in the course of the work which the National Transport Commission has to undertake. From what we could gather, Sir, the function of the National Road Transport Commission is the building and the provision of roads between the various towns; it also makes provision for the disposal of storm water, and the legislation imposes obligations upon landowners with regard to the disposal of storm water. But I cannot find very much else in the Bill itself which warrants this invasion of the normal rights of the provinces through the township boards properly established under town planning ordinances. Sir, these town planning ordinances are very elaborate pieces of legislation. On this legislation depends the proper and regular lay-out and expansion of most of our cities and towns throughout the country.

But this is not an operative clause; it is merely a definition clause.

It is a definition clause. Sir, but it has a purpose because it gives powers …

It gives no powers.

It does. It says here that "township" means an area divided into erven or plots and recognized by the commission as a township for the purposes of the Act, and it then goes on to define “urban area” as meaning the area comprised in such a township.

For what purpose?

Well, that is the point; for what purpose? That is what we cannot understand.

I will give you the answer.

We hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us the answer but in principle we object to this invasion of the rights and duties of a township board. We cannot see why it is necessary to proclaim urban areas on a completely ad hoc basis.

You should know that a definition clause is not an operative clause.

Well, let us hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to say and then we can deal with this matter again.

I regret that I cannot accept this amendment. It is in any case clear that the hon. member does not understand what this Bill is all about. What we are dealing with at the moment are definitions, and that is important as far as certain aspects of the Bill are concerned. Let us now look at where this definition comes from. It is taken from section 1 of Act No. 21 of 1940, the Act that regulates advertisements alongside roads. All that is being done here is to adapt the wording; the meaning, however, remains the same. This means that if we draw up legislation to regulate advertisements alongside roads, and we refer in that legislation to a township area or an urban area, it is necessary for that concept to be defined. No new powers are being adopted here; this is, as I have said, merely an adaption of section 1 of Act No. 21 of 1940.

The matter goes a little further than stated by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I agree that in so far as advertising is concerned, the commission can designate an area a township, even though it is not a township in terms of any other law. But this goes a little bit further. In clause 18 certain obligations in regard to damage caused by storm water are dealt with. Subsection (3), for instance, says—

There may only be two or three isolated owners of land which adjoins a national road; yet the commission by merely designating that a township area, can avoid any obligation of paying compensation in so far as those owners are concerned. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. I wish he would explain it to us. If it has not that effect then the inclusion of these words in the definition is superfluous. The definition of “township” is that it is an area … “(b) recognized by the commission as a township for the purposes of this Act.” In other words, one might call gold silver because when we come to clause 18 we find that the commission is exempted from liability to pay compensation for damages caused by storm water if that storm water is diverted to a township. The hon. the Deputy Minister did explain the position, that when an area is developed as a township provision must be made for storm water drainage, and that the National Transport Commission has no way of leading such storm water off except through the township. By virtue of this definition the National Transport Commission is able to say that it regards an area abutting on the national road as being a township for the purposes of this legislation, and that area then, even though it may not in fact be a township, becomes liable and responsible for accepting such storm water without compensation being paid.

In the circumstances I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister earlier dealt with one aspect of clause 2. I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could just clarify it again. I want to refer him to clause 2 (4) which appears on page 7, line 42 in the Afrikaans text and on page 6, line 40 in the English text. This is a matter which is of concern to local authorities. During the course of the Second Reading debate mention was made of the necessity for, what I might call, dispersal roads within a municipal area. Where the national road readies the boundary of a municipal area, certain dispersal roads become necessary. Subsection (4) of clause 2 provides that—

1. (a) defray the cost or part of the cost incurred by an Administrator or local authority in connection with a road or other works which in the opinion of the commission have become necessary as a result of the construction of a national road.

I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could give us some clarity in this connection. I am sure local authorities would also like to have some clarity on the thinking of the hon. the Deputy Minister in this connection. He has made it clear that the linking urban freeway is not regarded by him as a necessary road arising from the construction of a national road. Where a national road by-passes a local authority, it becomes necessary to link the existing road network within the local authority area with that national road. Is it contemplated that the cost of such a linking road which may become necessary, will be covered by the commission?

Mr. Chairman, I am here making provision for various matters in the legislation. In the first place there is the transition period. At the moment there are certain national roads, portions of which are being de-declared and other portions that will be retained. When there is now an amendment and a re-alignment may take place, the National Transport Commission must decide in the transition period what portion of the extra work must he allotted to the local authority and what portion to the provincial administration. The National Transport Commission will, in such a case, help with the financing. This is partly as the hon. member stated.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I move—

I move this amendment because I believe where a proclamation of a national road is to take place it is essential that there should not only be consultation with the Administrator, but there should also be full agreement. The matter is complicated because this Bill which is before us adds another aspect of local government, which is more clearly defined in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment. The same provision will apply so far as the self-governing territories in the Republic are concerned. In other words, this means that a proclamation in terms of this clause of a national road can only be done with the agreement of the Administrator. I ask for this to be included and I move this amendment because I believe that the whole road programme is of vital concern to the provinces. I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that provinces tend to take a parochial view of what should or should not be done in regard to road construction, but is that not the very essence and the very reason why there should be some decentralized consideration of roads? I think this is so, because it is the Administrator of the province who, after all, should be more well acquainted with the local circumstances and the local needs, and I believe his agreement should be obtained by the Commission before any proclamations of this nature are made. I do not want to elaborate further on the reasons I have given, but I believe the provinces should retain the power which according to the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading debate will be taken from them. I believe that this agreement aspect is one which should be enshrined in the Bill and for that reason I move my amendment.

Order! I have considered the amendment, but I regret that I am unable to accept it as it is destructive of the principle of this Bill as read a Second Time.

In terms of this clause, the Minister is given the power to declare a national road and the construction of the route of the national road. I want to draw his attention particularly to a certain section of a national road. That is the national road between Hermanns and Mossel Bay. From time to time there has been reference to this particular national road in this House. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and I want to ask him to give very careful consideration to the routing of this road.

Order! That is a matter that cannot be discussed on this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, l want to address you on a point of order. If the Commission is going to have the new power to construct national roads all over the country, is the hon. member not entitled to ask how that power will be exercised in respect of the area about which he has just spoken?

Order! I cannot allow hon. members to discuss individual roads under this clause. They can be fully discussed under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Chairman, I am referring to clause 4 (1) (a). It says that the State President may, by proclamation, “declare any existing road or any route, the boundaries of which have been fixed by survey, to be a national road’’. In terms of paragraph (b), the State President may by proclamation “declare that a national road shall be constructed along a route which he shall indicate by specifying in the proclamation the land over which the road will run” … Surely, Mr. Chairman, I can address you …

I do not want any individual roads to be discussed under this clause. It is merely the principle that is to be discussed. That matter can be raised under the Vote of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, which stands in my name on the Order Paper—

The amendment is in line with the argument advanced by this side of the House during the Second Reading debate, namely that this Bill, which is an entirely new one and not an amending Bill, takes away from the provinces rights they previously had, namely to construct roads. The National Transport Commission will now build roads. We on this side of the House wish to re-establish those old rights the provinces had, and this is the reason for my amendment. Contrary to what the hon. the Deputy Minister and other hon. members on that side of the House have told us, this particular Bill not only gives the National Transport Commission the power to construct national roads but goes very much further than that. This Bill gives the National Transport Commission the power to build any road anywhere. We feel that that is going too far and that it gives the Commission more power than it should have. We would like to see the position revert to what it was before where the National Transport Commission was only an advisory body and where the provinces had the power to construct roads.

Order! I have considered both these amendments and I am unable to accept either of them as they are also destructive of the principle as accepted at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is possible to deal with the question of the planning, designing and constructing of a national road under this clause. I would like to address my remarks particularly to the hon. the Deputy Minister as regards his policy and the policy of the National Transport Commission concerning the planning of national roads in specific areas. The area I wish to deal with is the area between Hermanns and Mossel Bay. The reason I say that is because it affects the whole policy of the Minister and the Department and their approach to the planning and designing of national roads. There are examples in this area which affect the Minister's planning and designing and for that matter the construction of a national road. This is only an example of what can happen in other parts of the country. With your permission, Sir, I would like to continue my remarks about this particular area because it illustrates what can happen elsewhere. In this particular case the question is whether this road …

Order! I want to reiterate my previous ruling that hon. members cannot discuss any particular road under this Bill and under this particular clause.

This is now a national road and the question is whether it should be the shortest route between two points …

No, that cannot be discussed now.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would like to point out that for the first time the National Transport Commission is going to have the power to construct roads, and not only to plan them. Surely before this Committee agrees to give that power to the commission, the Committee is entitled to ask and have a reply from the Minister in charge as to how that power is going to be exercised and what the policy is in that regard. I do submit that the remarks of the hon. member for Simonstown are relevant because they relate to the manner in which these powers are going to be exercised. The Committee is asked to give this power to the Transport Commission for the first time; surely this Committee is entitled to ask of the Government how that power is going to be exercised.

They always had the power to design roads.

They have never had the power to construct them.

No, but…

My point of order is whether in the consideration of whether this Committee is going to grant that power for the first time, one is not entitled to ask about the manner in which that power is going to be exercised, and whether one cannot ask the Deputy Minister to give us the answer to that question.

Order! I cannot allow this amendment. This matter could have been raised in the Second Reading, but I cannot allow all national roads to be constructed to be discussed under this clause.

Will it be possible to discuss this matter at the Third Reading?

No. The hon. member may discuss it under the Minister’s Vote. That is a particular road and it is not dealt with in this clause. Therefore it cannot he discussed in the Committee Stage or the Third Reading, although it could have been raised at the Second Reading.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us what principles will be applied in the planning and the constructing of national roads? There are several ways in which road-building can be done. The economic factor is the most important, that is, that the road be built on the most economic route. The other one is what I have indicated before in connection with the functions of the Commission, namely that it takes into consideration other factors such as the preservation of nature reserves, or that it takes into consideration whatever tourist attractions that road might have. Are those factors which the Commission will take into account, or is it merely based on its financial implication, of having a national road from Point A to Point B? I think that if the hon. the Deputy Minister would explain that, it would save a lot of time. He should tell us what his views are in connection with the powers and the approach of the Commission.

I have already given this reply in my reply to the Second Reading debate.

Nonsense!

Yes.

*In that speech I made it very clear that in the past the National Transport Commission had done the planning and also determined the priority and then transferred these functions to the Provincial Administrations, which made use of the services of consulting engineers. Eventually the National Transport Commission gave their approval, i.e. whether the route was correct, etc. At the time I also said that they had taken into consideration the financial aspect and the necessity for priority because of the increase in traffic. They also took into account the natural beauty and the soil conservation factor, I even furnished the House with an example to show how, in constructing the road from Cape Town via Paarl to Worcester, we had to build a R8 million tunnel and how we routed that road so as to by-pass the best grape-producing lands. In other words, in its national road-building programme the National Transport Commission will in the future take into consideration South Africa’s interests in its complex capacity, which includes everything, and plan accordingly.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that this is going to be the policy, but what about the example given by the hon. member for Walmer, namely the road from Willowmore to Graaff-Reinet.

I have told him that he can appeal to the National Transport Commission.

What would be the point of appealing to the National Transport Commission? They are the people who are going to be dealing with it. That is precisely the whole point. There is no appeal any more. They are the ones who do the actual construction; they do the routing; they do the basic work; they do everything.

Yes,

To whom are they going to appeal after this?

Before they finalize the route, they have an open session at which they receive representations in connection with the route, and then they make their decision.

And only after that the proclamation takes place?

Sir, this is really, if I may say so, the guts of this Bill; this is the clause which gives the commission all those powers which they did not formerly have. I just want to place on record …

As far as the routing is concerned, they have it.

Yes, as far as the routing, the planning, is concerned, but I am dealing with the construction. This is the clause that gives the commission the powers which were formerly exercised by the provinces.

Only as regards construction.

