Mr. Speaker, I wish, at the outset of my reply, to congratulate the hon. member for Parktown most sincerely on the admirable way in which he opened his speech at the start of this debate last Monday. You will recall, Sir, that for quite a number of years I have been urging, challenging, exhorting and pleading with the hon. gentleman to say something positive about gold, and this at a time when gold plays such an important part in the economy of our country and in the monetary affairs of the world. We, as the South African Government, have for many years been battling to ensure that gold retains its rightful place in the monetary system. It was only fitting, one would expect, that the leader in financial matters on the other side of the House should say something more positive about this metal than he has said in the past. Mr. Speaker, I had almost feared that my pleadings had been in vain. At last the hon. member responded last week, and he responded in a most magnificent manner, telling us of the wonderful qualities of gold. The thought came to me of the young man in Tennyson’s poem, “carrying a banner with a strange design”. The words used by one of the old Dutch poets also came to mind:

I regret, however, that here my congratulations end. I regret that I cannot go further in extolling the merits of the speech of the hon. member or the speeches of most hon. members on the other side of the House. As a matter of fact, I feel genuinely sorry because those hon. members have lost a golden opportunity. At a time when they had an opportunity to do something really positive in regard to the requirements of our economy, their speeches were lacking the fervour we expected from them. I was sorry that after these opening few sentences had been uttered, there was nothing more to be found that could give inspiration and confidence to our people.

Then, Sir, they lost a golden opportunity because never before have they been presented in this House in such a way with a subject on which I think we all, as members of this Parliament, are supposed to be in full agreement, a subject of such great importance to our country and our people, namely the subject of the growth of our economy. After the golden words fell from the lips of the hon. member for Parktown, I expected the Opposition to rise to the occasion. I expected them to come forward with some new, bold and positive ideas. I expected them to come forward with some inspiring ideas as to how they could co-operate with the Government in order to achieve the desired growth. What we saw, on the contrary, Mr. Speaker, was not an inspiring Opposition, but a despondent, hesitant and heel-dragging Opposition, an Opposition completely paralysed with negativism, frustration and with fear. I shall later on demonstrate how the spectre of fear and of danger was lurking around every corner in the eyes of the Opposition, how the spectre of fear has inhibited them in their thinking, and how it has prevented them from seizing the opportunity of the moment and making a golden contribution to this debate. In the end things developed so badly that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition found himself constrained to intervene in order, in the first place, to explain to the House what his followers had really meant to say in the course of the debate, in the second place to gather the shattered remnants of the Opposition’s attack, and thirdly to salvage what still was to be salvaged after, as far as the Opposition was concerned, this ruinous and, I would say, fateful debate.

I shall come back at a later stage to the charges which were made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who has told me that, regretfully, he cannot be here today. With all respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I can only say that his entry into this debate did nothing to improve the image of the Opposition. He only repeated what had already been said time and again over all these years. He repeated the generalizations which have always thus far failed to impress those people in the electorate who have to vote them into power. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition contradicted himself in many ways and, for the rest, like his followers, he gave us a number of generalizations which have never been tested by the hard facts of political reality and, if tested, would never have a chance of survival. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on this matter. In politics there is a vast difference between theory and practice. It is very easy, for instance, for an academician, for a theorist, to sit behind his desk and, in the safety of his study, to give advice to a country and to the world at large on all the difficult problems of the world. It is easy for him because he knows that he will never be called upon to put his theories into practice. He can have them in his mind, but he will never be asked to bear the responsibility. By the same token, Sir, it is very easy for an Opposition and for the Leader of the Opposition to express idealistic generalities of all sorts and to offer the most perfect solutions to the most difficult questions of the day. It is easy to do so when for a quarter of a century hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have never had the sobering experience of actually governing a nation and of finding that things are not as perfect as pictured in the flights of their imagination and in their futile expectations. Sir, coming back to the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition and his followers, of whom not a single one has had practical experience in actually governing the country, I wish to say that I attach much more importance to the opinions of practical men in the business field. By that I mean practical businessmen in business itself or even financial writers who are in close contact with these business leaders. I know that there is a difference of opinion amongst them, but reading the remarks on this Budget I find that most practical business people have welcomed this Budget as a very good one. Let me give just a few brief examples. I quote from a leading article in The Star—

We have told you that for years.

Then I quote Mr. Dickman, economic consultant to Anglo American; the heading reads—

Then again from The Star (Mr. Passmore, executive vice-chairman, Standard Bank)—

Then again The Star (Mr. Chester)—

Then another quotation from The Star—

Then again in The Argus—

That is followed by quite a number of remarks about the favourable trend in this Budget. Then I quote the Sunday Times—

[Interjections.] Sir, I am not referring to newspapers which support my own party. I have quoted a few newspapers which do not support the principles of my party.

It sounds like your Umhlatuzana manifesto.

Sir, I can understand the hon. member for South Coast feeling a little uncomfortable.

Why?

Before I proceed to consider the details of the criticism levelled at the Budget there are three matters which I want to examine closely, quite apart from this Budget. In the first place there is the matter of the defence of our country. Various speakers on the opposite side of the House voiced opinions on the question of defence and referred to the fact that our expenditure on defence is exceptionally high and has risen considerably this year. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in particular, made statements here which certainly were not only highly dangerous, but which could perhaps be regarded as very irresponsible as well, statements which could certainly add fuel to the fire of our enemies. In his speech the hon. member for Bezuidenhout created the impression that our expenditure in South Africa is attributable to internal unrest caused by this Government; that the large amount which is needed for defence, would not have been needed if we had been able to eliminate in some other way the unrest and dissatisfaction among our citizens. Sir, let me say the following: Our expenditure on defence is considerable, but our expenditure on defence is still proportionately less than that of most countries, not only in actual amounts, but in proportion to our national income, in proportion to the total Budget and in proportion to the per capita income of our citizens. I want to mention a few figures here for the year 1970. Unfortunately I was unable to obtain more recent comparable figures, but these figures show what the trend is. As a percentage of State expenditure, the expenditure on defence in Israel, in 1970, was 49%, in Portugal 34%, in Britain 16%, in Australia 19%, in the Netherlands 11%, in Canada 15%, and in South Africa 9,7%. In proportion to the gross national product: Israel 26.5%, Portugal 6,5%, Britain 4,9%, France 4%, Australia 3,6%, the Netherlands 3,5%, Canada 2,5%, South Africa 2,6%— among the lowest in the world. Per capita of the population: Israel R483, Portugal R41, Britain R107, France R118, Australia R100, the Netherlands R85, Canada R90, and South Africa R16-70. In the year 1970 South Africa’s expenditure on defence was low in comparison with that of comparable countries in the rest of the world. This year the expenditure is a little higher—approximately R21 per capita of the population. Hon. members on that side, particularly the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, tried to create the impression that we are maintaining a Defence Force as a result of internal political situations; that if we want to restrain the unrest in our country, no army will be necessary, or only a small one. But, Sir, that is not true. Why does the United States then have an enormous defence force? Why do the Netherlands and Germany and Italy and France have large defence forces? Why do the Swiss, who are a neutral people, have one of the largest defence forces in comparison with the rest of Europe? The answer is that they want to protect their people against attacks from outside forces. We have always said in South Africa that we do not want to attack anyone with our Defence Force; that we do not desire the territory of any other nation; but we need our Defence Force for defence against any possible attack from outside sources. Are hon. members on that side not aware that we are constantly being threatened? Are they not aware that there are countries, particularly in Africa, which declare openly that they are preparing for militant or military action against South Africa? They are not doing this because we pursue a political policy here which they do not like, but because they have it in for the White man in South Africa, and because they wish to possess the riches of South Africa. I want to make it absolutely clear here that the defence of our country has to be carried out by the Defence Force, that this is a defence not of the Whites against the non-Whites, but of the Whites as well as the non-Whites in South Africa. I recently read about talks held by a journalist with various population groups in South Africa. He asked the Bantu what would happen if a foreign power should attack South Africa. The reply was that if a foreign White power should attack South Africa, 80% of the Bantu would stand by the South African Government. When he asked them what would happen if a non-White power should attack South Africa, the reply was that 90% would then stand by the South African Government. One of the great European statesmen of today recently told me that he had been in South Africa and had spoken to the Coloured population of South Africa. He said that they had levelled criticism here and there at the actions of the Government. He then asked what they would do if a foreign power should attack South Africa. To that they all replied that they would be on the side of the Government. I am mentioning these things to refute the notion that we are building up a defence force here simply because there is alleged unrest in our country, in order to allay that unrest. We have the same right to build up a defence force as any country in the world has, a defence force to defend us against possible threats from outside sources.

Now, Sir, I want to come to two questions of principle which were hinted at in the speeches of the hon. members opposite. The first matter I want to deal with is the relation of the State to the economy of the country. I have always been under the impression that we and the Opposition adopt a common standpoint in so far that both parties believe in the principles of private initiative, and that it is the task of the State to lay the foundations and create the framework within which the economy can move, but that it is the duty of the individual, the citizen, in the first place to display the spirit of enterprise necessary to keep the wheels of the economy turning. The State itself must supply only the bare essentials, such as establishing the infrastructure and providing those things which the individual is not able to or does not want to provide. That has always been our joint philosophy, the market economy and the philosophy of private enterprise, but I have recently noticed a strange element in the speeches of hon. members opposite, a disturbing tendency in the thinking of the United Party, which is that they want to hold the State, and the State alone, responsible for everything which happens or does not happen in the economic life of the people; that they accuse the State of everything which goes wrong; that they blame the State on the one hand and say that it is doing too much and if things go wrong it is the State which has to bear the blame for that. I think the attitude of the Opposition, in which they seldom if ever refer to the duties of the entrepreneur, but always to the duties of the State only, is an insult—and I want to make this clear, it is an insult—to the entrepreneurs and to the businessmen of our country. I have for many years co-operated with the businessmen. I know them to be honest, dedicated and competent people with initiative, and for the Opposition to want to imply now that the businessmen of South Africa, who are the main springs of our economy, are merely sitting idly and asking for alms from the State, is extremely insulting to the businessmen of our country. You know, Mr. Speaker, that in the past the members of the Opposition frequently levelled accusations at our farmers. They said that the farmers were the people who simply came to the State for largesse all the time. I now find the same tendency in the thinking of the Opposition, that the economy of the country should be determined by the State and not by the consumer or by the enterprise, or whatever. They have broken away from the principle of private enterprise and are directly pursuing the principle of what we call State Socialism. What has become of the principle of private initiative? The hon. members opposite are beginning to groan, but was it not they who last week referred to everything the State should do, that the State should do this, and that it should do that? They were constantly accusing the State of not having done enough to keep the wheels of the economy turning. Nothing, not a single word, was said last week about what the private entrepreneur should do. It would be an evil day if this spirit of the Opposition should become the spirit of South Africa, for then we would be taking the direction of State Socialism which is one of the most dangerous things, particularly for a country like South Africa.

One of the most shocking things I heard in last week’s debate, was when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District participated in the debate and stated, inter alia, that the Government should use its big surplus—please note—to help industry to pay higher wages. It is shocking that a leading speaker on the opposite side of the House, in a country which believes in private initiative, should want to go so far as to propose that the State should use its surplus to help industry to pay its workers higher wages.

I do not think our businessmen feel this way. In addition I believe that they will utilize the opportunities which they have now been afforded, and they will not allow this to be done by foreigners. The foreigners have confidence in the economy of South Africa. If our businessmen do not heed the clarion call to growth, the possibility exists that foreigners may take their place. We on this side of the House have always welcomed foreign capital and foreign enterprise as a supplementation to our own entrepreneurs. However, it would be a sad day if the foreigners had to take over our economy because the economic philosophy of the Opposition discouraged our entrepreneurs from fulfilling the task they should have fulfilled.

I come to a second point which I find disturbing. This applies to the Opposition’s attitude to our social policy concerning our assistance to the poor, the needy and the underprivileged. I want to test the entire matter with the question whether they, in the same way as they wish to push South Africa in the direction of State Socialism, are not also pushing South Africa gradually in the direction of a welfare state? In what way are we to understand the sudden concern hon. members opposite display for the poor, the sick and the needy in our country?

Not suddenly; we have been displaying it for a long time.