Yes, as to construction and all that goes with it. This Bill in fact takes away from the provinces and gives to the commission a function which I do not believe the commission is going to be able to carry out as efficiently as it was carried out by the provinces. Sir, here you are going to have a centralization in respect of completely different terrain and completely different circumstances. The commission is going to employ all the engineers; it is going to own all the plant; it is going to plan everything and it is going to put in its own men. The hon. the Deputy Minister conceded yesterday that for the next few years he is going to have to rely upon the provinces to do this job. I want to ask him, Sir, whether he really thinks that he is going to have any greater success in doing the jobs which are required in respect of national roads without putting them out to contract than the provinces have at this moment?

Not only greater success but also a saving to the fund.

T wonder, Sir, I wonder where he thinks he is going to get his engineers and technicians and all the other skilled labour that he needs if he is not in fact going to milk it off from the provinces? Is that not exactly what he has in mind? Where are the road engineers? Where are all the technicians and the skilled operatives in respect of roads; where are they today? They are all employed by the provinces. Of course, they are. They are employed either by the provinces or by private contractors. The men with the expertise are now all employed by the provinces, especially (he engineers, and the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to have to milk them away from the provinces in order to start this empire that he proposes to build up in terms of this clause. When he has done that, Sir, what is the effect going to be upon the provinces, if he can do it, because he has the whip hand now? What is then going to happen to the provinces? Has he thought about this at all, or does he really think that he is going to be able, with his own staff that he is going to build up, to build all the national roads and that it will have no effect upon the provinces? Has he thought about it at all? That is what we would like to know. We would like to know what he anticipates is going to be his manpower position in this regard, and where he thinks he is going to get it. Because one must remember, Mr. Chairman, that at the moment he has not got one man. He has to start from scratch; he has nothing now. Where is he going to get the manpower from? How is he ever going to make this clause work?

I think hon. members are under a misapprehension. This Bill was formulated and decisions were taken with the concurrence of the provinces. They know much better than the hon. member for Durban North what the position is in regard to the construction of national roads. The power the National Transport Commission has always had was to design, plan and determine the routes of national roads. The provinces were actually only concerned with the construction of the roads. The National Transport Commission cannot milk engineers from the provinces. They are all controlled by the Public Service Commission and the Commission decides whether any person should be transferred from a province to a State department. That has always been and will in future be the position.

What I cannot understand, is why the hon. gentleman should object to this Bill. The National Transport Commission has been responsible for national roads since 1935. Now they find that there is too much overlapping. There is a waste of money. After discussing the matter in detail with the provinces, they decided to do the work themselves. The provinces do not construct the roads any more—they employ consulting engineers, to plan the roads and contractors to construct the roads. It used to be the position some years ago when they, had their own construction gangs, but they do not have that any more. They have to employ consultants for the planning of the road and contractors for the construction. Now, instead of the province doing that, the National Transport Commission will do it.

The Fact remains, however, that the National Transport Commission will be able to supervise the building of those roads much more efficiently than the provinces, because they will be in a position to do so. The provinces told me that they do not have the engineers to do the supervising. They said: “We cannot do it. We have to employ consultants to do that.” But what those hon. gentlemen cannot understand, is that the only reason for the introduction of this Bill is that we want more efficiency, to save the public money, to have the work done much better than it used to be by the provinces. It is in the interests of the country that we are doing this and not because we desire to take away powers from the provinces. These powers were only granted to the provinces in 1935. These are not inherent powers granted by the Constitution of this country. In 1935 Parliament decided to give them certain powers. We are doing this with the concurrence of the provinces. They know better what the position is than the hon. member. They agreed that the National Transport Commission should take these powers.

The hon. the Minister must realize that this is a completely new Bill. All the previous Road Acts have been repealed. We know full well how the roads are constructed at present, even by the National Transport Commission. They still will not build roads. They will go to private contractors as well. Time will tell whether it is going to fail or not—but what we are going to lose, is the influence and know-how of the Provincial Administrations.

I would like to refer to paragraph (h) of clause 5 (1). I want to ask the Deputy Minister what is the intention behind this provision. Is he going to supercede the traffic bureaux that are functioning at the present moment? Is this a preliminary notice that we are going to have a National Traffic Act? What is going to be the position as regards paragraph (h) which says “to recommend to the Minister the introduction of legislation relating to roads or road traffic”? How far is the Minister going to go? Is he now going to produce legislation in this House taking over all traffic organization in this country? Are we going to see a national traffic force? Is he going to take that away from the provinces? I should like to know from the Minister what the position is. He did not tell us in his Second Reading speech what he intends doing here. This particular paragraph seems to go very far, and I think the provinces and the local authorities should be told exactly what the Government intends doing, whether they intend producing a National Traffic Act which will take over the various ordinances and regulations of the provinces and the local authorities, and whether they intend taking over the present provincial traffic system and traffic police. I think they should know these things, because the various local authorities—the Minister himself has said that there is going to be great saving— would like to know the facts for their future planning and possible saving. We would like to know the position from the hon. the Minister.

I want to question the accuracy of what the hon. the Minister said about the control of engineers. The Public Service Commission controls only those in top grades, like the provincial roads engineers and their deputies. But there is a vast army of other engineers and planners employed by the provinces. I know the province has about 79 vacancies on its technical staff, but be that as it may, what I cannot follow is that the hon. the Minister made a point of the necessity of the National Transport Commission taking over construction works because that would result in a saving. But in this very Bill there is provision for the delegation of many of these powers back to the provinces. Consequently I cannot accept the argument that this new body is being established for economic reasons.

But let me go on to one or two other aspects of this clause. The National Transport Commission at the present moment consists of seven persons, the chairman and three members being full-time public servants. The undertaking, planning and designing and construction of national roads will now be a job in the hands of civil servants who have other duties to perform; they are not going to be concerned solely with road building. As l understand this clause, they would have to create the organization of a road building contracting firm. To pass this clause as it stands, especially in so far as powers of construction are concerned, would be an impractical decision.

Furthermore, apparently there is now going to be a transference of authority for traffic legislation in future. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that the present uniform traffic laws originated with the National Traffic Advisory Committee. In terms of paragraph (h) this power is now transferred to the National Transport Commission. Does this mean that this National Advisory Committee will be dissolved? Or is there going to be a division of authority here with regard to traffic laws?

Then I come to paragraph (1). This gives the commission the power to do all such work in connection with roads in general or in connection with a particular road, whether a national road or not, as the Minister may approve or may direct the commission to do. What are the functions of the National Transport Commission precisely going to be? Is it going to be restricted to national roads? Here it seems that the Minister may by directive authorize the commission to go into other aspects of roads. I should like to know what the necessity is for this paragraph, giving as it does these powers to the commission to deal with roads other than national roads.

I believe that the proposition contained in this clause is impractical in so far as the duties of the commission are concerned and for this reason we are opposed to it.

The hon. member for Salt River and the hon. member for Green Point have now referred specifically to the powers which the commission is being granted under clause 5 (1) (h) and (1). I just want to read out paragraph (h)—

Subparagraph (1) reads as follows—

Whether a national road or not.

Yes. The hon. members are trying to imply that these are brand new powers which are being conferred on the commission. I want to refer the hon. members to Act No. 44 of 1948 and draw their attention specifically to section 7, which defines the object of the commission, Section 7 reads as follows—

Section 9 of the same Act, which also has subparagraphs up to (1), defines the further functions of the commission. In analysing the functions which were entrusted to the commission under the Act at that time, one will find out that this legislation contains nothing which has not already been written into other legislation. All the hon. member can say, is that in the provisions there are frequent references to “after consultation with the Administrator”. We settled the principle at the Second Reading, i.e. that, as far as national roads are concerned, it will mainly be the function of the commission to determine the location and the routes with due regard to the wishes of the Administrations and the local authorities, as is also laid down in the Act.

One of the reasons why this particular clause of the legislation is before us today, is in fact because the question of locating roads, of the expropriation that goes hand in hand with it and of the function that has to be carried out in that connection by the National Transport Commission, was the cause of the greatest discord between the officials of the commission and the Administrations. It was the major point of friction. Furthermore, it was the level on which the greatest amount of delay took place. Private people, whose properties were affected, also suffered as a result of the fact that a decision could not be reached. For that reason it is essential that the same functions which the commission had under existing legislation, should now be defined in such a way that the commission may, without any delays being caused, carry on with its functions and take into consideration the wishes and recommendations of the provinces and the local authorities, because the final decision will rest with the commission.

The hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon the Minister made much of the fact that this legislation will lead to much more efficiency and less cost to the public.

Hear, hear!

Yes, I understand that the hon. member supports the Deputy Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain where this saving will come in. At present the procedure is followed that the National Transport Commission, in consultation with the province, lays out the line that the road will follow. They lay out the general route which the road will follow. Where alternative routes are possible, these are discussed. Farmers’ associations make representations and so on. I mentioned yesterday to the hon. the Minister, but received no answer, that the detailed planning of the road itself is done by the Provincial Roads Department. They plan the design of the structures, the siting of the structures, the siting of cattle creeps and so on.

Eighty-three per cent of the planning is done by consulting engineers.

I am speaking of the province of Natal. The planning there is done by the engineers of the Roads Department. I have been there to make representations concerning the siting of structures and so on. It is done by our roads department. It is on the basis of the design work done by the Roads Department that tenders are called. Tenders are awarded on the basis of design work done by the provincial council. Now the whole procedure is going to have to be duplicated by the National Transport Commission, They will still have to undertake the detailed designing. Tenders will still have to be called and there will still have to be the closest possible consultation with the Provincial Roads Department. With this measure we are not eliminating any of these factors. When the National Transport Commission undertakes the designing of a road, including the designing and siting of structures, etc., they will have to consult with the Provincial Roads Departments, because the alignment and siting of structures, of fly-overs, etc., will affect the planning of every single road which will give access to a freeway. You are going to have national roads which are deproclaimed, and which will remain very important roads indeed. They will have to be connected to the freeways. Here the National Transport Commission will have to take cognizance of the provinces. All the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing is to take over the detailed designing of these roads and the awarding of contracts. He already exercises supervision in regard to these aspects. How is a big saving to the public going to result under this new system the Deputy Minister intends to introduce? I do not see how there can be any saving at all, because the provinces are still going to be vitally concerned with the detailed planning of every single mile of road built as a national freeway. There will also be the additional complication of the connecting roads, which will run from the existing national road, which will be deproclaimed, to the new national freeways. I shall be very interested indeed to see where a saving in engineering staff is going to be brought about.

I should also like to emphasize that the provincial engineering staff are going to be tempted to transfer to the National Transport Commission, because the glamour work will be done by the Transport Commission. All the people wishing to make a name for themselves as engineers will want to work on the freeways. I say again that in Natal we have reached the position where consultants are being phased out because we have built up our engineering staff to the point where consultants are no longer required for the supervision of contracts which are awarded to the companies. I hope the Deputy Minister will clarify this matter, because I am unable to understand where the saving is going to be effected in this take-over.

Mr. Chairman, I am running the risk of making a Second Reading speech, and I shall therefore have to be very careful. It is very obvious to me that the perspective of the hon. member for Mooi River is faulty. As a result of what he has just said, he has condemned himself. He said that in the past he had made representations to the engineers in regard to national roads, i.e. where they had to be located, etc. That is in fact my problem. As it is, those provincial engineers are doing less than 17 per cent of the total detailed planning, for the other 83 per cent is being done by consulting engineers. Those people have always been inclined to give priority to local circumstances, local road links and the provincial obligations. In my Second Reading speech I said that I did not hold that against them. I would have done so myself. In other words, if, with national road funds at their disposal, it was possible for them to plan in such a way that they could meet their own provincial obligations and serve the local area, even if at times it were to the detriment of the national freeways, then they were inclined to do so. This had the effect that plans were delayed and became known and that there were differences of opinion in regard to plans. It resulted in quarrelling and discord amongst engineers. In clause 5 we are now providing that the National Transport Commission, and this department alone, shall be responsible, firstly, for the routing, as it is today; secondly, for the general planning, as it is today, and, thirdly, for the detailed planning and the construction. There will be a saving, for these roads are being built, not in order to serve the local circumstances, but in order that a network of national freeways for the whole of South Africa may be established. The consultation about which the hon. member is so concerned, is only taking place in regard to where the interchanges and intersections are to be constructed, which will then serve the local circumstances. At the moment the Provincial Administrations are actually acting as an agent between the National Transport Commission, the consulting engineers and the contractors. There are provinces which are not even supervising consulting engineers any more, but which have appointed a second group of consulting engineers to keep an eye on the first group of consulting engineers and on the construction work. This function now becomes the responsibility of the National Transport Commission and consequently brings about a saving.

The hon. member for Parow has already replied to the hon. member for Salt River. I just want to tell the hon. member for Salt River that this paragraph (h), to which he referred, does not contain any provisions other than the provisions contained in paragraph (i) and (j) of section 9 of Act 44 of 1948.

Another hon. member referred to clause 11. The other day already I pointed out that there were special roads which were being transferred to us by the Treasury. For instance, the Upington-Olifantshoek road is a case in point. The construction of these roads is financed out of special funds. It must be provided in legislation that these roads may be built by the National Transport Commission.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Transport is not here at the moment, but he did take part in the discussion of this clause. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport could tell us what the hon. the Minister meant when he said that this Bill was produced by reason of the concurrence of the provincial administrations in this regard and that the provinces wanted this Bill. This is a most startling observation, one which was not made by the hon. the Deputy Minister when he introduced the Bill.

Order! That matter cannot be discussed under clause 5.

Mr. Chairman, referring to this clause, the hon. the Minister said that this Bill was produced as a result of the concurrence of the provinces. He said that they had agreed to this Bill. The hon. the Minister also said that the provincial administrations had agreed to these powers being taken away from themselves and granted to the National Transport Commission. When did this happen? I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain this to us.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North should know by now that all Bills, before they are presented in this House, are circulated to all the departments and to the provincial administrations where they are affected by a Bill. Then we await their comments on such a Bill. This Bill was also circulated. Before it was circulated, I and my department had meetings with the four executive committees, of the Transvaal, Natal, the Free State and the Cape Province in conjunction with their own engineers. This Bill was discussed with them. After the whole Bill and its future effects were discussed with them, they were in full agreement with it,

Mr. Chairman

Order! I cannot allow any further discussions on this clause in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Surely we are entitled to advance reasons as to why we are against this clause. If one of the reasons is that the provinces themselves are against it, surely I am entitled to address you on that and advance that as a reason. I ask your ruling, Sir.

I have already given the hon. member for Durban North the opportunity to reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and the Deputy Minister has replied to that.

May I then address the Committee? When I was in the middle of replying to what the Minister had said, the hon. the Deputy Minister invited me to sit down so that he could give me the answer, but if I may say so, he has not given an answer. Is this what he wants to tell the Committee and the country? Whereas when the Schumann Commission sat, from its report, it is quite clear that every single province was against these powers being taken away from them, and in fact the Free State wanted the abolition of this central board, does he want to tell me that they have all changed? Is that what the hon. the Deputy Minister is saying?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the details of clause 5.

I am confiding myself to the details of this clause, which are that the Commission will now have the power to do the things in respect of national roads which the provinces formerly did, and that the provinces will no longer have those powers. Sir, I would have thought that this Committee, would have been overwhelmingly persuaded, especially because three of the four Provincial Administrations are Nationalist Party-controlled, by the fact that the Provincial Administrations were against the takeover by the Road Transport Commission of these powers. But now the Deputy Minister says that everyone, including Natal, which is controlled by the United Party, has agreed to this. Now I am not a member of the Executive Committee of any of the provinces, and I do not know what goes on, but I find it most surprising. I doubt very much that the provinces, having had the attitude they had in 1964, would now be quite agreeable to having their wings clipped. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister when this happened, particularly in respect of Natal, because this is most surprising, as I said before. But the hon. the Deputy Minister and, indeed, also the hon. the Minister talk about there not being any difficulty about the various engineers. I was saying that the Road Transport Commission, not having had any construction powers up to now, it is going to need the manpower, the skill and the know-howof those who are doing the job, and those are the people in the provinces.

Order! That point has been made.

The point I want to make is this. Take Natal, for example; they employ engineers and road planners, and they are employed by the province to deal with both the planning and the construction, etc., of the national roads and of the provincial roads.

Order! I must point out that during the Second Reading the principle was accepted that this Bill is to provide for the construction and control of national roads, and I cannot allow hon. members to discuss the principle again under this clause.

If I cannot advance reasons to persuade this Committee as to why this Committee should vote against this clause, then what may I discuss? Unless we all assume that it is a foregone conclusion what the Committee is going to do and, if so, I will resume my seat.

Mr. Chairman, clause 6 provides for the delegation of powers by the commission to the provinces or to private individuals, firms or contractors. If anything shows up the true reasoning behind this legislation and the true motivation of the clause which has just been adopted by the Committee, then it appears in the White Paper which suggests that the power being vested in the National Transport Commission would put an end to protracted negotiations and differences of opinion with the provinces over the location of national road routes, etc. These differences would then be restricted to a minimum. We have heard from the hon. the Deputy Minister and from other hon. members of that side of the House that the provinces are quite incapable of building roads …

I never said that.

Well, the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he did not say that. Well, then I want to know what he meant when he said, first of all that the National Transport Commission could construct roads more economically, and secondly, that they would not have groups of supervisory engineers and a waste of manpower. I would like to know what he meant by that, Thirdly, he said that they would be able to construct the road far quicker than the provinces could do. If that statement does not mean that the provinces were completely inefficient when it came to road construction, one wonders what it does mean. To add insult to what has been done, provision is made in this Act whereby those very powers can be delegated back to the provinces. Clause 6 says that the provincial administration, which is so inefficient, has not been able to build economically and wastes the public money, will now have to build the roads which are our responsibility. Where is the logic in this method of dealing with the provincial authorities? One wonders whether the Administrators would not be well advised, if this clause is adopted by this Committee, to have their attention drawn to clause 6 (2) (b), which reads: "No power shall be delegated under paragraph (a) except after agreement to that effect between the commission and the Administrator concerned”. For an Administrator to say quite politely to the National Transport Commission that they can go and do the job themselves, if that is their opinion and the opinion of the Government of the provinces’ efficiency and administration … I hope that the Administrators of the provinces will take up that attitude because of the attacks which have been made upon their efficiency when really the whole basis has been a question of irritability on the part of the Government, particularly on the part of the National Transport Commission, irritable at being asked to take into consideration matters of local concern. For those reasons one feels that this delegation of power is a contradiction of all we have had to listen to, the whole motivation for clause 5 of this legislation.

One finds further in this clause that the Commission is now to go even further. It can now do exactly what it said the provinces should not have done, namely that it can now employ private firms of road construction engineers to build roads. This was not good enough for the present dispensation. That was wrong when the provinces did that. It was seen as being a waste of money and as requiring additional supervision. Now, suddenly, we are to give these powers to the National Transport Commission to delegate these powers in exactly the same way. I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister how he can reconcile what he has said under clause 5 with clause 6 in terms of which he wants to delegate back to the provinces the very powers he took from them under the previous clause.

Mr. Chairman, I object most strongly to the hon. member for Green Point wanting to put words into my mouth to the effect that I said that the Administrators were inefficient.

The Administration,

Oh, now the hon. member is talking about the Administration. The hon. member for Green Point spoke about Administrators, because this clause provides for certain powers to be delegated to Administrators. The hon. member has now put words into my mouth to the effect that I was supposed to have said that the Administrators are inefficient. Let the hon. member try to get out of it by saying the administration. I have never said that they are inefficient. The fact of the matter is that they are overloaded with work. They have too much work to do and too many other interests to look after; it is for that reason that we are introducing this measure now. The hon. member is a complete stranger in Jerusalem. Surely he should know that Administrators themselves delegate powers to their officials, in the same way as a Minister may delegate powers to its officials. By the same token the National Transport Commission, which in terms of this legislation will be a legal persona, has to be able to delegate powers and to negotiate with those people who will enter upon the land and who will carry out the contract and do the planning. All this clause makes provision for, is that proceedings will function smoothly. After all, it is not the National Transport Commission with its eight members who are going to construct the roads. Surely, they are not going to be the engineers who are going to undertake the construction work and the surveys. As a matter of fact, the people who are going to be appointed will be officials of the Department or consulting engineers. For the purposes of this legislation is must be possible to delegate the corporate capacity and the powers the National Transport Commission may exercise to those people who are able to act as agents.

Mr. Chairman. I feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister has disclosed that he is not completely sure himself in which direction he is going, because the whole tenor of the discussion with regard to this particular Bill has been that the National Transport Commission will take over the construction of roads because it can do it more economically, because it has the engineers which the provinces lack and because it can co-ordinate the work much better. That was the main purpose of the entire discussion. It was a change in the whole approach to road building. Now suddenly we hear the story about everything being delegated to the Administrators of the provinces. The hon. member for Green Point earlier on drew attention to the fact that the commission consists mainly of civil servants who have other duties to perform. They themselves therefore cannot maintain direct contact. What we on this side of the House are concerned about is the reason for this change in approach. If you do not have enough engineers in the Public Service where will they then be found if the National Transport Commission takes over all the construction work in regard to national roads? The Administrators of the provinces were criticized because they were using outside contractors and engineers who were not in their employ because they did not have sufficient numbers themselves. Where does the hon. the Deputy Minister then think he is going to get the engineers and the contractors from if not from outside?

That has nothing to do with this clause.

Clear provision is made for coming to an agreement. This clause discloses exactly what will be done. The tune will be called by the Central Government after an agreement has been reached with the Administrator. That is the general trend that is taking place, namely to concentrate everything in the hands of the Central Government. That is why we get an overloading of departments. That is why the whole structure of this particular aspect of our national activity is set up in the manner in which the Minister has indicated.

Order! The hon. member must come back to this clause now.

Yes, Sir, but it is important.

We are concerned with the delegation of the powers of this Commission now.

Sir, I will read the very clause to you. I am sure you will appreciate what I am saying.

Subsection (2) (a) reads—

Paragraph (b) reads—

We would like to know exactly what is the Minister aiming at in taking this particular power. As I said earlier, the whole trend of his attitude, discussion of and policy in this Bill, as well as the principle which he says is enunciated in the Bill, is that the National Transport Commission would undertake the construction of the national roads. What then is the purpose of this paragraph? We would like to know it from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Order! But the principle of the Bill is not under discussion now.

Yes, but now we would like to know from him what he means in detail by the provisions of these particular paragraphs. That he should explain. He does not explain, but skirts around it. It is only the Minister of Transport himself who sometimes intervenes in a debate and explains the direction in which he is going, the purpose of a particular clause, why a clause has a certain provision. But the hon. the Deputy Minister does not do so. He merely tells you that you should know it; he merely tells you that it is quite clear what is taking place, and sits down. But he does not give us an explanation as to what he intends doing. On numerous occasions he has been asked for similar information. It is his duty to explain the detail of the clauses; otherwise why should the House deal with the clause? If the House has to deal with the clause, it is entitled to know from the Minister presenting the Bill what is his purpose with the clause, and what the provision is in aid of. What does he intend doing with this provision? What policy does he intend employing? Otherwise we do not know where we are going.

Mr. Chairman, are we not going to have the benefit of a reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister? I think the question that was asked was a fair one.

You have the reply.

No, we have not.

I will repeat it then.

No, Sir. We have not had an answer to the question the hon. member for Jeppes has now raised as regards the question of delegation; what is his policy. The hon. the Minister having said that the planning is going to be done by consultants and the building by contractors, the hon. the Deputy Minister wants this clause passed and says that it is all going to be done by the provinces. We are entitled to an explanation. There is no point in having a Committee Stage if the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to sit in his bench, “tjoepstil", all the time.