It is a very long time since the United Party last governed, but is there any person today who can remember their having ever been so concerned, in their time, for the poor, the weak and the elderly? Was that not the time when the old-age pension reached a peak of only R10 per month, the buying power of which was at the time far less than that of R45 today? Was that not the time when some of our people established organizations, bodies and movements to help lift our people out of their poverty? At the time those organizations were not only treated harshly by that Government, but people who were members of such organizations were threatened with concentration camps. The attitude of the Opposition in this connection can only be explained in two ways. Firstly, it could be superficial emotionalism or a superficial demonstration with the aim of winning popularity for itself among certain sectors of the people. Secondly, it could mean that the Opposition is moving in the direction of a welfare state, with all the fine things which that implies, but also with all the terrible dangers which lurk within such a system. When the hon. member for Rosettenville, who is an esteemed and well-intentioned member, one for whom I have a great deal of respect makes certain suggestions in this House, it sets me thinking. During this debate hon. members on that side of the House made frequent reference to the increase in Government expenditure, but on the other hand an eminent hon. member on that side of the House made suggestions such as those, in which he was partially supported by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member said that all old age pensions, for example, should be increased to R80 per month.

Hear, hear!

He requested that there should be free hospitalization …

Hear, hear!

… and that there should be free medical aid. I wonder whether the hon. member, with all his good intentions, has asked himself what this is going to cost the State. I tried to make a little calculation and I can inform the hon. members that these three things which he requested are going to cost the State an additional amount of almost R1 000 million per annum. If I add to that what was requested by the hon. member for Umbilo, it would amount to more than R1 000 million per annum.

What I ask for would cost R11 million.

It sounds very idealistic, but how far should the State, as State, pursue a course of charity? Is it the duty of the State to bear the full responsibility in this regard? Has the individual the right to expect everything in this regard from the State? Must we assume that in these times in which we are living we have reached the era where love of one’s fellow-man should make way for State assistance? Does no duty rest any more on the community on the individual, on the family or on the welfare organizations? Should the State do everything? We are moving in a dangerous direction, as dangerous as that of State Socialism, in which the hon. members want us to move.

†Mr. Speaker, allow me to refer to some of the aspects of the main themes of the Budget. At the beginning I said that this Budget has as its object the promotion of growth. It is obvious, therefore, that most of the discussion last week must have centred around this point, namely the promotion of growth. It is in this connection that the Opposition has missed a wonderful opportunity. The hon. members have failed to rise to the occasion, and have utterly discredited the golden views at the beginning of the hon. member for Parktown’s speech. In this debate where they could have made a positive contribution, they were as negative as never before. Where everybody was looking forward to ways and means to stimulate the production of our country, they were as unproductive as never before. When they should have shown faith, confidence and courage regarding the future, I am sorry to say they behaved like frightened men, and that I will prove. Indeed, throughout their speeches one finds the expressions of danger and fear pervading all their ideas.

I first want to come to the hon. member for Parktown. He referred to what he called “the inadequate rate of growth”. I admit that 4% of the GNP is not the ideal rate of growth for a country such as South Africa, but there are reasons for this slow rate of growth. Most of these reasons are of an international nature over which we have no control at all. I have explained that often enough in this House. This growth rate compares very favourably with that of many comparable countries, but I have no time to show that by means of figures.

They are not comparable in respect of their population growth.

I can quote only one example now. We always talk of West Germany as one of the greatest industrial countries of the world. We talk of it as the outstanding industrial country of Western Europe. I want to ask my hon. friend, the hon. member for South Coast, whether he knows what the growth rate in Germany was last year, Germany which is considered to be so strong that billions of dollars are streaming into the country in an attempt to push up the Deutsche Mark in order to make a capital profit. I saw in a very authoritative article last night that the growth rate in Germany last year was 3% compared to South Africa’s 4.% The year before that their growth rate was 2,8%. The hon. gentleman must know that there were periods in our history when our growth rate was one of the highest in the Western world. Ask the hon. member for King William’s Town. Last week he indeed became highly enthusiastic about the wonderful growth rate obtained during the 1960s. Everybody knows that in all economies there are cycles, there are ups and downs, valleys and peaks. They know that it is quite natural that in the last few years we have been going through a valley, but that the signs of new growth are already there and that better days are surely soon to come. However, the hon. members all have “fears”. Referring to the large Budget deficit, the hon. member for Parktown asked whether this was the right way to grow. He said: “Is the Government not taking away too much of our capital resources? Is there anything or enough left for the private sector?” The hon. member nods in the affirmative.

We do not have fear; we have your last leader’s word.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman had all of last week to speak. Why should he speak now whilst sitting safely in his bench?

Because you pointed your finger at me.

I can set his mind at rest. The Government is not draining the private sector of all the funds it needs. On the contrary, leaving aside the small taxes which I mentioned in my Budget speech together with the extra tax reliefs, the Government takes relatively no more from the private sector than it did before. The reverse is true; the Government is actually giving the private sector more this year than it is taking from it. This is the meaning of a deficit Budget—that the Government is giving to the private sector more than it is taking away from it. That which it is giving more to the private sector than it is taking away from it, it finances by means of loans which have been made in the previous year, not in this year. The Government is putting money back into the economy. The hon. member and other members on that side of the House need have no fear on this score. Apart from the fact that the Government is putting money back by utilizing the loans it made last year, the hon. member knows there are other means by which we are increasing the liquidity in the economy, such as the repayment of loan levies earlier than expected, the abolition of bank credit ceilings, the lowering of interest rates, the abolition of loan levies on dividends, etc. And in addition to that we had a favourable balance of payments. All these factors together will ensure that capital should not be an obstacle this year in the development of our country.

As usual the hon. member for Parktown contradicts himself time and again. On the one hand he expresses fear that too great a drain by the public sector must obviously affect the availability of funds in the private sector. On the other hand he complains about the injection of some R600 million into the economy as being a massive goad rather than a mild stimulant. Which of these two views must I now believe? Is too much money being taken out of the economy or is too much money being injected into the economy? Obviously, these two views cannot both be true. Then again, referring to this massive injection of cash into the economy, he critizes the government by saying—

Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say things are getting “curiouser and curiouser”. The hon. member complains about three different things. In the first place he complains that too much money is being siphoned out of the economy and that consequently too little money will be left there for the private sector. Secondly, he complains, on the other hand, that too much money is being injected into the economy with resultant inflation. And then again he says that of the money that is being injected into the economy too much is being taken out of this abundantly injected money to be spent overseas. I must say this is all very difficult to understand. Maybe the key to the contradictory thoughts of the hon. gentleman for Parktown lies in the words which he uses towards the end of his speech. I quote—

Really, Mr. Speaker, he said it. It is true. You can read the Hansard of the hon. gentleman and you will find that he really said: Growth by itself solves no problems. If the hon. member had said that growth by itself does not solve all problems I would have been with him. But he clearly said that growth solves no problems. Why then are we here? Why are we spending many long, dreary hours here speaking about the conditions and the possibility of growth? Why should we go to all the trouble to promote growth if growth by itself solves no problems? I shall come back to the hon. member for Parktown later but I now first want to cross swords with the hon. member for Constantia.

The hon. member for Constantia has a different view of the world; at least so it seems. He says and I quote—

The hon. member for Parktown says growth by itself solves no problems while this hon. member rightly says: Growth by itself is the solution to all our problems. In this respect I completely agree with the hon. gentleman. But, while agreeing with him here, I was surely justified in expecting greater enthusiasm on his part in this regard. I expected many more positive suggestions as to how that growth which we all desire could be achieved. For that reason I listened with great expectations to the speech of the hon. gentleman. Sir, I always listen with great interest to the hon. member for Constantia. Generally I do not agree with him. But I must say that I regard the hon. member for Constantia as one of the most logical and analytical economics speakers we have ever had in this House. That is why I listen to him … It seems to me that he does not believe it himself! That is why I listened to him with great expectations. However, the hon. member did not come up to standard. In his whole analytical speech, as I shall show, there was nothing of any positive— I say “positive”—value. On the contrary, his speech was characterized completely by sentiments of scepticism, negativism, fear and pessimism. I was surprised to find in the hon. gentleman a frightful and fearful man in the economic sense. If you read his speech, you will find that the hon. gentleman is afraid. He is full of fear. He sees dangers lurking around every corner. If the tone of the speech by the hon. member for Constantia were to become the tone and character of gentlemen on the other side of the House, then I understand why they could not and should not ever be allowed to become the Government of this country. In these years we want a Government with spirit and with faith, with confidence in the future. We do not want a party or a Government with gloom and despondency written all over its face. Let me remind the hon. member for Constantia of the saying, “Faint heart never won fair lady”. Where to the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. Leader of the Opposition this Budget is a great gamble for growth, the hon. gentleman for Constantia sees nothing but dangers around every corner.

In the first place, he fears—you will find the word “fear” everywhere in his speech—the danger of a deficit Budget on a grand scale. He likens the situation to a printing press which is used to print money, to create money, which is not taken out of the economy. I think I am quoting the hon. gentleman correctly. We are, so to speak, using the printing press to print so-called money without taking the money out of the economy. But the hon. member’s fears have no foundation at all. The money he refers to is not and will not be printed. It has been taken out of the economy. To alleviate the fears of the hon. member for Parktown, let me tell him it has been taken out of the economy, not this year, but last year. It is because of the great success we have had, particularly with our internal loans, that we have been able to put back money this year into the economy.

Connected with this fear of the hon. gentleman, is the further apprehension, “what might happen later on”. He says that I am taking these amounts out of the economy—and now listen carefully, Sir— “at a time when revenue is buoyant”, “when the economy is expected to grow”, “when he (referring to me) can reasonably expect windfalls”. He said that I was having to do this “at a time when company profits and company taxation are expected to grow”. He says that I am doing this “despite these favourable conditions”. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe, but these are the hon. member’s actual words. He speaks of the soundness of this economy and he expects much more revenue than we have anticipated. Apart from the hon. member for Parktown’s words on gold, I think this was the brightest spot in the speeches of the members on the other side. That was the only time when a real belief in the soundness and prosperity of the economy was expressed. Sir, may I now relieve the hon. gentleman of his fears. If the economy is as good as he believes it is, or as good as he expects it to be, if the receipts by the Treasury will be as high as he thinks they will be in the prosperous time to come— and here I partly agree with him—then naturally we shall not, and I repeat “not”, use the reserves to the extent proposed now. If revenue should rise to more than what has been estimated, and the deficit decreases to that extent, to the same extent the reserves of our country will remain intact for the day when we might need them more.

But if the hon. gentleman’s fears were to materialize and there really were no reserves any more because they had been used, what would the position be then? He maintains that if there are no longer any reserves, I shall either have to “pull in my horns as far as expenditure is concerned or increase taxation”. That is what the hon. member said. I do not think the hon. gentleman need be so pessimistic. After all, the hon. member for Parktown has, in quite a number of statements, inside and outside this House lamented the fact that, as he thought, our cupboard was bare. You will remember, Sir, that last year most of the speeches and statements of my hon. friend were on this particular theme, namely that we had used all our reserves and that our cupboard was completely bare. And yet, in the meantime, our reserves have grown so strong that we could produce a deficit Budget, a Budget with a deficit of over R400 million, and finance this deficit from reserves, and then still have considerable reserves left in our cupboard.

If the worst comes to the worst—which we do not expect—and if there is absolutely nothing in the cupboard, the hon. member knows, or should know, that the State can still borrow money. If the State does not borrow the money from the public it can always borrow the money from the Reserve Bank. The hon. member’s fears are completely unfounded, and I challenge him to show the contrary.

The second fear which the hon. member has is in regard to the labour question. When the economy grows as fast as we hope it will grow, he fears that a time will come when entrepreneurs will find themselves bumping against the barrier of insufficient labour. I shall leave this matter for a moment and come back to it later in another context.