Mr. Chairman, I shall repeat what I have said. I told hon. members in this Committee that the National Transport Commission is a legal persona for the purposes of the administration of this Act. All legal persona can, by virtue of their powers, delegate their powers to officials and agencies. I told hon. members in the Second Reading debate that there would be a transition period in which the provincial administrations would continue to undertake the construction of roads as our agents. Furthermore, I told hon. members that we might also from time to time undertake construction work on behalf of the provincial administrations. I have furnished hon. members with the explanation. When an agent has to do this work for one, he has to go and negotiate. The agent has to enter upon the land. He has to find the quarries and start exploiting them. He has to sign the contract. All this Bill does is to provide for the National Transport Commission in its legal capacity to be able to delegate its powers to the Administrator, who, in terms of his powers of delegation, may further delegate such powers either to its officials or its contractors to undertake this work. The purpose of this is simply to cause the work to function smoothly. This is the practical, normal course of events. I cannot see why hon. members cannot understand this. I think this is pure wilfulness.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has now introduced a further factor into the situation, by suggesting that because the Road Transport Commission is a legal persona it may enter into these arrangements of delegation. But the Minister may, if the Act gives him that power, delegate power without being a legal persona. Under this clause we are going to have a legal persona, the National Transport Commission, which, according to the Minister, is an autonomous body without any control as far as he is concerned. This commission is now going to be free to delegate its powers to provincial administrations, or to the Administrator-in-Executive-Committee—whatever you wish to call it. The Provincial administration as such will then continue to spend public money, made available to it by the National Transport Commission, on the construction of roads. To whom will the provincial administration be answerable? Will it be to the provincial council of the province concerned? Will the provincial council, being the representative body of the province, be entitled to query the way in which funds are being spent on the construction of roads under this delegated power? Or is the province going to be answerable to a creature of statute, not even to a State department? The hon. the Deputy Minister may shrug his shoulders; but this is an important matter. He cannot ask us in this Parliament to accept as a principle that a body created by statute, a body which is now to have its own legal persona, on which the Minister himself will not be represented and which is not even answerable to him. It being an autonomous body, should have the right to delegate and to exercise control over an elected constitutional body such as a provincial council with the Administrator-in-Executive-Committee. Is that what he is asking us to do? The powers delegated to the Administrator will after all have to be carried out by the responsible member of the Executive Committee through the roads department. But that member of the Executive Committee is an elected person, elected by the electorate to perform a specific function. Are we now being asked to place him under an extra-constitutional body, as the National Transport Commission is? The very fact that the Deputy Minister is annoyed at this matter being raised, goes to show how wise the attitude is we have adopted by opposing the removal of these powers originally and now, that they have been removed, that there ought to be no right to delegate them back in the manner proposed in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to the hon. member for Green Point.

He has replied twice.

The hon. member for Parow has a lot to say by way of interjections, while he is sitting in his bench. He appears to be the expert on the subject, but suddenly he is “tjoepstil”. Suddenly he cannot answer, except by way of interjections.

Order: The hon. member must come back to the clause under discussion.

The hon. the Deputy Minister was less than frank, if I may say so, with regard to his attitude towards this delegation. It is not just a case of being a corporate body and having the power to delegate to its officials and various other bodies. This is going to be done by way of delegation by agreement upon certain conditions. There is the rub: “Upon certain conditions”.

If you, acting as my agent, are instructed to do a certain task, you must of course have the delegated power to do so.

That is right. But this is the power not just to delegate, but the power to instruct someone else to do what you want.

As an agent, you can refuse to carry out those instructions. Then we must get someone else to do so.

Is this not interesting! Now the cat is out of the bag. The hon. the Deputy Minister says they will get someone else to do it, but who will that be if the province does not do it?

The people who are doing it at present.

Who is that?

The consulting engineers.

I see. So if the province is not prepared to accept the conditions under which the delegation is given, they are going to get an independent consultant and an independent contractor to do the job.

As is done now.

Yes, as is done now. One of the arguments used by the hon. the Deputy Minister before, was that this was going to save a lot of money, because the work will no longer have to be farmed out to consultants and to contractors. They are in fact taking the power in this Bill to do the job themselves. The idea was that it was going to save money. If the province will not agree to the conditions, it will nevertheless still be done by private consultants and contractors. Is that right? This is quite a different story. If the conditions are not acceptable, we are now going to have more expense than before. What worries one about this legislation is the arrogance that is displayed by the Central Government in this regard. One of the reasons given in the White Paper for taking these powers is that the differences of opinion, which could arise before, were time consuming. It was said that too much time was taken up because engineers disagreed.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss those principles now.

No, Sir, I will not discuss the principles.

How is this power going to be exercised or delegated? It is going to be delegated on the basis the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated during the Second Reading. During the Second Reading debate the hon. the Deputy Minister was asked who knows best what should be done in relation to the local terrain; the local engineer who has experience in this regard or those who sit in the dark, lofty portals of the Transport Commission in Pretoria. I actually asked the hon. the Deputy Minister: “Do you mean that the chaps in Pretoria know more than the local engineers?” The hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply was: “Of course they know more”.

Yes, of course they do.

Now the hon. the Deputy Minister repeats “Yes of course they do”. No, really! What happened then? He throws the ball to the province. He has admitted that if the provinces will not do it on those conditions, they will go somewhere else. It will then go to a private contractor. This just does not make sense! Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister did not mean what he said! I hope he will give an indication of what he does exactly mean. The whole idea of this measure is to avoid friction and protracted discussion. Let me put it this way. The Administrator-in-Executive Committee of the province, is not going to be in a position to know whether or not the delegation of certain conditions is acceptable and whether they are able to do it, without consulting with the engineers. Consequently they will have to consult with their engineers. If the engineers say that the plan is unacceptable and wrong, the hon. the Deputy Minister will say that there can be no protracted discussion about it and will decide not to delegate the matter to them. What will he do then? That is what has been happening. That is why he wants this power He wants to be able to dictate to the provinces what they shall do. Let us be frank about this. Sir. What is really going to happen is that he is going to say to a particular province: “Do this”. He is not going to say; “If you do not do the work on these conditions, I am going to get a private contractor to do the work”.

Order! The hon. member is now repeating arguments.

No, Sir, I was just coming to my bull point.

I have been waiting for that for almost five minutes now.

What is in fact going to happen is that he is going to say: It know you do not agree, and I know you will not agree, but if you do not agree, you will not have this national road between two points in your province”.

What utter nonsense!

Well, if that is utter nonsense …

Have you ever seen a national road which stops at a provincial boundary?

If that is utter nonsense, will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell the Committee why one of the reasons given in the White Paper is that there has been a great deal of time wasting as a result of disagreement between the engineers employed by the National Transport Commission and the engineers employed by the provinces?

I am not allowed to make a Second Reading speech again.

Does he not anticipate that this is going to happen again? Obviously he does, otherwise he would not take this power. What is the answer then, Sir? If they do not agree, the work will be given to private contractors. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister promise us that if there is no agreement the work will be done by private contract and that it will be done at the public expense in any case? [Interjections.] Sir, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister owes the Committee a more frank explanation as to how he is going to exercise these powers and why he wants them.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that I will confine myself to this clause. Hon. members should realize by now that the most important part of this clause is subsection (2) (b). It reads as follows

It is quite clear that there must be two parties when an agreement is being entered into. This clause provides for the agreement to be entered into to follow certain guiding principles. No other power of the National Transport Commission is being transferred, except when it is arranged by means of an agreement. Hon. members now say that if such an agreement could not be reached, the National Transport Commission would still be able to take certain steps. Surely, it goes without saying that if an agreement cannot be reached with a province it will mean that the provinces either cannot do the work or do not want to do it. For that reason and in that case the National Transport Commission has the power to see to it that, in terms of the provisions of this subsection, the work is done by another body. Surely, this is as clear as daylight. I fail to see why hon. members are so concerned about this. In terms of this sub-section a province is being accorded the opportunity of including in the agreement certain conditions it may be interested in. A point is then reached when the National Transport Commission and the province must reach an agreement.

Where does the saving come in?

The question of saving has nothing to do with this particular clause. If I may mention this in passing, the question of saving was disposed of during the Second Reading. I have no intention of discussing that point. I am simply dealing with this article and I want to say again that the crux of the article is to be found in the wording of paragraph (b), to the effect that negotiations shall take place in regard to certain powers and that a contract shall be entered into. If the National Transport Commission and the province in question are unable to reach an agreement, the National Transport Commission will be free to do certain things in the interests of South Africa. I think the hon. members of the Opposition should confine themselves to this provision now and not make interjections of the kind we had from the hon. member for Mooi River. Surely, the hon. member has more intelligence than that.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

1. (3) When the commission intends to have an investigation, survey, observation or other act carried out in a territory or area referred to in subsection (2) of section 4 or in any part of such a territory or area, with a view to the issuing of a proclamation under subsection (1) (a) or (b) of that section the commission shall not authorize the commencement of such investigation, survey, observation or other act, unless the commission has consulted the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development,

Sir, this clause provides for certain powers of expropriation and contains certain provisions with regard to the notice to be given to the owner whose property is to be affected by the expropriation. I want to refer particularly to the provision which requires the owner to respond to the notice, that is to say, either to accept the compensation offered in the notice of expropriation or, alternatively, to state his counter claim. The clause stipulates that this answer must be forthcoming within 30 days from the date of the notice. Sir, I trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister will appreciate that this may be a very short period of time. The letter may be posted to a person living in some remote part of the country, resulting in some delay before the letter reaches the person concerned. Similarly there may be some delay before the recipient’s reply reaches the head office of the commission. Secondly, there is the question of the owner himself having to determine what he intends to claim. That again, as the hon. the Deputy Minister will realize, may take some time. For that reason I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

There may be some difficulty in proving receipt of the notice, but as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, under the procedure of the Post Office, the receipt of a registered article can be acknowledged, and there should therefore be no difficulty in establishing the date of the receipt as far as the commission is concerned. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept this amendment so as to make this a more practical provision.

Sir, I should like to support my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point. I want to make a very earnest appeal to the Deputy Minister to accept this amendment, which I think is in the interest of the public. This is quite a common provision. I have actually had personal experience of this in my private avocation, where I have acted for people who have been subjected to the same difficulties. Very often it involves womenfolk who have difficulty in being able to assess whether the offer that is made by the department, is reasonable or not. As this matter involves taking something from a private citizen, I think every possible opportunity should be afforded them. I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point is not unreasonable. The extension of this period to 60 days is not unreasonable. I do feel therefore that this is an amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister could well afford to accent because it would be in the interest of the private citizen whose land is affected.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer hon. members to clause 9 (3). If hon. members read this sub-section, they will find that the commission may extend that period. That being the case, I do not think it is necessary to extend the period of 30 days laid down in clause 8.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know why the hon. the Deputy Minister has taken up that attitude. I am not for one moment suggesting that the commission will be unreasonable in extending the period. The hon. the Deputy Minister must place himself in the position, not of a businessman in a city, but of some person in the country over whose land a proposed national road may pass and who suddenly receives this notice to which he has to reply within 30 days of the date of the notice. That person may well receive that notice eight or nine days after the date of the notice. He then finds himself with 20 days during which he must send his answer to Pretoria. I do believe it may cause unnecessary anxiety amongst the persons concerned. The power of extending this period, I agree, is laid down in clause 9. However, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider my amendment. It is no departure from principle. It seems that such an amendment would case matters if one takes into account the delays that may occur in the post. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to hon. members that, as in the case of the Expropriation Act, the matter is just made so much more difficult for the National Transport Commission when the period is extended. We are obliged to streamline all work and to expedite matters. We do not want to prejudice anybody whose land is expropriated. If a person is not satisfied with the price he is offered for his land, it is not necessary for him to name the price he wants within 30 days. He is only required to give notice within 30 days that he does not accept the price offered and that he needs time in order to have valuations made, etc. I really see no need for extending the period provided in clause 8, because clause 9 (3) already provides that the commission may extend the period from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw attention to three points which the hon. the Deputy Minister has just made. First of all, the delay in fixing the compensation does not in one iota affect the National Transport Commission in obtaining possession of the land for the purpose of road construction. In any event, the expropriation proceedings start long before the first tractor or bulldozer will start with that road construction, because the road must be planned and the expropriation will probably take place 12 or 18 months before the actual road construction commences. Therefore, there can be no delay for the National Transport Commission in regard to this.