Finally, the hon. member fears the effect of inflation upon productivity. He fears that inflation or escalating costs will in the end wipe out all the concessions made by the Government. I am at one with the hon. member that we must do all that we can to combat inflation, but I do not believe with the hon. gentleman that the fact that there is inflation should deter us from promoting the development of our economy. You know, Sir, sometimes the fear of inflation is a greater danger than inflation itself. There is inflation in all Western countries and in Japan as well, and yet they progress in spite of inflation because their people have the will and the courage and the determination to grow out of inflation. Allow me in this connection to make the point once again that South Africa is not the only country suffering from inflation. In fact, as I have often pointed out, the rate of inflation in South Africa is lower than in many other countries. I saw this week in a well-known American paper that in spite of the American wage and price policy, the consumer price index in the United States in February this year rose by 0,8% the largest jump in one month in 22 years. At the same time I read in that paper that the wholesale price index in America in January/February increased by 13,4,% at an annual rate. Sir, there are those who say: “But this is South Africa; why do we compare South Africa with other countries of the world? We are unique; we are separate.” Sir, this is a completely unrealistic view. South Africa’s economy is inextricably bound up with the economy of the rest of the world because of our exports and our imports and because of capital flows. We have every right to compare what happens in South Africa with what happens in the rest of the world. But I want to mention one thing here which I do not think has ever been mentioned, and that is that apart from the rates of increase in the various countries, we can also compare the actual cost of living in South Africa with the cost of living in other countries. I do not know whether any hon. members opposite have recently been over to Europe or to America and whether they noticed the high cost of living in those countries compared with the cost of living in South Africa. When we compare living costs, we usually compare the rates of increase. I think it is wrong to compare only the rates of increase; one should also look always at the bases to which these rates apply. When, for instance, a meal in South Africa costs R3 and the very same meal in America costs R6, then a rate of increase of, say, 5% in the U.S.A. is equivalent to a rate of increase of 10% in South Africa. The same rate of increase in South Africa can mean, in actual sums of money, much less than the same rate in America, for instance. Hon. members of the Opposition seem to think that pump priming of the economy to the extent of R400 million in one year, is highly inflationary. This need not be the case. I want to say a few words about this inflation.

We do not find ourselves today in the same situation in which we found ourselves a few years ago. A few years ago it would have been impossible and completely unwise to have a deficit Budget of this nature because then we suffered from a demand inflation and all we had to do was to try to bring down that demand. Today we are no longer suffering from a demand inflation. Actually demand has dropped. What we experience now is a cost-push inflation, and the cure to cost-push inflation is greater production. Increased demand should now lead to increased production. This will lead to the lowering of unit costs and therefore to bringing down the rate of inflation. We can now stimulate the economy in the way we have been doing because it is possible, because of unused capacity which we did not have in the past. We must use this free capacity existing in our industry to grow out of inflation. The more goods we manufacture, the lower the prices should be. The question was posed by hon. members opposite as to why we did not follow this policy in the past; why did we follow the policy of monetary and fiscal braking and retarding of the economy and not of stimulating the economy? The answer is very simple. Because we had demand inflation in the past we could not stimulate the economy. Because we had no surplus capacity in the past and particularly—and that is a thing which hon. members opposite refuse to understand—because our balance of payments in the past was very unfavourable and our reserves of gold and foreign reserves were low. It is only now, from the beginning of this or the end of last year, that we have seen quite clearly that our balance of payments position has become favourable and that our reserves have risen to a high level, that we can apply this policy of deficit financing to promote the economy of our country. The fear was also expressed, I think by the hon. member for Constantia, as to what would happen now if all the available capacity is being utilized. We think there is about 15% to 20% capacity now which is not being used in industry. What will happen the day when that capacity is being fully utilized? My answer is, what do other countries do? Other countries also sometimes face the position that all the capacity in the manufacturing industry is being utilized. The answer is that they create new capacity, and this is the whole message also of this Budget. The message of this Budget is that we should use the existing capacity and in the meantime we should build up new capacity, which we can now do because we have a favourable balance of payments and higher reserves. It would be a sad day if we were to reach the stage where we are afraid to use the opportunity on our doorstep because we cannot see what might happen in the future when capacity is being fully utilized.

*I think the Government has gone as far as it really can go in stimulating the economy. To say that it did not go far enough in stimulating the economy, is either wilfulness or party politics. As I quoted, our businessmen understand this and realize that the onus now rests squarely on their shoulders. They must not, like the Opposition, react in a negative and fearful way.

I come now to the question of labour. I want, in a few words, to state my standpoint here in regard to labour and labour training. My hon. colleagues sitting here, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education, and the hon. the Minister of Labour, will discuss these matters in greater detail under their Votes. In the first place I want to say that it is absolutely wrong to believe that labour alone is the key to all progress. There are numerous countries where labour is in abundant supply, and where there is no progress. I am thinking of the underdeveloped countries in Africa, Asia and South America. I am thinking even of countries like the United States of America, England and Italy where there was and still is an abundant supply of labour, but where there has not always been progress, yet great inflation. Labour alone is not the solution.

My hon. friends on the opposite side of the House are always trying to imply that it is the Government’s fault that there is insufficient labour and that because there is insufficient labour, there is insufficient development. Even if there were a sufficient supply of labour, that in itself is not reason enough to believe that it would bring sufficient progress, for in the first place it depends on the quality of the labour. It depends on the utilization of the labour; that is, the quality of the management of that labour. Just as the poor workman sometimes blames his tools for the mistakes he makes, so it frequently happens that the poor manager seeks the reason for his failure in his workers or in the lack of workers. Our managers are in duty bound to utilize their labour as efficiently as possible, particularly at a time when wages are rising. This applies to White as well as to non-White labour. It is also necessary that not only the managers, but the workers as well should be capable of being utilized efficiently. This entails that we should examine the question of the education and training, as far as our non-Whites are concerned as well.

This Government has accomplished great things in providing the non-Whites with school education, so much so that one finds in South Africa, in comparison with many other countries, a very low percentage of illiteracy. Instead of constantly being attacked abroad, the Government of South Africa ought to be praised abroad for the civilizing and upliftment work which it has brought to the non-Whites in South Africa and is still bringing to them. This school education alone, within the White and non-White areas, has contributed a great deal to making the non-Whites happier people, and also to giving the non-Whites greater efficiency in our economic life. Apart from school education a great deal has already been done today to make the Bantu, who are already active in business life, more competent for their task by means of in-service training. In this connection an interdepartmental committee has been appointed to devise ways and means, in conjunction with employers’ and employees’ organizations, of ensuring that this in-service training takes place most beneficially. The first report in this connection has already been submitted.

However, it is now felt that the ideal of efficiency on the part of the Bantu in the occupations which have been entrusted to them, may be even better served when their employment may be preceded by pre-employment training. Such pre-employment training already exists in the Bantu homelands in the form of ordinary vocational education. The plan is to expand a form of in-service training, as is already being used in certain factories, to the White areas, after a thorough prior investigation has been instituted into its practicability. If this plan comes into operation, it will not mean that the Government has by so doing thrown overboard its policy of control over the influx of Bantu labour. On the contrary. It is the opinion of the Government that through more intensive labour-orientated training, the Bantu will not only be a happier person, but also a more productive worker, and that consequently it will be possible to employ fewer of them.

We have always said that.

It will therefore be possible to produce more with the same number of workers, to the benefit of both worker and employer. This is particularly important in times such as these in which constant demands for higher wages are being made. This idea of pre-employment and in-service training of Bantu in the White area does not mean that all occupations are going to be thrown open to the Bantu in White areas; the intention is merely that this will refer to those industrial categories of employment which have been properly thrown open to Bantu individuals in the White areas, and to which they have been properly admitted.

What does the Minister of Labour say?

It is the intention of this Government to take the steps envisaged in this connection as rapidly as possible. I am consequently making an appeal to the employers’ organizations to supplement and expand the existing training funds so that they cover not only apprentices and technicians, but semi-skilled and unskilled workers as well. This will mean that it will be possible to involve large numbers of Bantu workers in this process. The Government is prepared to consider financial concessions in this regard.

The statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that most of the statements I had made in the past on this matter had not worked out, is quite wrong. Hon. members will recall that in 1971 I made certain statements in my Budget speech in regard to labour. Those statements led to discussions with the Chamber of Industries, to the Rieckert Commission and to the White Paper of the Government on labour and decentralization. This White Paper was met with general acclaim from the industries, and it had its positive results. Last year I again enumerated in the Budget certain concessions in respect of labour. These were also accepted gladly by the employers and have already been applied to a quite considerable extent.

There are a few other matters I want to touch on, matters raised by this side and that side of the House. I am thinking, for example, of matters touched upon by the hon. member for Von Brandis who discussed the duality of our economy. One can spend hours discussing that topic. I am thinking of the matters which were touched upon by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens which related to motor vehicles, the protection of motor vehicle spares and the pessimistic mood in certain sectors of business life. However, time does not allow me to go into all these matters.

Before I conclude there are two matters I wish to mention briefly. The one refers to the Public Service. The hon. member for Constantia discussed the so-called high Government expenditure, and stated that the Public Service is the most unproductive sector in our society. The hon. member is nodding his head in the affirmative; he therefore confirms this. I want to ask the hon. member on what grounds he makes that assertion. Why do hon. members on that side of the House always single out our public servants for critical comment?All too frequently Hon. members of the Opposition refer to our officials in a derogatory manner. I can give them the assurance that although there are few exceptions here and there, our officials on the whole are performing their task in a manner deserving of great praise. I want to ask the hon. member what criterion he uses to measure the productivity of a public servant. What is his criterion when he measures the productivity of the Public Service, as one does with the workers in a factory? My hon. friend, the hon. member for East London City, must tell me with what criterion he measures the productivity of the public service? With what criterion does he measure the productivity of a teacher? Or the productivity of a Minister? And with what criterion does he measure the productivity of a member of Parliament? The work of the officials may perhaps seem to members to be of a very poor quality, it may appear very unproductive, but let me tell them that the work of our officials is indispensable to economic growth, and is something without which the community of South Africa could never move forward.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, together with other hon. members, discussed devaluation. I do not think it behoves the hon. Leader and other members of the Opposition to say these things about devaluation now. They are prepared to accent the advantages of devaluation, but they do not want to accept any of the disadvantages. Last year, after our devaluation, I warned that devaluation was going to cost us something in the form of inflation. I said that there was going to be a 7.7% rise in the cost of living, but that the increased advantages would be far greater. If it had not had its advantages, we would not have been able today to vote the funds which we have in fact voted and to make the concessions in our Budget which we have in fact made. If it had not been for devaluation, we would not have had this relatively favourable balance of trade, the rise in prices and the drop in imports. If it had not had its advantages, we would not have had this favourable balance of trade, and we would not have had this capital inflow. On the contrary. Instead of a capital inflow, we would have had speculation against the rand I want to make it clear, in particular, to the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, as well as the hon. member for Von Brandis who so frequently speaks against devaluation, that if it had not been for devaluation, we would not have had this favourable balance of trade and would not have been able to encourage this growth as we are in fact doing. If it had not been for that, we would not have had the liquidity which my hon. friend referred to. Then the building societies in South Africa would not have had the money which they now have, and the Stock Exchange would not have been as lively as it is at present. All in all, devaluation has brought us far more advantages than disadvantages.

I want to conclude by adopting a suggestion given to me by the hon. member for Constantia. He said that I should cease garbing myself in the robes of a poet or a philosopher, and that I should rather put on the business suit of a company chairman reporting to his shareholders at an annual shareholders’ meeting. He then gave me an example of what he would have discussed at such a meeting.

A meeting of AVBOB.

I want to say, with all due respect, that if the hon. member had made a speech at the annual meeting of his shareholders such as the one he presented as an example here, he would have deserved to have been kicked out as chairman by his shareholders. I should like to tell the hon. member how I think I should address my shareholders. I would say to them: It is a pleasure for me to be able to inform you that despite difficult international circumstances, our company has experienced a relatively good year. The liquidity of the company has been increased to an exceptional extent as a result of the fact that our expenditure has decreased considerably, and our income has increased considerably. In addition outsiders have shown so much confidence in the company that they have entrusted major permanent amounts, totalling more than R500 million, in funds to the permanent care of the board, so that the board is at present able to undertake major expansion work without asking its shareholders for additional capital funds. The reserves of the company have also, during the past financial year, shown an exceptionally high increase, i.e. from R439 million to R1 090 million. The profits of the company have increased by 4%, a percentage profit which could have been higher. But, under the circumstances, it compares favourably with that of many other similar companies. There are clearly-discernible new signs of growth and of progress, and to us the future seems a favourable one. To my regret, however, I have to inform you that the board has experienced considerable difficulties with a certain group of shareholders, shareholders who do not adopt such a positive attitude to the future development of the company. However, the board does not pay much heed to them for they are a small minority and in any case, they do not themselves know what they want.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules 1 to 3:

Revenue Vote No. 3.—“House of Assembly”:

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not present here this afternoon, but, for the sake of the record, I think it is essential for me to say what I am going to say. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will be able to read my Hansard to see what was said by me this afternoon. I am sure that all parliamentarians in this House, on both sides, will agree with what I am now going to say. In a previous debate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the following (Hansard, col. 1137)—

Of course, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was trying to get at the Government in this way, but the Government is not responsible for any arrangements in the buildings of Parliament; that is the exclusive responsibility of this House on the one hand and the Senate on the other. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has been a member of this House for many years. I have always regarded him as a good parliamentarian. He ought to know that there are two Standing Committees which are appointed by Mr. Speaker and on which both sides of the House have representation. They are the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders and the Committee on Internal Arrangements. Should he therefore feel dissatisfied with any arrangement in this House, then it is his duty to approach his own party in the first instance and convince them of his point of view. Then the representatives of his party may raise the matter on these particular committees. If the committee concerned should reject the matter, then the hon. member and other members of this House are free to broach the matter here.

I must say with regard to the arrangements of Parliament, Mr. Chairman, that the resolutions taken by these two committees have always been unanimous up to now. As far as I can remember—and I have been serving on those Committees for many years, there has never been a difference of opinion. As far as the arrangements of this House are concerned, there have always been unanimous resolutions.

Sir, we attach the greatest value to the customs, the traditions and the procedures of this House. I trust therefore that the hon. member, and any other hon. member of this House, will bear this procedure in mind so that matters of this nature shall not be broached in this open House. The hon. member may, in accordance with this, approach his own representatives so that the matter may be discussed on those Committees.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to behave in a manner which differs from that of the hon. member to whom the hon. the Leader of the House has just referred, and to avail myself of this opportunity to express appreciation for what is being done towards the smooth working of Parliament by the Secretariat, and also by the Committees concerned. Sir, we often have visitors from abroad, people who are acquainted with other parliamentary institutions, and one after the other their comment is that they are highly impressed with the arrangements of this Parliament. Here before me I have a letter which I received only this morning from London from a visitor who sat over there in the Gallery last week. We have limited seating accommodation in our Galleries, but this still does not mean that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was correct in what he said. I think that V.I.P. treatment is given to all visitors who come here. As I have said, we have limited accommodation, and I want to congratulate the Secretariat on the arrangements which have been made, particularly in the past few weeks. With the aid of closed circuit television and a room on the first floor, additional accommodation can be made available to the large overflow of visitors.

Sir, I should like to refer, too, to the task of Hansard. A number of years ago the staff of the House of Assembly themselves took over this task, which was previously done on contract, and one wondered whether they would be able to perform this murderous task in addition to their numerous duties, especially in the course of a session. Today I want to express the opinion that they are doing so with signal success—the people in charge of Hansard who must work day and night to keep up to date and who have made so much progress up to this stage that we have indexes to subjects and speakers in every weekly edition of Hansard as well. At the end of the session, in the thick volumes, we have an index to questions and all the other things as well.

Sir, I should also like to say “Thank you” for the facilities we have here, even though this cannot be done every day, for translating speeches in the Chamber from Afrikaans into English on fixed occasions. A week or so ago a visitor from abroad made the comment to me that this was an outstanding service, and I think that I am speaking for everyone when I say I should like to congratulate the person concerned, Mr. Culhane, on the service which he renders to this House in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. The matter touched on by the hon. the Leader of the House, has unfortunately been touched on in the absence of the member concerned who, due to unavoidable circumstances, is absent, but I am sure that this will be brought to this member’s attention and that he will react to it in good time, either in public or in private.

I should just like to say to the hon. member for Stellenbosch that as regards the services rendered by the staff, and particularly by Hansard, to Members of Parliament, they do deserve the thanks of every member on both sides of the House, but I just hope that the speech of praise made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch does not create the impression that all members are satisfied with everything which exists and which is being done in the House of Assembly and in the Senate. For example, there are people in the ranks of the Opposition who feel that there are certain matters which can be improved, but it is not my intention to discuss this here. I agree with the hon. the Leader of the House that these are matters for which Committees exist. I only rise to sound the warning that the speech of praise made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch must not be interpreted as complete satisfaction with everything that exists in this House.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 5, Loan Vote L and S.W.A. Vote No. 1.—“Transport”:

Sir, because the time for this Vote is usually limited, I do not request the privilege of the half hour There are a few matters which I should like to raise urgently with the Deputy Minister, who is in charge of this discussion. I should have liked to raise matters of wide importance today, but there is one question which affects the vast majority of the population of South Africa and which is becoming so urgent that I make no apology for mentioning it first of all today, and that is the problem of the accumulating traffic in our cities—the congestion of traffic in our large cities. There was a time when we argued in this House and when many people thought the solution to the traffic problem was to be found in freeways in the cities.

However, the Government came to the conclusion that this was not the solution and indicated clearly in its White Paper on the Borckenhagen Report, which it published in 1971, and again in the latest report of the Secretary for Transport, that in spite of further representations made to it by the cities, the Government would carry out only those undertakings which had already been concluded with the cities in respect of these roads and would take no further responsibility. But, Sir, there are certain lessons which we may learn from the experience we have had with the subsidies paid by the National Transport Commission to our municipalities for freeways, and these are that these matters are urgent and that unnecessary delay, whether on the part of the State or the municipalities, causes unnecessary expense to the taxpayer and gives rise to further unnecessary delays. The indecision displayed by the Government in the case of these freeways which are being built in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town is rather striking.

Johannesburg, the example which I know best, applied for a subsidy for certain planned roads which they had on their books, roads which were in the planning stage, and it took six years before they received a final reply. Johannesburg has calculated, and this calculation is correct —this is the estimate today—that whereas the roads would have cost R45 million originally they will now, as a result of this delay of six years, cost R80 million, an increase of R35 million because of the delay. It is very interesting to see what this means. This means that the State, if it had said to Johannesburg in the first place, “Proceed on your own; do not wait for a subsidy from me,” and Johannesburg had built those roads, then the State, or the taxpayers, would have saved R15 million because that subsidy would not have been paid and the City of Johannesburg would have saved R25 million, because the cost would then have been R45 million instead of R80 million. That is the lesson which I think we must learn.

But there are still many urgent problems experienced by our cities. In the Government’s White Paper on the Report of the Borckenhagen Commission which it published in 1971, the following is stated at the end of paragraph 9—

That was six months, and there was an interim report.

Now I take it that what is known as the Driessen Commission is engaged in considering the matter. I should very much like to know when we may expect this report which will deal with this urgent problem of the mass transportation of city-dwellers in our large cities. Then I should further like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will give the undertaking that when this interim report, which presumably has to appear any day now, is published—it will be an important report because the commission is under the chairmanship of one of our most able officials—speedy action will be taken. Again I mention Johannesburg as an example, because this is the city where I live and in which my constituency is situated. Johannesburg is now planning for a tube train, an underground railway. They have a plan according to which one part of this railway line will emerge in my constituency, Yeoville—consequently it interests me a great deal—and this railway line, which is urgently required …

What manner of things will they find in the holes?

In Yeoville there is just sand everywhere. The point which I want to make, is that such a form of transport is imperative for a city of the size of Johannesburg and with the growth potential of Johannesburg and of the whole Witwatersrand. It should be borne in mind that Johannesburg does not serve the City of Johannesburg only it also serves the mighty Witwatersrand with its tremendous concentration of people. It has been estimated that such an underground train system will cost R300 million at today’s prices. However, we have inflation in South Africa today. Perhaps I should rather say “cost increase” because I do not want to use contentious words today. Some people say that we have a cost increase of 12% in South Africa, but even if it is only 10%, this means that for every year for which the construction of this railway line is delayed, the cost of the railway line will increase by R30 million. The amount by which the costs increase, will be borne by the taxpayers of Johannesburg and by the State and therefore every day is important, because R30 million per annum means R80 000 per day. Therefore I want to address a special request to the hon. the Deputy Minister to urge the committee to get a move on so that the interim report may be made available. Then there will still be two things for the hon. the Deputy Minister to do. In the first place he will have to decide immediately what he is going to do by way of implementing that report and in the second place he will have to instruct the local authorities concerned —it is not only Johannesburg which is concerned in this matter—to start following immediately those guidelines which will be prescribed to them.

I give this matter priority in this debate, because it is a pressing matter. I have often wondered—I have never seen any estimate in this connection—how many manhours are lost in South Africa, where manpower is a precious commodity, in cities like Johannesburg. Cape Town and Pretoria. Judging from my experience more manhours may possibly be lost in Pretoria than in the other cities because of the fact that people are delayed in their own personal transport from their homes to their places of employment and back. I believe that this amounts to hundreds of many years per annum. Anything which we in South Africa can do to meet this problem and, if possible, to anticipate it, will bear strong testimony to the efficiency of our community and to the determination of all of us not to be lavish with our most precious possession, namely our people.

There is something concerning national roads which I want to mention. It worries me to see how the funds available for national roads in South Africa are accumulating. I see interesting figures in the report of the Department of Transport for 1971-’72. On 31st March, 1971, there was an amount of R35 305 million in the National Road Fund which had not been utilized. In this connection I refer to the entry “Excess of income over expenditure as at 1st April, 1971” in statement 1 on page 24 of the Report, R.P. 85-’72. Furthermore I notice that revenue for the year 1971-’72 exceeds expenditure by approximately R29 400 million. This leaves a total of approximately R65 million as a balance in the National Road Fund. This year Parliament is being asked to appropriate an amount of approximately R99 million for the National Road Fund, which will be collected solely by means of customs duties, and so on. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville touched on the matter of freeways. One has to admit that delays do occur but when one sees what is in fact being done to build freeways, and when one sees how expensive and how difficult they are to build, I want to express my gratitude for what has in fact been done. I was in Johannesburg recently and I must truly say that I was impressed by the progress which had in fact been made there. The hon. member for Yeoville was probably correct in saying that if the roads had been built sooner, they would have been cheaper. How was one to have known that in advance? It could just as well have been the other way round. Perhaps the money was not available at that time. It is not always so easy to start building such a scheme precisely at the time when one wants to do so. I think the same applies to this tube train. We shall probably have to have tube trains in future when our cities are big enough, but in other countries it has been found that one cannot build an underground railway system before one’s city has reached a certain size, because before that stage such a system cannot operate economically. If the investigation were to reveal that Johannesburg had become big enough then an underground railway system would probably be necessary.

I should like to touch on another matter; I want to discuss the development of air traffic, particularly as far as the rural areas are concerned. We live in a country of wide expanses. Fine roads are being constructed at present and we are convinced that it is a good thing that this is being done. However, the future does indicate that we shall have to make progressively greater use of air traffic. The Government appointed a commission of inquiry with the terms of reference to investigate airfields. The abbreviation of the name of this commission is INDEV. The commission has released very interesting data. The commission was appointed to ascertain whether existing airfields should be developed and to investigate the matter of the capital expenditure which will be required for building more airfields. What is very interesting is that they found that if airfields were in fact built it would stimulate the economic growth of the rural areas and would also promote decentralization. That is why I regard this commission, and the data which they have released, as being important. They also found that the State should take a share in the development of more airfields, that it should even go as far as subsidizing airfields, particularly where they were strategically and economically essential. They also drew up a list of priorities for the development of airfields. The first group is the strategically essential airfields. Here they found that it was essential for the Department of Defence to take a share in the establishment of this category of airfields. The second group was the strategically desirable and economically essential airfields. Here the State has to make a contribution. Thirdly, there are the airfields which are economically desirable and in the interests of the country. Where growth points are being established and an airfield is in the interests of the State for that reason, the State should also make a contribution. The fourth group is where local regional requirements render an airfield essential. In this respect, too, they found that the State could make a small contribution. The fifth group is the local airfields provided by municipalities. It was found that at this stage the municipalities should continue with these airfields. In their recommendation they stated that the Government should make an amount of at least R400 000 available for these airfields. I should like to support them in this but I just wonder whether this amount of R400 000 is not perhaps a little small for such an important matter. I believe that in the future we shall have to do a great deal more in this respect. This commission will have a bigger task in the future. For example, they will have to determine requirements and priorities, they will have to determine the places where the airfields are to be built, and they will have to make recommendations with regard to subsidies for such airfields.

Another aspect of civil aviation to which I want to draw the attention of the House, is the valuable asset which the civil aviation subsidy scheme has been to the country in the past. This scheme was introduced on 1st September, 1954, at the time for a period of four years. From time to time, however, this scheme was extended. The present scheme was introduced with effect from 1st April, 1970, for another period of three years. I think we should continue with this. The scheme makes provision for the issue of private pilots’ licences, for advanced training of pilots, for commercial pilots’ licences and for the training of instructors and engineers. I believe that this is a very important job of work which is being done. What is more, on the recommendation of the Civil Aviation Subsidy Committee, subsidies may be granted for gliders and parachuting equipment. It is interesting to note that of the 365 candidates who participated in the scheme in the year 1971-’72, 354 succeeded in passing the course. Since the establishment of the scheme in 1954, an amount of R581 000 has been spent on it, 2 075 candidates have received private pilots’ licences, 2 306 candidates have undergone advanced training and 265 candidates have received commercial pilots’ licences. This shows us what a tremendous asset this has already been to our aviation. I think it is a fine thing that they received R80 000 last year, but I also think that it will perhaps be necessary in future even to increase this amount since it is so important for us to improve our air services, to decentralize and to move forward with future development. We must also look to the possibility of more and regular regional services which will render possible easy transport from town to town and from town to city, and we must ensure that strategically our country will be prepared in the future. Since we may require airfields for the defence of our country, we must see to it that we do the necessary in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able this time to agree with an hon. member on the Government side. We agree that the expansion of air transport is something which must be planned now and which must receive urgent attention.