The second point which the hon. the Deputy Minister has made, is that it is not necessary to state the alternative compensation when a person gives notice that he is not satisfied with the compensation offered to him by the department. If that is so, why is it laid down in clause 8 (2) (d) (i) that if the compensation offered to the owner in the notice, is not accepted by him, he shall inform the commission what compensation is claimed by him? It is an obligation upon the owner to do that within 30 days. Thirdly, as I have already stated to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I want to repeat it if I perhaps did not make it clear enough, clause 9 is a provision which exists in respect of all other matters of arbitration because one knows that once there is a difference of opinion the matter takes some time to resolve itself. It can in fact eventually go to an arbitration court. I, for the life of me, cannot understand it. I do not want to suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister is being unreasonable, but I am tempted to do so when he refuses to extend 30 days to 60 days when it makes no difference whatsoever to any person whatsoever, except the unfortunate person whose land is being expropriated.

I am the most reasonable man in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out another matter to the hon. the Deputy Minister, because he did not entirely finish the reference he made to clause 9 (3). It says there “if an owner has not in writing informed the commissioner within the period referred to in (the relevant paragraph) or such further period as the commission may in writing allow”. That is correct. But then it also says that if he has not informed the commission in writing that he does not accept the compensation offered as contemplated in paragraph (i) “he shall be deemed to have accepted as the compensation to which he is entitled in terms of the Act, the amount so offered”. This is the serious part of it. I am sorry I did not go far enough in what I have said earlier, but this is the very thing which one feels is an imposition on the private citizen.

In so far as the requisition of land for public purposes is concerned, I do not know of a case which has been so urgent that a period had to be limited to 30 days. I do not know of such a case or of a case where one has to rely on an application for the extension of that period. I could give the hon. the Minister many examples of what happens in the provincial council in regard to schools. That is the case I have in mind. That is the case where a person gets notice that if the amount offered is not accepted in writing within a certain period, it will be the amount which will be set as the figure of compensation. Very often the recipient does not have the time or the opportunity to correctly assess whether the offer made by the particular authority is a fair and reasonable one. We know this from experience. [Interjections.] If that hon. member can prove the contrary, he can do so. We are not fighting the principle in this case. We are not contesting anything vital to the Bill. I do not know why there is even a controversy in respect of a simple matter of this nature when nothing has been said to the Minister except a sincere appeal to extend the period.

Mr. Chairman, we are today living in a country in which mail is promptly delivered to any outlying area. Mail and notices of this kind are usually served on people by registered post. Nowhere in our country a letter is held up for so long that it cannot return to the sender within 30 days. If one receives a letter two days before one has to reply to it …

What if he is on holiday?

A week can have only one Sunday and one Saturday. However I do not know what that hon. member for Salt River is thinking of. If the mail is delivered and it returns or the man states that he only received the notice the previous day and that he cannot possibly come to a decision within the notice period of 30 days, he can, upon request, have the period extended. This is provided for and that is why we have the provisions as contained in subsections (3) and (4) of clause 9.

Then it must depend on an act of grace.

No one will forfeit his compensation or his rightful claim to larger compensation if the procedure in terms of the legislation is followed. All the hon. members are trying to do cow, is to cause delay. If the legislation had provided that it was to be 60 days, they would have asked for 90 days.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member has spoken three times already.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he is the most reasonable person in the House, because I am about to propose a most reasonable amendment, which I hope he therefore will accept. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that he would accept an amendment along the lines of that suggested, and it is now on the Order Paper in respect of clause 25.

We are not dealing with clause 25 now.

I know, but I am only indicating that the hon. the Minister said that he would accept an amendment of that sort to bring it into line with existing legislation. The amendment which I propose, as printed in my name on the Order Paper, is to bring the expropriation provisions of this clause into line with the expropriation provisions of the Expropriation Act. The Expropriation Act, as amended by Act 43 of 1968, section 2, provides for the following—

It seems to me that it is desirable, when one deals with public bodies, that the provisions relating to the jurisdiction, the period of prescription and so on, should so far as possible, be uniform. It is for that reason that I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, which amendment provides that instead of the amount of the jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court being R10 000, as is now proposed in the Bill, it should be R3 000. This provision of the Bill will then come into line with the provisions of the Expropriation Act. I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that the normal civil jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court is only R1 000 so that a magistrate will in any event be dealing with an amount three times more than his normal civil jurisdiction. It is such a reasonable and sensible amendment that I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept it. I move—

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to accommodate the hon. member, but I nevertheless want to point out to him that we heard only a few days ago that money is not worth a great deal any more today, and that we then increased our salaries by a very large amount. I piloted the Expropriation Act, Act No. 55 of 1965, through the House at the time and when this amendment was placed on the Statute Book in 1968, the value of money was not taken into consideration. What was worth R3 000 in 1965, is not worth that much today. The amount of R10 000 has been included in this Bill, not because we want to give the local magistrates more powers than necessary, but merely to facilitate the flow of work. The hon. member himself knows how much work the provincial Supreme Courts have. I see no problem in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment, standing in my name on the Order Paper—

I am at a loss to understand why the wording is used that is used in this clause, namely that “the compensation payable to an owner for or in respect of land expropriated shall not exceed the market value of the land, material, substance” and so on. I take it that what is intended is that the owner should get the market value of the land having regard to certain provisions which are in this clause determining the market value. Expropriation powers so far as the Community Development Board is concerned, refer to the market value. They go further and refer to certain goodwill payments as well. I think if the hon. the Deputy Minister means that the person whose property is being expropriated should receive the market value determined according to this clause, it should say so quite dearly. There should not be any impression here that, if such a matter goes to the magistrate’s court or the Supreme Court, that that court could order less than the market value. For that reason I move the amendment to delete the words “not exceed" and substitute that the compensation “shall be” the market value of the land, etc. I think that will clarify the provision, When the matter goes to the court, whether it be a magistrate’s court or the Supreme Court, the magistrate or Judge concerned will know that what he has to determine is the market value, in terms of the provisions of this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, on the face of it the request of the hon. member for Green Point seems a very reasonable one, namely that a person should receive the market value of his land. But if the hon. member reads the whole clause, he will see that it is not really such a reasonable request he is putting to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

In the first place I want to refer him to the origin of the clause. The clause has, of course been taken from section 8 of the Expropriation Act of 1965. There one finds the same wording. In section. 8 it says “shall not exceed”, as in the English text of this clause as well. In the Afrikaans text it is put slightly differently, namely “dit mag nie meer beloop me”, which is really another way of saying “nie oorskry nie". But now I want to show the hon. member why it cannot be put in the way he is asking for. In subsection 2 of clause 9 it is said that, in determining the amount of such compensation, certain factors shall be taken into account. You cannot look at the market value only. There are certain factors you have to take into account. What do you have to take into account? According to paragraph (c), for example, you have to take into account—

built or erected contrary to the provisions of section 13. The clause provides that this shall not be taken into account. In other words, if unauthorized structures are erected on the land, the hon. member cannot, after all, expect them to be included in the market value of the land. Furthermore, I want to refer him to paragraph (e), which reads—

In other words, if the commission now constructs a road which results in the man needing a new access road to his farm or property, for instance, the costs in connection with the construction of this access road have to be taken into account. I can also refer the hon. member to paragraph CD, which provides that account shall be taken “of any benefit which has accrued … to the person to be compensated …” as a result of the routing of the road. In other words, Sir, it is not such a reasonable request as the hon. member is making out. One cannot look at the market value only. Certain other factors have to be taken into account, as the clause provides.

I have not been convinced by the arguments of the hon. member for Parow. The way in which this clause has been drafted suggests every possible reason for not giving the market value, that they are not bound to give the market value. When the Minister of Community Development dealt with expropriations under the Community Development Bill market value was provided for, clearly and distinctly, so that there could not be any misunderstanding with the public.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (3) Notice of any such closing or diversion shall be published once in the Gazette and in a local newspaper circulating in the area concerned.

In so far as this amendment is concerned, I think even the hon. the Deputy Minister, hard as he may find it like Pharaoh to remove his hand from his heart, must accept it. Clause 4 provides for the State President by proclamation to declare any existing road or any route to be a national road. This clause, i.e. clause 11, provides that the National Transport Commission may close a road for traffic—it does not say for how long—or divert the roadway of a national road when in its opinion it is necessary or desirable to do so. Any person who, without the permission of the commission uses a national road so closed to traffic, shall be guilty of an offence, in terms of subsection (2) of this clause. What I ask for in my amendment is simply that notice of any such closing or diversion shall be published in the Gazette and in a local newspaper. If the hon. the Deputy Minister fails to accept this amendment, I am afraid my estimation of him will undergo a considerable change, because this amendment is fair and reasonable.

The hon. member is asking a very stupid thing. Suppose there is a storm and the storm water cuts a channel across a national road, as a result of which the National Transport Commission has to close the road for repairs. What that hon. member wants is for the road just to remain open so that he can come along and crash into the channel with his car. The hon. member now wants notice to be given of such closing. But why must notice be given in the Government Gazette of the closing of a road as a result of the fact (hat a channel has been cut through it by storm water so that it has to be repaired? Surely this is unnecessary.

It is a pity that the hon. the Deputy Minister presents this ridiculous argument, because if he knew anything about local government and provincial government the necessity to publish it in the Gazette before a road is closed …

It is a permanent closure.

It is to close it temporarily or to deviate the route. But the hon. the Deputy Minister stands up here and attempts to be smart by talking about an obvious matter which is governed by other laws and which does not obviously apply to a deviation in the terms provided in clause 11. Clause 11 provides for a deviation or a closing when there is reconstruction work going on or matters of that sort. I do not think it is to the credit of the hon. the Deputy Minister to take up the attitude he did in regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppes.

At the Second Reading yesterday I spoke about the advertising of local business concerns along roads, and the Minister then replied that it could not be allowed. I just want to point out that I think the Minister misunderstood me slightly. I did not mean that there should be advertising along roads, but clause 14 (2) (f) clearly states that regulations may be made in terms of which exceptions may be made. All I have in mind is that we should have standard notices indicating certain things. I am thinking, for example, of monuments, picnic sites, pleasure resorts, hotels, filling stations, etc., which are not visible from the national road, in order that the public may know that such facilities are in fact available. I am aware that there are international standard signs which are used abroad to indicate certain things. I only thought that the Transport Commission could, under this clause, decide about such signs and that it would then be allowed to indicate certain facilities to the public.

I would like to satisfy the hon. member that where there are recognized standard signs, such as a knife and fork to indicate a hotel, they will be considered.

I am sorry to hear that the hon. the Minister is going to come to the assistance of the hon. member who has just sat down. The last thing that we want to see along our national roads are these unsightly signs. One only has to drive through Du Toitskloof to see what the position is. Under the new Road Ordinance and the traffic regulations, there are very neat signs which are internationally recognized which they will use, but we certainly do not want any unsightly signs. One of the greatest offenders is the hon. the Minister’s own Railways with these horrible signs they have next to the railway lines advertising beer and cigarettes. One only has to see these unsightly signs along the railway line—but we hope this will not happen here.

You are off the rails completely.

I am not off the rails. We do not want to see our countryside spoiled.

I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

To add the following proviso at the end of subsection (2):

Sir, this is the most extraordinary clause that has been included in this Bill. I think that the Committee might consider the terms of this particular clause and the powers which are given to the State President to make regulations. This clause provides—

1. (1) The State President may on the recommendation of the commission make regulations relating to traffic on a national road or the use or protection of a national road or the use or presence of vehicles or animals or any other thing on a national road.

In other words, full powers of traffic control, control of the use of the roads and control of the method of use of the verges and side areas of the road, can be conferred by regulation made upon the recommendation of the commission and then promulgated by the State President. Sir, when we look at subsection (2) we find—

Subsection (5) then provides—

As I have said, Sir, this is an extraordinary provision. We are now being asked to approve of a clause which is to give power to the commission to cause regulations to be promulgated which will be of superior legal effect to the ordinances of a legislative body set up under the Constitution of South Africa. In other words, these regulations can supersede and set aside the decisions which have been taken by a provincial council. This seems to me to be a dangerous course of action, which is envisaged by this clause. I believe it is a dangerous course of action that legislation can be set aside merely by the promulgation of a regulation, and that is what is provided in this clause. It is true that that regulation might be disapproved by both Houses of Parliament under subsection (6) (a), but, Sir, can you imagine a more ridiculous method of legislation? The powers of the province are going to be usurped by the commission. The province is concerned primarily with road traffic regulations, constitutionally. The provinces, constitutionally, are responsible for roads and road traffic control. Now the commission is going to override the province, and the province can do nothing about it—nothing whatsoever. But for some reason or other the matter must now come to both Houses of Parliament. Both Houses of Parliament must now say whether the province was right in its ordinance or whether the commission was right. Sir, this seems to be an extraordinary approach to legislation. At the present moment, as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, the province’s legislative manocuvrability is very, very restricted because of the necessity of having its legislation approved by the National Roads Advisory Council. Sir, this is making a farce of provincial administrations. Members of the Government contest my view when I say that they are forever eroding the rights, the standing and the position of the provincial administrations, but here we have an example. We are now saying to an elected legislative body such as the provincial council: “So far as we are concerned and as far as the National Transport Commission is concerned your ordinances do not count for a row of beans in so far as traffic control is concerned", if the commission does not like the provisions. The National Transport Commission, a body outside the control of this Parliament, except for the provisions of subsection (6) (a), can say that a provincial ordinance must be set aside. The provincial councils may set a speed limit and may direct that there should be traffic control over certain parts of the national roads in a province. The National Transport Commission, in its wisdom, may say that they do not mind what the elected representatives of the people of the Transvaal say in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. The National Transport Commission will say that the people of the Transvaal who use the roads will do as the National Transport Commission wants them to do. An unhealthy attitude is growing in regard to the powers of elected legislative bodies in the three tiers of the Government of the Republic of South Africa. I believe that it is dangerous that regulations should overrule legislative acts of a legislative body. I believe that, for that reason, this clause should be deleted from the Bill. Another Bill has come before this House, in which it was also indicated that there should be powers whereby a regulation could conflict with legislation. That provision was opposed and finally withdrawn from that Bill. Consequently it never came on to the Statute Book. I may be wrong, but I have not been able to find anything on the Statute Book today, which enables an extra constitutional body, such as the National Transport Commission, which is after all autonomous and outside of the framework of this Parliament, to legislate and make regulations which are in conflict with the decisions and legislation approved by the elected representatives of the people sitting on the provincial councils.

Mr. Chairman, in stressing his case, the hon. member referred to clause 19 (6) (a), calling it a farce. He has a very short memory. The Superannuation Bill which was passed through the House today, contained the exact same clause that all regulations should be accepted by both Houses of Parliament.

*I now come to the second aspect. The hon. member is concerned about the fact that regulations may be made in respect of national roads, regulations which may possibly be in conflict with the provincial road ordinances or which may even override them. The hon. member has forgotten that only yesterday the hon. member for Walmer asked here for special provision for heavy lorries, for instance. The provincial administrations may perhaps not be concerned about the preservation of the Toads in regard to axle load. If the National Transport Commission decided to make regulations relating to that problem, for which the provincial administrations are not responsible at all and about which they do not bother, the National Transport Commission should be able to do so. It is only in respect of national roads that these regulations may be made. They concern nothing but national roads. The intention is to get uniformity by these means. The strange phenomenon may occur that the Transvaal Ordinance provides that one may travel on a certain road at 80 miles per hour I think this is 120 kilometres per hour—whereas the Cape Province may provide, in respect of the same safety factor on the same road, that the speed is not to exceed 70 miles per hour. In other words, we want to have the right to get uniformity on our national roads, so that proper action may be taken in that regard. I have already mentioned the question of abnormal loads. In the first instance, we have decided in principle that national roads are essential for road safety in South Africa. National roads are essential for having a flow-through. I want to give a last example, which is an important example in regard to the safety factor. If the National Transport Commission lays down that a particular road is a limited access road, the commission must be in a position to make the regulation that pedestrians may not walk to and fro across the road, as we have seen it happening along the road between Cape Town and the D.F. Malan airport. That affects the entire safety factor. For that reason the National Transport Commission must have those rights in respect of the limited access road, which is a national road.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has a confused approach to this matter. He says that a Bill with which we dealt earlier today contains a similar provision. The Bill to which he refers is the Railways and Harbours Pensions Bill; that is quite a different matter. The regulations referred to there are regulations made by the Minister. They cannot be in conflict with any statute. They have to he laid upon the Table of the Senate and of the House of Assembly within 14 days after promulgation. If both the Senate and the House of Assembly by resolution disapprove of those regulations, they shall be amended; otherwise they shall be formally effective. This clause is entirely different. Subsection (6) (a) states: “If a regulation made under this section has by resolution been disapproved by both Houses of Parliament …” Who is to take the steps? If the regulations are promulgated by the commission, they are laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and then steps must be taken to disapprove of them. By whom must these steps be taken? After all, this is a matter which affects the provincial administrations. It does not concern Parliament. If the hon. the Deputy Minister said that they must be laid upon the Table of the Provincial Councils so that the provincial council concerned can take cognizance of them and debate them, he would be doing the correct thing.

Sir, the Deputy Minister’s main reason for this measure is uniformity. He wants to introduce this provision because the Transvaal may allow motorists to drive up to a speed of 120 km. per hour, whereas the Cape may allow them to drive at only a 100 km. per hour. Therefore we must have uniformity, and uniformity can only be achieved, according to the thinking of this Government, by forcing those views upon every person in South Africa, without giving them an opportunity of discussing them.

Nonsense.

That is what is done. The motivation in the White Paper on this very Bill before us was that there is irritation and friction because of disagreement and arguments with the provincial administrations. Now, because they feel that there cannot be uniformity by consultation and co-operation, the National Transport Commission must have the power to promulgate regulations which can negative provincial ordinances. I say that this is a dangerous step which is being taken in our legislative procedure. It is certainly a step of which this Committee should not approve.

Mr. Chairman, in his eagerness to make out a case, the hon. member exaggerates the whole matter and wrests it entirely out of context. I want to tell the hon. member that it will be impossible to carry out the task which is now being conferred on the National Transport Commission if we do not have the powers which are now being granted to the commission in terms of this clause. It is absolutely impossible today to make detailed statutory provisions for everything that is necessary in connection with the construction of roads. This is also the case in other spheres. Today one does not find legislation in which provision is not made for certain actions to be effected by regulation. I want to go even further. The hon. member now makes a great fuss about the fact that there will be regulations which will be promulgated by the State President, and which will override the ordinances of provinces. What is wrong with the fact that a regulation made by the State President may override an ordinance? I see nothing wrong in that. But, as I have said, the hon. member exaggerates the whole matter. It will never happen under this legislation, because these matters in respect of which regulations are made in terms of this clause, will be applicable to national roads only. National roads do not fall under the provincial councils. The hon. member must realize that.

Secondly, it is made very clear in this legislation that these regulations are not made by the Minister or the Transport Commission or by the Secretary for Transport, but that they are made by the State President. Subsequent to that they are tabled both in this House and in the Other Place in terms of subsection (6) (a). Then Parliament may approve or disapprove of them. In other words, the regulations are sanctioned by this Parliament. If this Parliament does not like a regulation which overrides an ordinance, it disapproves of it. But the hon. member must surely accept that certain matters in respect of roads will have to be controlled by the National Transport Commission. The hon. member need not conjure up spectres here by referring to traffic police, and so forth. The White Paper states that traffic control on the roads will be in the hands of the provincial administrations.

However, there are other matters in respect of which hon. members on the other side of the House asked that the commission should exercise supervision. We need these regulations for those purposes. Hon. members are now trying to foil what their own people asked for.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parow avoided dealing with the principle of this particular clause and the argument of the hon. member for Green Point.

And which has been accepted at the Second Reading of this Bill.

Yes, but the position is that the hon. the Minister has hinted in the direction of a Bill for traffic uniformity in this country. He also mentioned the different speed limits. But the hon. member for Parow said that this Bill only deals with national roads. How can we have a certain traffic law or regulation for a national road and another for a provincial road and still have uniformity? Have hon. members ever heard anything more ridiculous than that? How can you talk of uniformity when you are allowed to travel at 70 miles per hour on a provincial road and at 80 miles per hour on a national road?

That is nonsense!

Of course, it is nonsense. That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Parow said. That is the nonsense that they speak.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must come to this House and say that this measure is the foundation for uniform laws in regard to traffic, but he should not tell us that this measure only applies to national roads, because that is absolute rubbish.

Order! That argument has already been used.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell that hon. member—I have not heard this argument—that he has probably never been in a provincial council. He probably knows nothing about the drafting of traffic laws.

Order! That argument has been used too.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give serious consideration to this matter. If it is his intention to introduce uniform traffic laws in this country, then he must have the courage of his convictions and tell us in this House that that is his intention. The hon. the Deputy Minister should not dally with us. The argument of the hon. member for Parow regarding the different roads and the different laws and regulations for those roads, reminds me of the story of the man who got on his horse and rode in all directions. That is the sort of traffic laws that we will have under this hon. Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I have a very small but very important practical difficulty.

Have you ever been in the provincial council?

Order!

No.

He started in the Senate.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have not said a thing yet. My concern is not whether I was a member of the Provincial council or the Other Place, but my concern is that I am a member of this House and in terms of the rules of this House this provision which is put up as a safeguard in subsection (6) of this clause is really quite meaningless. What does it say? It says:

Read the whole clause.

All right, I will read the rest. Paragraph (b) reads:

Is that what the hon. the Minister wants me to read?

Carry on with your own speech.

Order!

Here regulations are made by the commission and they are published in the normal way in the Gazette in terms of the Interpretation Act. Then they are laid upon the Table of the House. Who is going to move a resolution that they should be changed or that they should lapse, in other words that they should in fact not come into effect? Where is it going to come from? It is not going to come …

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the rules of (he House. They are not before us and they do not fall under clause 19.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I am discussing a provision for disapproval by this House, of regulations which have been made and I am trying to point out that they are meaningless. I am trying to indicate why. I want to say that obviously the Government itself, having promulgated the resolution …

If they are meaningless you should go to the committee which deals with the regulations of this House.

Where is there a Select Committee for regulations in this House? There is a thing, now! This is a consummation devoutly to be wished, if I may say so. Hon. members on this side of the House pressed very hard for this a long time ago. In fact we had a unanimous agreement …

Order! I cannot allow a discussion of the rules of this House. Hon. members must confine themselves to clause 19 only.