†I believe that in this modern age time has become one of the scarcest commodities and that air travel is the answer to that problem. More and more we are going to have to rely on the speedier forms of transport not only on the ground—the hon. member for Yeoville has referred to the speedier forms of transport needed on the ground to get people to their work and save millions of man-hours per year—but also in the air to get people from town A to town B faster, more easily and more conveniently. We on this side of the House are in full support of anything that can be done to urge the Government to greater action in creating a net-work of airfields, landing strips and the necessary facilities to go with them. It is not enough only to create the airfields and the facilities; I believe we also have to bring about a change in attitude in respect of the granting of certificates. I believe there is a tendency to turn down applications for air carrier certificates, something which is not assisting the expansion of commercial flying. The more facilities we have available the more competition there will be, the cheaper it will be to fly and the more people will make use of commercial flying. This in turn will mean more feeder services feeding the South African Airways, more business for the South African Airways and so the circle will continue. So, Mr. Chairman, I am in full sympathy with the views of the hon. member who has just spoken.

Whilst speaking of airports, I had the privilege and pleasure of being present at the opening of the new international airport at Jan Smuts. I should like to record my tribute to those who were concerned with the planning and construction of this magnificent international terminal. I wish I could say the same for Durban. Poor Durban! While we have beautiful facilities at the D.F. Malan airport and Jan Smuts airport with its facilities, Durban with 665 000 passengers in 1971-’72 and very many more in this current year, is still battling with an out-of-date airport, totally inadequate and totally hopeless for the demands that are made on it. It handles something like 2 000 passengers per day. This year we have voted on the Estimates million in respect of the new airport at La Mercy. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will tell us today when the extensions to the existing Louis Botha airport are going to be completed and when he estimates the new airport at La Mercy is likely to come about, if ever. We are being asked to vote R½ million this year. Can he give us some idea of what in fact is going on there! Amongst all the rumours and all the denials we would like to know what is happening. Suddenly we have this money on the Estimates. Will he please clarify the picture once more and tell us what Louis Botha will have, when it will have it and what the prospects are for the airport at La Mercy.

Coming down from the air to the ground, I want to refer to the motor transport vote, where again there has been a considerable increase in the kilometres being travelled. I find, for instance, that the Department of Customs and Excise has an increase of over 50%, i.e. from 960 000 to 1½ million km in the estimates of Government Garage transport services rendered. There are similar increases in other Votes. Generally, because of the removal from the Estimates of two departments which I presume are now being budgeted for through other bodies—Bantu Trust is one of them—there is a reduction in the total mileage which we are being asked to vote. There are however, general increases throughout. We have in previous years debated the use of official transport by Cabinet Ministers. We have been told that all travel by Cabinet Ministers is official travel. That is the official policy. But does that mean, too, that all travel by Cabinet Ministers’ families is official travel? I have here a photograph showing two Government Garage motorcars taking two members of Cabinet families 150 miles, not to go and buy anything, but to a preview of a private auction sale! You can identify one of them. I will give the number to the hon. the Minister if he wants it. If Ministers travel around on private business, we can argue about that. But, surely, you do not take two official motorcars to go and view goods which are to be sold at an auction sale 150 miles away; surely you could arrange to take one car and share it. But in any case, if you are going to a private auction sale to buy private things for yourself, is it Government policy that that should also be done by official transport?

They forgot to change their GG numberplates.

Yes, they did not even change the numberplates. Perhaps they slipped up there. The hon. the Minister asks what we did in our time. I will tell you what we did in our time, Mr. Chairman. Ministers used to use their private cars when they went on private and political business; not like the hon. the Minister of Tourism, who goes all the way from Durban to the Klip River by-election in a Government Garage car. But he did not use GG numberplates; he had ND numberplates, so that the car would not be recognized as an official car. He was attending the hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s election, to help that hon. member to come to this House. That is not national service; that is a national disservice. And then he uses official transport for that. No, Sir, there must be a limit to this. Whilst the hon. the Minister has said on many occasions that Ministers can use their cars for any business, that all business is official business, I do not accept that attending auction sales requires taking two ministerial cars simply to view what is going to be sold.

In the minute left to me I want to deal with another matter. Can the hon. the Minister clarify the position in regard to the inspection of ships? There has been publicity in the last week of a ship in Durban harbour which the crew refused to sail because they maintained that the ship was unseaworthy. Everybody has been passing the buck. The port captain says if he is approached he will send somebody to inspect it. The inspector says that unless he is asked by the agents, he cannot go aboard to inspect it. Now what is the position? Must the ship be allowed to go to sea when there are allegations by the crew serious enough to lead them to strike, allegations that the ship is unseaworthy and dangerous? Is there no machinery, no responsibility on the Government to ensure that that ship is examined and that in fact, it is established whether it is or is not seaworthy? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that this type of debate should take place in the House, about Ministers using motor-cars and other forms of transport, and that hon. members should exploit if for political purposes. What is going to happen if I were to scratch out what previous Ministers under the United Party Government did, as I can do? I have the evidence here.

Somebody scratched very deep at the time.

But I am going to scratch very deep now. It may interest hon. members to know that Ministers under the United Party Government used their cars for political and private purposes. I have all the evidence here. But they even went further. They used their official coaches for private purposes too. I do not want to name the Minister now, but one of the Ministers sent his wife and family in his private railway coach to have a holiday at the Wilderness. The then hon. Prime Minister, Gen. Smuts, had a special plane purchased for him, an Avro York.

It was given to him by the British Government.

It was purchased, according to my information, by the Department of Defence; the plane was purchased by the Government. I have all the particulars here. I have a list of all the passengers and flights of that Avro York. These were private persons, not on official journeys. I have, for instance, the names of a lady Moore and a Mr. John Martin, who was at that time chairman of the Chamber of Mines, and Mr. McIntosh. From Algiers there were Genis. Van Ryneveld and Venter—that is from Germiston-Northolt, Rome-Z.L.S. There was a large number of these flights. After we took office in 1948, we even went so far as to allow Gen. Smuts, who had an appointment as chancellor of one of the universities in England to deliver a speech there, to use an Avro York to go to England and back. Nobody said anything about that. I have evidence here that Ministers of the previous Government used their motor-cars for private purposes. I have here a letter, written to me quite unsolicited, by a former driver of one of the motor-cars. I will give his name too. He writes as follows:

And he signed it. I can give you his name— C. C. Pretorius. He was a driver of the Government Garage in Bloemfontein.

May I ask a question? Can the hon. the Minister tell us, since he was in the House at that time, whether in fact the National Party in those times attacked the United Party for that very reason?

Yes, they did. I want to tell the hon. member why they did so. The Government of the day went so far as to place a private railway coach at the disposal of a visiting entertainer in South Africa.

Noel Coward?

Yes.

But he was entertaining the troops, you know.

It makes no difference what he came to do; he was given a private coach. Just imagine that. A private railway coach was placed at his disposal. He went around the country absolutely free of charge, at the cost of the Government. Mr. Sauer raised that question in Parliament. It is very amusing to read the Hansard today. Mr. Sauer said, among other things, the following—

An hon. member then asked: “What is a crooner?”. Mr Sauer replied—

[Interjections.] He said further—

[Interjections.] I do not necessarily agree with Mr. Sauer with regard to that last remark!

That still applies today.

The Minister of Finance, Mr. Hofmeyr, then asked: “What is a crooner?”. Mr. Sauer then said—

There was quite a long debate about Mr. Coward and the private railway coach. Mr. Sauer even quoted some of the poems that Noel Coward wrote, and from some of his plays. Mr. Chairman, I merely mention this to show that that is what happened under a previous Government. Is it in our interest to scratch these things out? I have been a Minister of Transport for 19 years now, and I have never even mentioned this, in spite of a lot of provocation. I have kept quiet. I can tell hon. members a great deal about what previous Ministers did, but what does it help? Why should we scratch these things out? Why should we start muck-raking? It is not worth it. I suggest that hon. members should refrain from doing that. After all. Ministers have certain privileges; they all have them One day when those hon. gentlemen sit on this side of the House they will have those same privileges. We have Cadillacs; that is true. All my colleagues do not want Cadillacs. I have one, and I like it very much indeed, and I have a second car. The main reason for having a second car is that we do not want to use the big cars on outside roads. As a matter of fact, most of the time I use my Buick, travelling to and from the House. It is only when I attend official functions, when my wife is with me that I use the Cadillac. Now what is wrong with that? Surely there is nothing wrong with that. I know that under the previous Government they even used Air Force planes to attend public meetings. I have that evidence, too. So I say again: What do we gain by it? We do not want to talk about these things. I know of a Cabinet Minister in the United Party who used to use his private coach to go to Bloemfontein during the night He used to leave Johannesburg in the evening and be there the next morning, and he used to entertain his friends in that private coach. It might interest hon. members to know that when Gen. Hertzog made that very famous speech of his at De Wildt in 1912, he travelled there in his private coach.

That was before my time.

Yes, and before my time too. Gen. Hertzog went to De Wildt with his private coach, and that was 30 miles from Pretoria. They had motorcars in 1912, but it was apparently the usual thing for a Minister to do He travelled in his private coach, which was shunted into a siding there. He made his speech, had lunch and came back to Pretoria in his private coach. These things have been happening, and I suggest that we leave this type of thing alone. Let us not try to scratch these things out; it is really not worth it.

Mr. Chairman, one does not want to scratch these things up, but the hon. the Minister must rest assured that the people we entertained after the war we entertained for one purpose only, and that was to give South Africa a very much better image than it has at the present moment. If the Government brought some of the leading figures from overseas and entertained them, I do not think we would object if Government means were used to take them around the country. Noel Coward did a wonderful job amongst the troops during his visit here. I remember the occasion well, and I think it was money well spent. Sir, I do not want to continue in that particular vein.

The hon. member for Humansdorp mentioned the establishment of private aerodromes.

As a representative of the Western Cape, I want to congratulate the department on the very fine airport, the D. F. Malan Airport, we have here in Cape Town. It does, however, lack a few of the amenities it should have. I would, for instance, like to suggest that consideration be given to installing escalators in the building so that one could do away with the very steep stairs up to the restaurant. Then, I want to refer to a fault which I think is found at many of our airports today. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not do something about speeding up the handling of baggage. There is a wonderful machine at the airport, but something is wrong with the link between the aircraft and the actual distribution of the baggage. At the one end the process is manual and at the other end it is mechanical.

There is another item I wish to refer to. I have spoken to the Minister about this. The main runways at the D. F. Malan Airport have been lengthened. They are now something like 10 500 feet, or 3 200 metres in length. It is mentioned in the report that they were completed in 1972. I have on previous occasions brought up the question of these runways and the national road to the Strand. Before this road was actually constructed, I suggested in this House that the Department of Transport, which also controlls the airports, should give consideration to sinking the national road under the extended runaways at the D. F. Malan Airport. At the present moment one has to cross a bridge over a railway line at the end of the main runways. The run-in to the runways is actually indicated by means of lights on top of the bridge. The hon. the Minister has explained to me what the position is there. One is not allowed to park on that bridge. On account of the danger the Traffic Police do not allow one to park on that bridge any more. During holidays and over weekends the Provincial Traffic Police stop one from parking there. A week or two ago an aircraft came in from Durban, and made a very low approach. One is, of course, deceived by heights, but one wonders what would have happened if a double-decker bus had been crossing the bridge at that time. You will recall, Sir, what happened in East London when a double-decker municipal bus was struck by the wheels of a Skymaster when it came in to land. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister, with the advent of these very large aircraft and with the weather conditions that we have in the Cape, that serious consideration should be given to the sinking of this national road and the extension of the runways over the road. I realize that this will be expensive, but I feel that it should be done in the interests of safety. This has been done, for instance, at London Airport, and one sees similar arrangements at other airports all over the world. I feel that the existing position could well lead to an accident. Again, I do not want to mention names. [Interjection.] I will mention names, if the hon. member wants me to do so, but I think it is wrong to mention names across the floor of the House. Leading pilots have expressed the same view. Especially foreign pilots who have brought planes to this country say that this is a dangerous factor. They are surprised that the road was allowed to go so close to the airport.

Then I want to deal with another subject concerning the local scene, and that is the apartheid regulations that exist as far as our buses and taxis are concerned. Sir, we have the largest Coloured population in the whole of the Republic here in the Cape. The vast majority of the Coloureds have been moved to the Cape Flats, and the more affluent Coloureds and those who wish to get on in life with the assistance of the Coloured Development Corporation would like to run their own buses, but whenever these people have applied for certificates to operate buses their applications have been rejected. Things have got to a stage now where the Coloureds have become thoroughly frustrated and feel that there is no future for them in road transport. On the one hand they are told to establish their own industries and to get on to their own feet, and on the other hand their applicatons for certificates to run their own bus services are invariably refused. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the question of allowing the Coloureds to run their own transport services. I think that is the least that the Government can do for the Coloureds here in the Western Cape.

Another item that I want to deal with is the local taxi service. The taxi service that we have here at the present moment is laughable. Some years ago the Government decided, in the interests of I do not know whom, to introduce taxi apartheid. Today you have the ridiculous position that there are White taxis and Coloured taxis.

What is ridiculous about it?

I will tell the hon. member how ridiculous it is. Taxis which are licensed to carry Whites only have Coloured and Bantu drivers. The taxi is licensed to carry Whites, and then you have a Coloured or a Bantu driver; that is how ridiculous it is. Hon. members who know the history of Cape Town will know that years ago we had hansom cabs here which were invariably driven by Coloureds. Over the years they changed over to the use of cars to carry on their business. There was no regulation which obliged the Coloured owners of these hansom cabs to convey only Whites or only Coloureds. It was only with the advent of this particular Government that it was decided to introduce what is called taxi apartheid. The position in the Cape today is that you simply cannot get White drivers for our buses or taxis. There is apartheid on our buses, but you find that every second bus in Cape Town is driven by a Coloured, simply because Whites are not available. You find that on buses which are licensed to carry White passengers you have a Coloured driver/conductor. Sir, I asked the hon. the Minister a question the other day and I was amazed to find that between 1968 and 1973 the number of White taxis operating from Bellville right down to Simonstown had increased by only eight, from 261 to 269. You can rest assured, Sir, that the vast majority of those White taxis are driven by Coloureds. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Salt River raised matters here which ranged from airports right down to taxi-drivers and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to that.

Sir, from the time I entered this House, a little more than a decade ago, the subject of motor accidents, the slaughter on the roads and everything which that involves has regularly been discussed under this Vote. And not only has it been discussed under this Vote, but on occasion we have also had private motions and even snap debates on this matter. This has not been debated simply as a matter of normal routine but because it is a matter of national importance, and both sides of this House regard it with equal concern. The concern and the heartfelt anxiety of members of the House of Assembly in regard to the temporary and permanent mutilation of victims of motor accidents, the colossal death-toll on the roads and the tremendous economic losses resulting from the damage and destruction of vehicles, is confirmed by the fact that numbers of members of Parliament have also given evidence and submitted memoranda to the Committee of Inquiry into the South African Road Safety Council.

I should like to convey appreciation and also my thanks to the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. Steyn, assisted by Prof. H. Venter and Mr. Melt van Niekerk, who acted as secretary. I should like to thank them for the comprehensive, enlightening and opinion-gauging final report which we have received. It is truly a magnificent achievement to have summarized so systematically, logically and completely the mass of data arising from all the memoranda submitted by private individuals and bodies and also the oral evidence given by individuals and bodies.

Some time ago I read the following in an overseas magazine in connection with traffic matters and road safety, inter alia—

Perhaps in this country, too, there are thousands of such experts, people who were perhaps unable to give evidence, but also others who did not want to give evidence before this committee. I believe that they would perhaps be the people to level the most criticism at this report and the recommendations made by this committee. I am convinced that the bodies and the persons who did in fact give evidence are sincerely concerned about the road safety situation, and they are probably very grateful for this excellent report. It appears from the report of this committee, as well as from numerous other reports and scientific research concerning traffic on the roads, accidents and everything this involves, that the human element in traffic is of the utmost importance. This is really the cardinal point around which everything revolves. Consequently it is to be welcomed that the National Road Safety Council is arranging a symposium, to be held on 22nd June, 1973, concerning the human element in traffic. The venue for this symposium is Pretoria where one of the members of the committee, Prof. Herman Venter, is at present mayor.

The person behind the wheel who does not have the right attitude towards the use of the road, who does not have enough responsibility towards his fellow road-users and above all, towards himself, must be brought to book. It is this kind of driver who does not want to become safety-conscious. It is this kind of driver, too, who regards himself as above all human fallibility. He believes that the human factor does not play a role as far as he, as a driver, is concerned. Recklessness, a couldn’t-care-less attitude, selfishness, frustration, wilfulness, adventurousness, impudence, negligence, inconsiderateness and injudiciousness, sometimes aggravated by the use of alcohol, are the elements to which expression are given as soon as those people get behind the steering-wheel of a vehicle.

If stricter action is not taken in future, in the light of penalties which already exist, against these irresponsible and reckless drivers who disregard the law, then this must inevitably lead to the general opinion that the eradication of the evil of the slaughter on our roads is a matter of concern to neither ourselves nor our authorities.

According to research only 10% of our drivers are responsible for 90% of all road accidents. Ten per cent of the drivers of South Africa are, in other words, a constant safety risk. It is imperative that this 10% be identified for the courts. In some way or another a record must be kept of this reckless driver.

The real culprits are in fact few in number and it should be a reasonably simple matter to get hold of them in course of time. I think that the 90% of careful and decent motorists can earnestly insist on that. What is more, I think that they can even demand that these road hogs be shown up.

It seems that legislation is being prepared to screen the motorists who are such a constant safety risk, to restrain them effectively and even to eliminate them temporarily as road-users. No information, no education, no pleas over the course of the years, nor even light penalties have made any impression on the reckless driver, whether under the influence of alcohol, or whether simply self-centred and unmannerly. He is still our companion on the road and in his own eyes he is a tremendously capable driver. The responsible, careful driver always has to take this unmannerly ruffian of the road into account. Even obeying the rules of the road is no insurance against a motor accident for the law-abiding motorist, because the fact must be taken into account that one out of every ten fellow road-users are reckless and dangerous and do not intend, or are possibly not capable, of obeying the highway code. It is indeed this group which becomes the target of our traffic police force. It is they who cause the traffic police force to be employed over the holidays, long weekends and Christmas and New Year holidays, to try to prevent slaughter on our roads. The challenge, then, is not only to discipline the 10% of chronically reckless drivers on our roads, but also to deal with them by means of restrictive measures. It is in fact important to make a plea to the responsible road-users to join the traffic police force in their struggle against the criminal on the road. It would not even help to lay down heavy fines for reckless infringements of traffic measures or to revoke the licences of those who have poor records as drivers. It is also essential in my opinion that motor cars should be summarily confiscated and that they should be impounded for varying periods should anyone drive in such a way as to endanger the life of his fellow road-user. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I should like to reply to certain matters which hon. members put to me. Since the hon. member for Yeoville, who has made his apologies, is not here at present. I shall first reply to other hon. members before I come back to the matters he raised.

I am grateful for the remarks that came from the hon. member for Humansdorp in respect of training, airfield planning, etc. I gladly acknowledge that he is correct in saying that the planning of airfields in South Africa and their classification will be of the utmost importance to us in the future. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to increasing costs. Nowhere is this more true than specifically where one is dealing with land and property. It is simply a fact that airfields take up large pieces of land. Therefore it is perhaps more essential for us to give attention to acquiring land or at least putting it aside. We must obtain it as quickly as possible so that it can be developed at a later stage for airport purposes, etc. I should like to refer to the subsidy scheme, and I want to say that we have achieved very favourable results. Unfortunately we also have to refer to certain shortcomings. Recently quite a few unfortunate private aircraft accidents have taken place in South Africa. Statistics indicate that this is nothing out of the ordinary when taken over a certain period. A whole series of these accidents have taken place in quick succession, and as a result this has made a greater impression on the reading public of South Africa. I should like to issue a warning on this occasion that our private pilots must fly more carefully. The weekend newspapers were again full of an accident that took place near Greytown in Natal. Merely on the facts I obtained from the newspapers, it would appear to me as if a reckless act of irresponsibility was committed. When an investigation is instituted, other facts may come to light which are not available to me now. As I have said, a series of such accidents has taken place recently, and my department wants to ensure that such accidents do not occur. I now want to issue the friendly warning that if measures, which exist at present and are implemented to guarantee the safety of private pilots and to ensure that they keep to the rules, are not complied with, I shall not hesitate to come to this House and take additional steps. This is not a threat, but it is a very friendly warning to our pilots, a warning that they must abide by aviation regulations which have been established as the result of thorough study and which are amended from time to time, as the circumstances make this necessary, to adapt to those circumstances. If all those steps, which are taken, are apparently insufficient, I must issue a warning that stricter steps will have to be taken.

I want to reply to the question which the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned, i.e. the traffic congestion in the cities. A committee of inquiry into urban transport facilities has been inaugurated. The hon. member for Yeoville has referred to that. In the first place, the committee was, of course, not appointed by my department, it was, in fact, appointed by the Minister of Finance. The committee’s report will therefore go back to the Minister of Finance. But because my department is very closely concerned with this, it is a matter that deserves our attention, and I can inform the hon. member that it is the intention of this committee to publish, during this calendar year, a report about a very substantial problem. The scope of this problem is much greater than it would appear to us at first glance and even than we could perhaps effectively indicate by discussion in the scope of this debate. The problem of urban congestion is one of the big traffic problems of modern times, not only for our own cities in South Africa, but for the whole world. It is true, a great deal is being done about that in South Africa in an effort to solve the problem. In this connection I can just refer to what has already been done by the National Transport Commission. They undertook certain obligations in respect of expenditure within municipal areas. Durban has been allocated an amount of R10 million; Port Elizabeth an amount of R5 million; Johannesburg an amount of R15 million; Cape Town an amount of R11 million; Pretoria an amount of R10 million. These amounts, a total of R51 million, will be provided by the National Road Fund to help solve this problem.

That is a bagatelle.

Well, apart from the R51 million that has already been made available for urban freeway schemes, the commission has also accepted financial responsibility in respect of the construction and maintenance of quite a number of projects, a few of which I should like to mention: The ring-road round Durban is going to require an amount of R37 million; the Pietermaritzburg by-pass is going to require R3,5 million; the Kroonstad bypass is going to require R2,3 million; the Pretoria eastern by-pass is going to require R19 million; the Silverton by-pass is going to require R3.2 million; Johannesburg’s ring-roads are going to require R55 million; the Bloemfontein by-pass is going to require R11 million; the East London bypass is going to require R11 million and Port Elizabeth by-pass an additional R11 million. This amounts to R153 million. The hon. member will agree with me that that is no longer a mere bagatelle.

That is better.

This is such an extensive problem, so tremendous a problem that planning and spending must be done very carefully.

I should like, through this House, to make a friendly request to municipalities, such as the Municipality of Johannesburg, which I hear—this knowledge has not reached me in any other way—is engaged on an underground train system. This will be a big and costly scheme and I doubt whether the amount involved is going to be only R300 million; I think it is going to be considerably more, not because of the time factor, but because of engineering problems. Johannesburg’s circumstances are unique in the sense that it is chiefly an undermined area and more subject to earth tremors than other parts of the country because of pressure shifts deep below the surface. For that reason, from an engineering point of view, additional reinforcements will have to be introduced in the case of Johannesburg, something which would perhaps not be necessary elsewhere. Not that our engineers would flinch from that, because I think our country’s engineers are resourceful enough, but the cost factor must be given very proper consideration. Over and above that, the planning is going to be extremely important. We are dealing here with something that must be erected for our succeeding generations. What we are going to do in this respect is going to have a permanent influence on Johannesburg’s transport for a 100 years or more. Therefore I appeal to Johannesburg’s local authorities to consult all possible departments concerned, including my own department, so that whatever is established there can be co-ordinated, properly planned and bear the stamp of development that will also still be of service to our descendants. The hon. member asked me to give quick attention to it when this matter saw the light. I can tell him that the committee to which I referred has experienced certain problems with respect to information that must specifically come from local authorities. A part of the delay in the committee’s activities is specifically as a result of the lack of information and co-ordination on the part of local authorities. Since this committee is again becoming better known as a result of this debate, I would be grateful if local authorities could submit any information to this committee as quickly as possible so that attention could quickly be given to it.