Who is going to produce this motion as worded in subsection (5) of this clause? Who is going to move it? It is not going to come from that side of the House. It is going to come from this side of the House. The only occasion on which the resolution can in fact be moved by an hon. member from this side of the House, is when he moves this as a private member’s motion. In terms of the rules, and with respect, Sir, this is relevant to the operation of this clause, this motion lapses after 2½ hours. If someone on this side were to propose such a motion, all the Government members have to do is to talk it out and then it lapses. Therefore, you never really get to the point where the House actually expresses its opinion on those regulations. As I say it is meaningless. If the hon. the Deputy Minister was really serious about this and if he really meant the House to express its opinion, then he should provide here, and I am asking him to consider this as an amendment, that if they are not approved of by resolution, they shall lapse. There are many examples of this. Yesterday, in this House there were at least two resolutions approving of executive action. Without such approval it cannot take place. We have had something of this kind during the same session. It was an amendment of the Military Code as they appear in a Schedule of the Defence Act. Those amendments can be made by the State President, but they have to be approved of by this House. They do not come into effect unless and until they are approved of by resolution. If the hon. the Deputy Minister really means what he says, he should say that, because this means nothing at all. This is what the previous hon. member for Simonstown called a lot of "wordage”. It just does not mean a thing. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will indicate to us that he will give the House the same opportunity of discussing and of expressing its opinion on the regulations which are being made by this Commission, as is given in the case of amendments to the Military Code, and mail carrying agreements with the Union-Castle Company, for example. I sincerely hope that he will, because this is very important. After all, this body will make regulations which, unlike the Military Code, can override the provisions of a provincial ordinance. They are more important than that. If an elected body like the provincial council purports to make laws relating to the subject, the law has no effect if it is contrary to these regulations. I therefore hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give his attention to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to endeavour curtailing the prerogatives of Parliament. I am as jealous of the prerogative of this Parliament as any other member is. I shall not be allowed to discuss the Standing Rules of this Parliament now, but I believe the Standing Rules do, in fact, make provision for the practical implementation of this clause. Any member of the House of Assembly or Senator may, by way of a substantive motion, move that any regulation made be disapproved of. I want to accept that any responsible Government, if anyone is able to make out a case for a regulation to be disapproved of, will not simply allow the motion to lapse by keeping up the debate for the prescribed hours, but will put it to the vote. However, since the hon. member feels so strongly about the matter, I shall have another look at it, because I do not want to take away this Parliament’s prerogative. In this legislation provision is being made for the regulations to be approved of by Parliament, and if they are not approved of, problems will arise. However I want to give hon. members the assurance that I wish to make provision for Parliament to decide about the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I am very indebted to the hon. gentleman for the attitude he has displayed here. It is very refreshing and unusual, and we appreciate it. There is just one other point I would like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister for his consideration when he considers this matter for amendment in the Other Place. Before Easter one has the opportunity by way of a private member's motion to raise any matter here; after Easter there is no more private members’ time at all. If the regulations are laid upon the Table after that date, there is no opportunity for any private member to raise the matter. I put this to the hon. the Minister as more ammunition to stir the excellent thought which is in his breast.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with some trepidation to move the amendment standing in my name, I move—

I say that I move the amendment with some trepidation because the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated in his reply to the Second Reading debate that he would accept an amendment in this form. The purport of the amendment is to bring the law of prescription so far as the commission is concerned into line with the law relating to prescription so far as actions against local authorities and provincial councils are concerned. Indeed, Sir, if the amendment is accepted the provision will be identical with that in the Limitation of Legal Proceedings Act, which was passed last year by unanimous agreement of the Select Committee.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Sir, when the House adjourned I was dealing with the composition of the National Transport Commission and its reconstitution in terms of clause 2 of the Bill before us. I pointed out that in terms of the Bill the chairman of the commission would remain in office for as long as he held the position of Secretary for Transport and that he would have with him three commissioners who, if public servants—they need not necessarily be, but they are most likely to be public servants—would also hold office indefinitely while they held those appointments in the Public Service. The Bill is silent about the period of office of persons other than public servants who are designated as commissioners or who were designated members of the Transport Commission, but I do see that the hon. the Deputy Minister has placed on the Order Paper an amendment which is designed to make good that deficiency in the Bill. That matter, which I wished to raise, will therefore fall away now.

It would appear, therefore, that the National Transport Commission will now be reconstituted on the following basis: A chairman who will be ex officio holding the position of Secretary for Transport; the Commissioner for Road Transportation and the Commissioner for National Roads; which positions will presumably be filled by the Public Service Commission and these persons similarly would hold office as long as they retain their appointments in the Public Service; then the Commissioner for Civil Aviation is to be appointed after consultation with the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee. Having provided for those ex officio persons, who are appointed as public servants, provision is made for additional members of the commission. I suggested before we adjourned that consideration should be given in my view to the appointment of a commissioner concerned with the defence aspects of road construction, road maintenance and road planning.

I did that because I felt that this commissioner would be of tremendous value as a member of the Transport Commission, not only in dealing with the strategic aspect of the roads in the event of hostilities, but also with the important aspect of the utilization of roads in matters of civil defence. When I say “civil defence" I mean disasters and not necessarily hostilities or warfare, for example disasters resulting from floods, earthquakes and other events, matters which do concern the availability of adequate roadways. We know that these are aspects to which some consideration could be given if one of the commissioners was appointed in consultation with the Department of Defence.

One notices that the powers and responsibilities of the commission, which are extensive, are contained in clause 5 of the National Roads Bill, 1971. The commission will now have power to plan, design and construct national roads, and to that end can expropriate land, either for the road itself or for gravel or other material needed for the construction of the road. Provision is also made for contracts for building or contracts to be delegated to provincial authorities. There will be a vast area of employment for private engineers and consultants in road construction.

In addition this commission is now to have the power to establish its own road construction unit and to handle the expenditure of many millions of the taxpayers’ money. In establishing the commission in terms of clause 2, the question arises as to whom and where the answerability of this commission would be. Will the commission be answerable to Parliament? Will it be answerable to the Minister? I believe that, in creating this body with these powers, which are vast powers, both the original and the amending Bill are silent in respect of whether it is to be regarded as an autonomous body or whether its actions and its carrying out of these extended functions, in terms of the National Roads Bill, will be subject to scrutiny otherwise than merely through the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Or will it be a matter which will come before Parliament so that we can deal with the activities of this commission? I raise this matter because the attitude of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister has been to the effect that this is an autonomous body. With these additional powers it does seem that we are delegating a great responsibility, which ought to be under the supervision of Parliament, to a body of this sort.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister something which I feel could well be taken into consideration in dealing with these powers and the constitution of the National Transport Commission, namely, the question whether those powers should not be reviewed, whether they are not too onerous in conjunction with the duties which they are to perform in terms of the National Roads Bill.

In conclusion I want to suggest one aspect to the hon. the Minister of Transport, a matter which I believe is of paramount importance. I want to ask whether the function of the commission in supervising the activities or acting as a court of appeal for the local transportation boards is not a task of which it should be relieved. I believe it could be relieved effectively by the establishment of some ad hoc court of appeal to deal with reviews of decisions of the local road transportation boards. It is a matter which is rather out of the context of the powers which are to be given to the commission. The constitution of the commission when it is acting as a court of appeal is rather out of context. I do believe that it would be to the advantage of the administration of the Road Transportation Act if the power to sit as a court of appeal were removed from the commission and vested in a ad hoc committee.

Some of those appeals take an inordinate amount of time to be gone into. I believe that it would give greater satisfaction to businessmen and industrialists, who seek permits and certificates under the Road Transportation Act, if there were a separate body to deal with that aspect instead of it being a function of the commission. It is a matter which I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this legislation, the hon. the Deputy Minister said—

There, in fact, is the rub. The creation of a more powerful National Transport Commission, as the hon. member for Green Point has said, will make a sort of fifth province of the Commission as far as the building of roads is concerned. The difficulty here is that the two Bills are irrevocably tied together—I agree with the hon. the Minister there—because they are both tied to the original Act on the Coordination of Transport, Act No. 44 of 1948. I feel very strongly that, although we disagree with the principle of both these Bills, the hon. the Minister would have done this House a great favour, had he combined the original Act and these two Bills into one amending legislation. This would have spared us a great deal of repetition of arguments, which are pertinent to both of these Bills. In this respect I sympathize with you, Sir, and, in fact, with myself in having to repeat so soon afterwards many of the arguments raised against the previous legislation.

In clause 2 of this Bill we find that the Secretary for Transport becomes the chairman of this commission. The commission will consist of seven other members, four of whom shall be members of the Civil Service. We also find that a member will be nominated by the hon. the Minister of Defence, but that this member will not have voting power on the commission. I feel that this member should, in fact, have voting power for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that the Department of Defence should have a very strong say on this commission not only in connection with roads, but also with regard to other aspects which concern them, particularly with regard to civil aviation. Secondly, if a commission consists of eight voting members, as this one will without the ninth member having the vote, it will be extremely difficult for the chairman as he will continually have to exercise his casting vote in the case of equality of votes. This situation could very easily arise, because the chairman and three other members are members of the Public Service, while the others are not. A complete division of opinion might arise between the three commissioners and the chairman and the other four. This would place a great deal of unnecessary responsibility on the shoulders of the chairman.

Speaking of the chairman, I feel one should consider the need for electing a permanent vice-chairman. One can understand that the chairman may nominate an acting chairman, in his absence, as is suggested here. But no provision is made here for a case of sudden illness or a stroke or some similar event. Who will then nominate a chairman? I believe that the hon. the Minister should make provision in this legislation for the election of a permanent vice-chairman who could take over in the eventuality of a sudden illness of the chairman of the commission.

With regard to the commission and the commissioners referred to in clause 2 (c), may I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister—and this is my personal feeling—that I do not like the word “commissioner” very much. It sounds very commissaries. Could we not rather use the term “director”? I think it would sound very much better.

The hon. the Minister used it in his speech.

Did he use the word “director”?

He referred to director …

Order! The hon. member should not put the hon. member off.

When one speaks of the “Commissioner for National Roads" one refers to one person. He will deal with all the provinces within the Republic. As I mentioned in another debate, co-ordination between the provinces and within the provinces, is of very great importance. We find in this amending Bill that clause 8 repeals section 11 of the principal Act, which provided for the appointment of the advisory committee. I think one should remember how this advisory committee was appointed. Section 11 (2) of the Act which is now being repealed reads as follows—

1. (2) In appointing the members of the committe, the Governor-General shall include at least one representative nominated by each Administrator.

Section 11(4) goes into what they shall do and so forth. I feel that it is tragic that this advisory committee which has worked so well in co-ordinating is now being abolished. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister, in his reply to this debate, would inform us of what is going to take the place of the advisory committee. There is certainly nothing statutory provided for in the Act to take its place. The hon. the Deputy Minister said in his introductory speech that there would be “samewerking” with the Administrators. He stated that he would consult them under both Acts. I feel that there should be a statutory body nominated from the provinces that should work under the Commissioner or Director for National Roads. This would obviate a great deal of difficulty in finalizing decisions. I believe that a technical committee which is non-statutory can assist and advise the advisory committee. These things should definitely be retained in the interests of good relations between the provinces and particularly within the provinces themselves. One finds that even in the provinces there are various factors which can arise when one is building roads or doing expropriations. It is always good to have somebody available from that province who knows what is going on in that province.

Take the vastness of the Cape Province. There is Bantu territory on one side and desert on the other side. We have mountains and plains. Every type of situation one can find in the Republic of South Africa is to be found in this province. One commissioner is going to find it exceptionally difficult in deciding about expropriations, lining of roads, bridging of estuaries, etc. I believe that the hon. the Minister should make provision to include the advisory committee, and even make the technical committee that advises the advisory committee, a statutory committee, in the interests of the smooth functioning of this umbrella organization.

I sincerely believe that in order to get even smoother action, if it is so desired, these various Acts should be gone through and consolidated into one. I do not say so because I agree with the powers that are being taken, I say so purely from the point of view of achieving better legislation. We now have three Acts and this is not good, particularly when you have one, the one we discussed yesterday, overlapping into the one that is now being amended.