†"The hon. member for Durban Point referred to feeder services. I am on record as a person very much in favour of feeder services in South Africa. I had the privilege of serving on the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee for a number of years. From the records of that committee it will be obvious that on every occasion I pleaded for additional feeder services. I am completely in agreement with the hon. member. Feeder services have a tremendous potential for opening up parts of the country which are not being served properly by other means of transport. In a large country like ours, there is potential, an undoubted potential for feeder services. The hon. member can therefore rest assured that he has my complete sympathy and that wherever possible feeder services will get the assistance which they are entitled to.

*The hon. member’s compliments in connection with Jan Smuts Airport were unfortunately accompanied by a small measure of criticism about the position in Durban. I shall first explain the position in Durban to the hon. member. I shall mention certain amounts that appear in the Estimates in respect of the Louis Botha Airport.

It is chicken feed.

It may sound like “chicken feed”. I shall give the amounts, and then we can discuss the position further. The extension and the development of the parking area at Louis Botha Airport will be completed by about September of this year. An amount of R347 240 has been provided in the Estimates for that. For the purchasing of furniture for the building itself an amount of R50 000 has been placed on this year’s Estimates; R60 000 will appear in the Estimates for next year. That is merely in respect of furniture for the buildings. According to calculations by the Department of Public Works, extensions to the terminal building will be commenced during January of next year at an estimated cost of R1 3 million. Because the matter is urgent, the intention is to erect a type of prefabricated building at Louis Botha Airport, similar to that which was used at the D.F. Malan Airport for a time as an international terminal building. Something similar is being envisaged to help relieve the situation there. In the meantime my department has made representations to the Department of Public Works to already begin with the project within this calendar year if it is at all possible. The prospects of already beginning with the additional work there this year are good.

The position is impossible at the moment.

I am aware of certain bottlenecks. I would not say the position is impossible. That is perhaps something of an exaggeration. There are bottlenecks, and they have developed, in particular, because the South African Airways tried to furnish an additional service in Durban by introducing the 747 Jumbo Jets to Durban. Specifically because of the improved service to Durban certain bottlenecks developed at the terminal. I think that is the chief problem as the hon. member also sees it.

As far as the airport at La Mercy is concerned, the most important item at present is that provision be made for the purchasing of the needed land. A considerable piece of land is needed for the La Mercy airport In the Estimates for the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure there appears this year an amount of R11 million for the purchasing of that land. On this department’s Estimates there appears an amount of R½ million that is intended for the planning of that airport. If the programme develops as it is foreseen it will, La Mercy airport will be ready for use in about eight to nine years, i.e. about 1980 or 1982. The practical life of the Louis Botha Airport is estimated to last until 1979, bearing in mind changes and extensions that are being proposed. By about 1980 or 1982 the La Mercy airport ought to be ready to take over the traffic there.

The hon. the Minister of Transport replied to certain other matters which the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned. I do not intend to go into them. The hon. member made certain inquiries about the inspection of a certain ship in Durban to ascertain its seaworthiness. Unfortunately I have no knowledge of the incident. If he were to give me more particulars I could ascertain the facts for him. The only conclusion I can, in fact, draw is that this is an isolated case. Such cases do not normally occur. It is an isolated case, the particulars and scope of which I unfortunately do not know about at this stage. I therefore cannot give him a reply to that.

†The hon. member for Salt River referred to the problem of the handling of baggage at D.F. Malan airport. I think it is mainly a problem in respect of the Boeing 747 aircraft. Normally, this problem does not exist. The problem normally crops up when you have a Boeing-747 coming in with perhaps an additional aircraft as well. The position is that the 747 aircraft are making use of containers and all luggage is loaded into a container at Jan Smuts before being loaded into the aircraft. Those containers are numbered alternatively, A and B, which means that there are two sections of luggage being carried along the automatic conveyor belt in Cape Town. I happened to come in with my family with the same aircraft yesterday afternoon, and I stood watching there for about ten minutes. People do not seem to take notice of the fact that their luggage cards are numbered either A or B, which should be to them an indication where to go and fetch their luggage. Without asking people, I got the impression that people with labels numbered A were queueing up at the conveyor belt carrying luggage numbered B and vice versa. I do not know what other steps we can take. We could ask the airport authorities to make announcements on the public-address system to rectify the matter. However, I got the impression that people were not careful enough in looking at their luggage tickets and that they were therefore queueing up at the wrong conveyor belt. After the landing of the aircraft, “A” and “B” containers are alternately taken from the aircraft onto the conveyor belts so as to ensure a simultaneous feeding of the conveyor belts all the time. That normally brings about a reasonable free-flow of baggage through the conveyor belt system. But being human beings, as we all are, people go and meet friends or make telephone calls. They even go and have a cup of tea. In the meantime, their baggage keeps on circulating on the conveyor belt. It clogs up the system. There is nobody there to take it off. I particularly watched out for this yesterday I saw certain suitcases going around and around for seven or eight times. If people are not punctual in this regard, they will merely add to the confusion which I think is not the mistake of the airport authority in the first place.

The hon. member also referred to the possible sinking of the road at the extension of the main runway at the D.F. Malan Airport. He referred to a very low run-in. Sir, I cannot understand how this could happen. There are two systems by which an aircraft approaches the D.F. Malan Airport. In daylight use is made of the so-called VASI (visual approach slope indicator) system, which is a very positive and useful system, where the pilot has a visual indication of the slope at which he is approaching the runway. This slope, obviously, is well above all the saftey limits there. It is well above the road and should not create any problems whatsoever During bad weather or at night a glide slope indicator is used, where the pilot couples the instrumentation of his aircraft to the glide slope. He then glides in at a very safe slope, well above the road. Over and above that, Sir, there is runway lighting giving a very positive indication of the direction of the runway and the approach attitude of the aircraft, and then, of course, there is Calvert lighting at the runway, which also guides in the pilot. I do not know whether they had that type of thing when the hon. member for North Rand did flying in the olden days.

At that time we flew without many of the modern navigational aids.

Yes, they flew by the seat of their pants. That was the most useful instrument in those days. There is a Calvert system at the end of the runway which also gives the pilot a very positive indication of the attitude of the aircraft towards the runway. I cannot possibly understand how they can have a low run-in which would be a danger either to road traffic or to the aircraft itself I cannot understand how such a situation could arise at all, because if a pilot flies according to the normal rules, he is well clear of the road; his eyes should be focused, way ahead of the road, on to the runway or the lighting system, and he should not have any problem at all.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Does he think it is a satisfactory situation for a national road of this magnitude virtually to cross the runway? The hon. the Deputy Minister knows what his department has done on the southern side. They have actually cleared the bush towards the cement works there; and then you come up against this bridge and the light above the bridge. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister consider it satisfactory that a national road should cross a runway in this fashion?

The clearing of the road on the southern side of the runway was done so that additional lighting could be provided there, and there is also a beacon at the end there. It is perhaps not the best of things, but I can assure this Committee that it entails no danger either to the road traffic or to the air traffic. It may be a slight nuisance to a pilot who is on the glide slope and at dusk perhaps when the light is failing, or under bad weather conditions.

You have the lights of motor-cars.

Yes, that is true. It may be a nuisance, but it entails no danger whatsoever because there is sufficient positive lighting to avoid the possibility of a pilot’s attention being distracted to such an extent that it entails any danger whatsoever. That is my approach to this matter. Of course, it is not desirable to have a road too close to the end of a runway; I grant the hon. member that. But in this particular case I am not convinced that it entails any danger whatsoever

*The hon. member referred to taxi apartheid here in Cape Town. I should like to tell him what the position is. As far back as 1949 it was decided to limit new applicants solely to members of one race serving their own people. What happened in practice then is that a number of non-White taxi owners here in the Cape applied to be allowed to continue with their work, and because it was felt that they should not be treated unfairly, quite a number of them were allowed' to continue transporting White passengers. That position continued for a considerable time. Assistance has been given to them from time to time. I just want to tell the hon. member that today any taxi company or taxi owner is still free to go to the local road transportation board and to apply for exemption. There are no restrictions on their access to the local transportation boards. They are still free to do so today. But the principle was accepted in 1949 that people should serve their own races as far as taxi driving is concerned. However, concessions were made, and that will still continue for a time.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort broached a very important matter which I should like to refer to. In the first place I want to thank him for the appreciation he expressed for the magnificent work done by the Steyn Committee. It was work of tremendous scope, and a great deal of research was done. A great many hours were spent on that. I am grateful for the appreciation from the hon. member for that committee and its work. But we are saddled with a tremendous problem, and hon members will already have gathered from the Press how this problem is still increasing and growing larger. One can hardly pick up a newspaper without reading of a fatal accident that has taken place somewhere in our country. The trend is increasing at a frightening rate. In fact, to round off the figures, 1 000 more people are killed on our roads annually. Every year 1 000 more people are killed on our roads. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Koedoespoort has broached this very vital matter. In that connection I just want to refer to the National Road Safety Council which was called into being as a result of the recommendations of that committee which the hon. member mentioned. It is a council that only came into being last year, but it is a council that is giving its full attention to this problem. I just want to give the Committee an indication of some of the projects the National Road Safety Council is at present engaged in.

Under the heading “Public Relations and Publicity” they are engaged on a pedestrian project which will be receiving attention in the course of the year. They are bringing out a new series of publications They are engaged in safe-driving schemes. There is now an inter-city road safety competition for the State President’s floating trophy. As far as road safety education is concerned, they have now commenced with a scheme of pre-school road safety tuition, and then there is, of course, tuition at school, which the hon. member knows about. Only recently a scheme was announced in which I personally have a great deal of confidence and which I believe will furnish great results, i.e. an attempt to involve the Defence Force in road safety. A scheme is being launched whereby national servicemen will receive lectures on road safety by their instructors during the year in which they join up. But over and above that they can take part in an oratory competition at commando level which would then eventually be rounded off at national level. We hope this will create enough interest amongst national servicemen for their very zealous participation in this scheme. I think it is an important breakthrough which the National Road Safety Council made when it decided to involve the national servicemen. Here we have a lot of young people, all at the stage just prior to receiving their drivers’ licences, or at a stage when they have become old enough to obtain a driver’s licence. They are people who are usually at a stage where they begin to look forward to buying their first cars, but they are also young people receptive to tuition and guidance These young people are now being given the benefit of lectures and actual instruction in road safety. I think we shall see the results of that in the near future. I personally expect very favourable results in respect of this scheme.

There are, of course, legal-technical aspects which the National Road Safety Council is giving its attention to. One of those, which has received the most publicity, is the question of the permissible percentage of alcohol in the blood. Up to now it has been 0,15%, and I hope it will shortly be 0,08%, i.e. 800 milligrams of alcohol per litre of blood.

I should like to emphasize something here that is frequently overlooked. This whole matter of alcohol in the blood is not going to be taken out of the hands of the magistrates, and nothing is being placed in the way of the discretion of magistrates in that connection. As the position is at present, so it will remain in the future. Magistrates will, therefore, still have full discretion in deciding how they will handle these cases.

But the magistrate must find him guilty.

Yes, without the slightest doubt the magistrate must find him guilty. This whole matter still remains subject to the discretion of the examining magistrate.

But there is no discretion.

Let me explain. As a magistrate at present tries someone who has alcohol in his blood in the region of 0,15%, so will the position remain exactly the same in respect of a lower percentage. Therefore, nothing is going to be changed as regards the nature of the evidence or of the trial. It will still remain subject to the discretion of the magistrate.

The National Road Safety Council is giving attention to the utility of making the wearing of safety-belts compulsory. At present we have the strange position of the installation of safety-belts in a vehicle being compulsory, but not their use. If that position were to continue, and it should scientifically be decided that it should continue, I would be in favour of our just as well not having any safety-belts in motor vehicles, because it is senseless to compel someone to have an apparatus installed in his vehicle, and to incur costs in that connection, but one does not compel him to make use of it. This whole matter is at present being approached from a scientific point of view, and we shall learn more about that shortly.

Of great importance are the traffic police force and the implementation of road safety laws. This hon. House, provincial councils and local authorities can make just as many laws, ordinances and regulations as they want to, but if the regulations are not implemented it does not help at all and is useless. Therefore I regard it as being of the utmost importance that the implementation of laws should receive more and more attention. In the course of the year, by means of the National Road Safety Council, we shall make an increasingly greater appeal to the provincial authorities entrusted with this matter to extend their traffic police forces, to increase their efficiency and to make the implementation of the law stricter. I think that is extremely important, and I should like to give the assurance that the National Road Safety Council regards this matter at present as being of very high priority.