Mr. Speaker, this particular Bill is like a curates’ egg, it is good in parts. The Long Title of this Bill reads as follows—

We regret to see the repeal of the provisions of the Act relating to this Advisory Committee. If one looks at the latest report of the Department of Transport, one realizes how vast the field is that is covered by this body. This body does not only deal with matters concerning roads, but also transport, civil aviation, motor vehicle insurance, motor transport inspections, the weather bureau and the marine division. This co-ordinating body, the position of which has now been altered by the Bill in front of us, covers a great deal of legislation in regard to transport. One has a feeling that the intention with this Bill is to create another transportaion board under the Department of Transport in order to co-ordinate the various aspects of this straggling department which looks after the building of aerodromes, airports, local transport, inspection of transport and the granting of transport licences, etc. Its power is very wide and go much further than roads. We feel that with a co-ordinating organization such as we have here, we must have principles to guide its destiny. In this Bill we have provision for the establishment of a transport commission. The Secretary for Transport shall be the chairman of this commission. Furthermore the State President will designate from among the members of this commission a Commissioner of Road Transportation, a Commissioner for Civil Aviation and a Commissioner for National Roads. Therefore, amongst the members of this commission there will be road transportation experts, civil aviation experts and national roads experts. Now one wonders why the hon. the Minister has decided not to include the provincial administrations and the local authorities. Why can these bodies not have representation on this commission as far as roads are concerned?

Order! That point has been made before.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. the Minister has not replied to it in this debate. I think it is essential that the local authorities and the provincial administrations be represented on this co-ordinating body. An Act dealing with the co-ordination of transport has of course been in existence since 1948. That Act has now been rehashed, if I may put it that way. Parts of it have been omitted and other provisions have been added in order to ensure that this body will function satisfactorily. I do not think this body has functioned satisfactorily up to now. If one reads this report of the Department of Transport, one finds no reference being made to this co-ordinating committee. We hope that the Secretary for Transport, who will be chairman of the transport coordinating body, will embody the basic functions of the advisory committee in the National Transport Commission although it is not provided for in this Bill. The annual report of the secretary for transport contains bits and pieces in connection with this co-ordinating body, this loosely knit organization. Maybe it is the idea of the hon. the Minister to incorporate the functions of the advisory committee in the functions of this new co-ordinating body. But if we want a co-ordinating body such as the National Transport Commission, to function properly, we must have experts. Provision is made in this Bill for specialists in certain fields to serve on this commission. There is for instance a specialist in the field of civil aviation. We do not expect the chairman of this commission to have any knowledge of civil aviation. We do not expect him to have knowledge of road transportation or national roads. In the provincial administrations we have experts in these fields. We should like to see these people serve on this commission as well.

This Bill also provides that the National Transport Commission will become a body corporate. It will be able to enter into contracts.

Yes, but that point has been made over and over again.

I did not hear it, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, that is one of the provisions which will make this body function properly. As I say, we should like to see this body function. We should like to see this body become a proper co-ordinating body. We want to ensure that the commissioners which will be appointed will be able to control the various aspects of transport. We have been brought under the impression that this Bill only deals with roads. However, that is not so. If one reads this report, one realizes that it deals with other aspects of transport as well.

That point was made while you were here.

Well, the hon. the Minister made it.

Mr. Speaker, last night the hon. member for Durban North started his speech by saying that the purpose of this Bill is the emasculation of the provinces. Then you, quite rightly, Sir, referred him to the preamble of this Bill. He could not discuss this Bill because he did not want to discuss the preamble of the Bill. The preamble of the Bill reads—

The hon. member then, very unsuccessfully, tried to discuss the previous Bill again, Mr. Speaker, you stopped him; that is why I cannot actually reply to his arguments, because you will again stop me.

*At that stage the hon. member for Florida entered the debate. I want to tell this House that I have never in my life, in the years I have been here, listened to bigger rubbish than we had from the hon. member for Florida. Hon. members know that a constituency gets what it deserves, but I do not think Florida has deserved this.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister should rather come back to the Bill.

Because this is the case, and because the hon. member for Florida did not deal with this legislation at all, I unfortunately cannot reply to him either.

I now come to the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member for Green Point put forward a few matters which I want to rectify in the first place. He made the statement that the person appointed after consultation with the Society for Civil Aviation would be one of these gentlemen. However, he is mistaken. That is not the position. The legislation provides that the Secretary for the department acts as chairman. He is chairman ex officio. Then the legislation makes provision for a Commissioner for Civil Aviation as well. He is not ex officio, but is designated. Similarly, the Commissioner for National Roads and the other commissioner, in other words these three, will be appointed. They are not ex officio. Then the legislation makes provision for the appointment of outsiders.

For how long are the public servants appointed?

The outsiders are appointed, and you will see I have an amendment in that regard. The public servants are appointed under the Public Service Commission for as long as they occupy these posts I have mentioned. The hon. member went on to say that appeals dealt with by the National Transport Commission, should not be dealt with by them; they should be dealt with by an ad hoc committee. I am not prepared to consider that.

The Minister said he would do it.

No, he will not do so. The National Transport Commission will act as the body which hears appeals, because they see the interests in their totality, in their entirety. If one appeals, one still has the opportunity with applications in respect of transport to the local national road boards and to the National Transport Commission. The hon. member asked why the representation of the four provinces was being removed. Several members asked this, including the hon. member for Salt River. The representatives of the various provinces were present in this regard at the time when the provinces still constructed national roads. Now we are providing—and the Act makes very clear provision as does the National Roads Act we have just dealt with,—that negotiations and consultations will be conducted with the Administrators at all times. Now, in having consultations, surely it is impossible to have such consultations with oneself. For that reason they will not serve on the Commission as such.

The hon. member for Albany asked why the two Acts were not co-ordinated. But the one is an Act for making provision for national roads, which will be constructed by the National Road Fund. The provinces no longer do this. This Act seeks to incorporate the National Transport Commission, apart from the other functions the National Transport Commission already has and which the hon. member for Salt River mentioned as well. Therefore one cannot co-ordinate the two Acts as one Act. They are two separate Acts, The National Roads Act deals with only one of the tasks over which the Department of Transport and the National Transport Commission will have jurisdiction.

The hon. member requested, as other hon. members did that the representative nominated by the Department of Defence, should be granted the right to vote. We are not prepared to do this. The representatives of that department remains there in an advisory capacity, as in the past. But surely he is not concerned with appeals in respect of transport acts and licences. For that reason it is not necessary to make him a full member and to give him the right to vote.

In addition the hon. member requested that we should make provision in the Act for a permanent vice-chairman. One cannot do this, because if one did, one would again be in trouble. If that vice-chairman were absent, one would again have checkmate. In other words, we are providing that the chairman of the National Transport Commission may nominate an acting chairman. It is no longer necessary for the Minister to do this, and the chairman may nominate anyone of the members represented, which could not be done if a permanent vice-chairman had been appointed in terms of the Act.

The last point the hon. member put was that he did not like the word “commissioner". He preferred the word “director”. This is simply a matter of a choice of words. But we have too many other types of directors and for that reason I prefer to stick to the word "commissioner”.

Sir, I want to conclude. The hon. member tried to make the statement that because of the size of a province, one should have provincial representatives there. But with what justification is he able to say that a representative from the Cape Province or from the Transvaal would have all the necessary knowledge? He mentioned the Bantu areas, as well as the desert and the Western Province; in the same way as one cannot expect one man to have all that information if he comes from one of these provinces, so one cannot expect the man in Pretoria to have it.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Message be now considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are aware, control over the exploitation and protection of all marine resources within the territorial waters and fishing zones of the Republic is exercised in terms of the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Act, Act No. 10 of 1940, and the Fish Protection Act, 1893 (Act No. 15 of 1893 of the Cape of Good Hope), and the administration of these acts has been entrusted to my Department of Industries. The removal of seaweed has since August, 1970 been controlled under delegated powers of the Minister of Agriculture, by the Department of Industries in terms of the Sea-shore Act of 1935, but the removal of shells and the recovery of salt from sea-water is still being controlled by the Department of Agricultural Credit and I and Tenure in terms of the provisions of the Sea-shore Act. However, this arrangement is not satisfactory and after discussions between the abovementioned two Departments it was concluded that the Department of Industries is better equipped to exercise, in terms of proper statutory authorization, the necessary control in this connection since—

1. (a) it already controls the exploitation and protection of all living marine resources;
2. (b) the exploitation of these resources also has industrial implications so that the controlling function may in that way he better co-ordinated through the research and industrial promotion function of the Department; and
3. (c) it has the necessary inspection staff at its disposal to prevent offences in this connection on a permanent basis.

The necessary powers to make it possible to take over and exercise these functions are being provided in this Bill. The provisions in this Bill are virtually the same as those which exist at present in the Seashore Act of 1935, as amended. The deletion of these provisions in the Sea-shore Act is not being envisaged since the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure shall continue to exercise control over the removal of other materials, such as stone, sand, etc. Hon. members will note, however, that the preamble to the new section 14 in the Sea Fisheries Act, 1940, in terms of clause 3 of the Bill now being dealt with, eliminates duplicated powers of control in regard to seaweed, shells and salt from sea-water.

Clause 1 of the Bill simply makes provision for necessary definitions in the Sea Fisheries Act. Clause 2 inserts a new section 7 (1) (m) in the principal Act, and places a prohibition on the doing of any act for which a permit, concession or licence in terms of the Act is necessary. Clause 3 inserts a new section 14 in the principal Act and bestows on the Minister of Economic Affairs the necessary controlling powers over the exploitation of seaweed, shells and salt from the sea; it empowers him to issue permits for the taking of sea-weed, shells and salt from the sea and stipulates the procedure which has to be followed in allocating a permit or concession in this connection. In addition it makes provision for the delegation of powers by the Minister to a local authority and for the recognition of existing concessions as far as the exploitation of seaweed, shells and salt from the sea is concerned. In conclusion it prohibits any person from gathering and removing quantities of sea-weed and shells in excess of 10 kg. per day without a permit.

These are briefly the provisions contained in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has said that the provisions of this Bill are taken over from the Seashore Act and these provisions are at present being administered by the hon. the Ministers’ department under delegated authority. We have no objection to the Bill. There are just one or two small queries.

We want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the position of the city councils will be protected as they are at the moment in terms of the delegated authority which he mentioned. The city councils today are able to derive a small revenue from giving out to tender the right to remove certain materials from the seashore. They can also stipulate the manner and time of delivery and keep control of it.

The second issue concerns the definition of “tidal river” and "tidal lagoon”. According to the Bill—

A “tidal lagoon” is exactly the same. We understood that some tidal lagoons and some tidal rivers for many months of the year, on account of silting up, the water level, which is the important factor here, are not affected by high tides. The question that arises is, when is a tidal lagoon not a tidal lagoon, and when is a tidal river not a tidal river? Because, according to subsection (c) of section (1) ‘sea means the water and the bedding of the sea, including the water and the bedding of tidal rivers, tidal lagoons, creeks and bays along the coast of the Republic, and the definition of ‘tidal river' deals with the effect of the high tides. There are also situations where man can open the area of the lagoon which gives access to the sea. When is that lagoon a tidal lagoon and when is it not? We would like some information from the hon. the Deputy Minister on that score.

The Bill provides for permits to remove salt, seaweed or shells. We would like to ask the Deputy Minister what the position is when a permit to this effect already exists, for example, in so far as Langebaan is concerned. Will this permit to remove salt from the lagoon continue on the same basis as at present in terms of the act?

The other matter is in connection with clause 3 where there is mention of advertising. The advertisement is required to be inserted in only one newspaper. We would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister how he proposes to advertise in both languages when only one advertisement is required in one newspaper. Apart from these small queries we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the matter raised by the hon. member for Parktown is concerned. I think l can give him the assurance that as far as the local authorities, the city councils, are concerned, there will be no interference in any unreasonable manner with the Tights and privileges they at present enjoy. As regards the steps which are being taken to place these industries, where these things are being exploited, on a proper basis, I am unfortunately unable at this stage to give the assurance that this will be left absolutely unchanged. Certain adjustments will possibly have to be made and this matter will at all times be approached in a reasonable way.

As regards the question in respect of the rivers and the tidal lagoons, I shall go into this matter further and possibly make it clearer during the Committee Stage.

We can deal with the other matters during the Committee Stage. Right now we want to adjourn.

Order!