Another matter receiving attention is that of a central register of drivers’ licences. At present it is technically possible, although it is illegal, to have a licence revoked in one province and to have a new one issued in another province. There is not sufficient control at all. There are no methods according to which a driver’s record can be placed before a magistrate when he is being tried. I do not want to elaborate on this too much now, but such shortcomings do in fact exist. The National Road Safety Council is convinced, however, that a national register of motor vehicle drivers’ licences has become absolutely imperative, and at present they are engaged in investigating the matter.

Safety standards of motor vehicles are receiving attention. An investigation is also being made into the usefulness or otherwise of reflecting number plates. Hon. members are aware that reflecting number plates are already compulsory in our neighbouring state, Rhodesia. We are at present considering this aspect as far as South Africa is concerned. The National Road Safety Council is also investigating the wearing of crash-helmets, the benefits, etc., that could derive from that.

I think I have replied to the points which the hon. members have thus far put forward.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise certain aspects of the national roads programme for the eventual freeway which will span from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth. During recent weeks there has been considerable publicity indicating that at the moment in specific areas there are three proposed alternate routes, namely the existing route and then one or two additional proposals for certain stretches. I want to say that I appreciate that in a freeway of this nature —and ultimately South Africa will have some of the finest freeways in the world— various aspects must be taken into account. They are topographical aspects, engineering, defence, commercial and tourist aspects. It so happens that this particular freeway route spans some of our most beautiful countryside. It also spans some of our most agriculturally and commercially rich countryside.

I want to refer particularly to the route where the freeway will span the Elgin apple orchard area. As is known our Elgin apple orchards are located on land which is ideally suited for apple production. It so happens that the income from the sale of apples overseas and apple juices is of a considerable order. I would like to make a plea that in selecting the best possible route consideration should be given not only to the engineering aspect, but also to the economic aspect. It is a well-known fact that in California where the freeways traverse the main pear orchards of the American pear industry, the avenues of trees lining the freeways on either side to a depth of seven rows are completely destroyed by the lead content of the exhaust fumes of the traffic carried by those freeways. It is a source of major concern to the apple farmers in that area that in the first instance some of their finest apple productive land will be taken away where alternate routes may well exist at little additional inconvenience to the State, and that the actual production of apples may suffer to the same extent as indicated.

Then I pass on to the route which covers the area George/Plettenberg Bay/Storms River. Considerable publicity has been given during recent weeks to this route and I commend the fact that at last after many years, owners of land alongside that route, whether it be agricultural or forestry land, are at least now for the first time given an indication as to where the ultimate route will go. Hon. members can well imagine that the indecision and uncertainty must cause considerable worry to persons who have vested interests in this area. It so happens that in this case the proposed route again goes through some magnificent agricultural land, some of our finest indigenous timber land and also some of our best commercial timber land. This route also happens to be one of the finest scenic routes in this country. There have been conflicting opinions as to whether the consideration is one of defence, tourism or merely that of practical road-building, in determining whether the road should run alongside the coast, in the near vicinity of the sea or whether it should run through the timber country or whether it should be taken behind the mountains which will probably be a straighter and less costly route which might detract from one or other of the merits which I have just been discussing.

It is apparent that where it runs through the timber country one has a major problem. In most instances it is one of the most productive timber areas we have in this part of the country, and with our economy crying out for more and more timber, it would appear most regrettable that one or two of these three alternate routes is really making inroads into that country which cannot be replaced as timber country. I would also like to refer to specific cases where of the three routes, one route will go through an historic homestead and a century-old oak grove, whereas the existing route by-passes the estate at the moment—I refer to the largest timber estate in the Plettenberg Bay area, along the route Lottering to Ladywood. Here there are three possible routes. There is the existing route which has been there for years and which is capable of being widened to the required standard to make it a freeway. As I have said, of the two alternate proposed routes one will go through a homestead which should be an historical monument. It will also go through oak groves of century-old oaks. The second alternate route goes through a watershed area and transgresses a large hydro-electric scheme, which means that the scheme will be nullified, whereas the present existing route will be suitable.

I merely make the plea that in such instances the consulting engineers, in discussions with the National Roads Board, should not take into account only the engineering aspects, thereby displaying a straight-line mentality, but that they should have regard for the ecological effect the road will have in certain cases when it goes through the Tzitzikamma area for instance, and for the effect it will have on industry when it goes through our agricultural or our forest areas. I know that in the final analysis it is necessary that the National Roads Board should be frank with the vested interests concerned, that they should make their plans known and available and that, having received objections of a specific nature, they should have an open mind and should appeal to the engineers and their structural advisers to take all these factors into account to enable us to maintain this almost perfect area of South Africa as a tourist amenity, having due regard to the Defence requirements and the engineering problems involved.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Gardens must not think I am being unfriendly in not reacting to what he has said. Unfortunately the space of ten minutes is very short, and I accept the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply in detail to the matter he raised.

I am actually standing up to broach a matter here which I also had the privilege of broaching a few years ago. I want to say at once that I am in no way apologizing for the fact that I am raising this matter which is of real importance to the city of Welkom, the Northern Free State as a whole and, together with that, the Western Transvaal. I gained the impression that the former Deputy Minister of Transport was very well disposed to this matter. Unfortunately he was sent to New Orleans before he could give a decisive answer to my request. But I have the utmost confidence in this hon. Deputy Minister because I know he is a person who has an expert knowledge of airports, aircraft and concomitant problems. I know that if I put my case to him it will make an impression on him and I know he will realize that it is a matter with very strong and deeplying merit. Today, on this occasion, I want to repeat my plea to the hon. the Minister in a very friendly though serious and definite manner, that he give serious attention to having the airport at Welkom taken over by the Department of Transport and declare it a national airport or, otherwise, placing it on the scheduled route of the South African Airways. To motivate my case, it is important for me to bring a few aspects to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention. I immediately want to emphasize that merely on account of the fact that I am again raising this matter, indicates that this matter is of real importance to us in that area and also as far as the whole of the Northern Free State is concerned.

Up to now an amount of about R500 000 has been spent on the airport by the Welkom city council. At present Welkom’s airport has two runways of about 5 000 ft. The one has a 60 ft. wide strip of tarmac for its entire length. For the construction of this strip of tarmac—and this is important—a base was provided that makes it suitable for the wheel axles of aircraft up to the size of a Boeing. As far as the control tower is concerned, I may just mention to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is regarded by experts as being comparable with the best we have in South Africa. At present that control tower is already being manned by officials of the Department of Transport. This tower is excellent for present use, and has been planned with a view to future development. As far as the terminal building is concerned, I can state that it is a well-balanced building in which all the necessary facilities have been provided.

In this connection I can call the hon. the Prime Minister to witness, because he landed at that airport a month or so ago to address an important meeting in Kroonstad. I also want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that its planning was such that it will be very easy in future, with expansion to the airport, to add additional sections to the existing building. It is an acknowledged fact that the travelling public in South Africa is making increasing use of air transport today. It therefore goes without saying that in that part of the Orange Free State, i.e. the Free State goldfields and the related Northern Free State and, as I mentioned at the beginning, certain portions of the Western Transvaal as well, increasing use of air transport is also being made.

A few weeks ago I approached three travel agencies, which are situated in Welkom, to ascertain to what extent air transport is being made use of in that region. I found that during the year 1971-’72 no less than 2 224 air tickets were sold to travellers using the South African Airways from Jan Smuts airport and J. B. M. Hertzog airport in Bloemfontein. If one considers that those 2 224 tickets were naturally tickets which were to a large extent bought by inhabitants of Welkom alone, it is acceptable and understandable that if one also includes the larger and wider areas of Welkom that number of tickets would be considerably more. Neither does this include the large number of passengers who make use of charter aircraft on those airports.

I therefore believe that the service furnished by Welkom’s airport has already reached national proportions. It can no longer be regarded merely as a local service that has to be furnished by the local authority. I think the time has come for airports in South Africa to be graded and that airports that qualify according to such a grading should be taken over by the Department of Transport as national airports. Also—and this is important as far as I am concerned—it will be in the national interest for airports to comply with particular standards to be owned and controlled by the Central Government in the same way as the Railways and our network of national and special roads are the responsibility of the Central Government. In times of emergency or war it is essential for all important and strategic centres to have well-developed airports. Local communities cannot be expected to provide national services from their limited local resources.

Geographic and climatic conditions make Welkom extremely suitable, apart from use as a national airport, to serve also as an airport that can be used for the training of military and civil aviation pilots. If Welkom were therefore to be declared a national and scheduled airport, there are many people in that area, as well as others, who will make use of that airport. Time does not permit, but in this connection I could quote what was said by the hon. member for Stilfontein a few years ago when I also broached this matter here. He then delivered a fervent plea for the matter I presented here, seen in the light of the fact that a large number of people from that part of the Transvaal would also make use of that airport.

When one discusses the Welkom airport, one must see the matter, not against the background of a single city or body, but against the background of the economic progress of an important part of the Orange Free State. It is a pleasure for me to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that if this matter, which I have presented, were to receive his favourable consideration, the Welkom City Council would be prepared to hand over to the Department of Transport, just like that, the R500 000 they have already spent, with the stipulation that the conditions I mentioned at the beginning of my speech be accepted by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I also want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I realize that a counter-argument can be advanced in the light of the fact that Welkom is situated very close to the Jan Smuts airport at Johannesburg. I am quite prepared to concede that; it is true, but I want to suggest that if this matter were favourably considered, thought could be given to whether an aircraft on the way to Cape Town from Jan Smuts could not initially land at Welkom and then skip Bloemfontein, and the other way round, could land at Welkom and not Bloemfontein when coming from Cape Town. I want to state very clearly that I do not want to take away anything from my good friends in the capital of the Orange Free State, but I think this is a service that could be introduced. I have only a minute or two left, and in conclusion I once again want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is an important matter, particularly in the light of the fact that that is a large area, in the light of the fact that many of those people must travel many miles to get to an airport. In view of all the circumstances I have mentioned, I believe that the merits of this case are very well-founded. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that if ever he wants to make a name for himself, if ever, in that region of the Orange Free State, the goldfields …

And the Western Transvaal!

… and the Western Transvaal, as my good friend here says, he wants to be recorded in the annals of history as being an outstanding Deputy Minister of Transport, he must very favourably consider this fervent plea of mine— if I may put it that way. We would esteem him for this for ever.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Welkom must excuse me if I do not react to his speech. He dealt with his own local affairs, and I want to confine myself to one of my own local problems, too.

†I want to speak about the instrument landing system at Ben Schoeman airport, East London. I do not think anybody will disagree with me when I say that there is no airport in the Republic of South Africa which has more inclement, inconsistent and treacherous weather than the one at East London. It occurs virtually every week during the rainy season during the summer months. It is for this reason that the late Mr. Colin Bennett, who at that time represented Albany in this House, mentioned this instrument-landing system as far back as five years ago, and even earlier. I want to quote from Hansard what he had to say on 12th June, 1968 (Hansard, col. 7106). He said:

He said that in 1968. That is almost five years ago. Only recently, on 20th March, I asked the hon. the Minister this question:

The hon. the Deputy Minister replied:

We have—and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister knows it—one system which covers aircraft landing at this airport when a westerly wind is blowing but we do not have a system for easterly winds at all. The East London Chamber of Commerce has made representations to the Department of Transport from time to time, pointing out the urgency of the matter. I am very disappointed that even today we still do not have a landing system which can assist the aircraft when an easterly wind is blowing. We all know that when an easterly wind is blowing, it usually affects which I believe is the shortest runway we have at any airport, where aircraft have to land without any instrument system. It is a common occurrence that aircraft have to overfly East London because of bad, unfavourable weather. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will consider this matter. It is of great urgency, and I have been approached by the Chambers of Commerce and many business people who are faced with this problem at East London. It is not merely something I have sucked out of my thumb. I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister, we are very worried and unhappy about it.

Another I want to raise is the question of seating accommodation in the reception halls at the D.F. Malan and Jan Smuts airports. This is a small matter, but we find that there are many backless seats in the large reception rooms. I have been approached by people from Johannesburg who want to know whether something cannot be done in this regard.

I want to return now to the question of national roads and road safety. As you know, Sir, a road safety levy of 50 cents per annum is payable on every vehicle. The full 50 cents is payable whether the vehicle is purchased in December or in June of the same year. In the case of third party insurance, if a vehicle is purchased in December, then only one-twelfth of the annual insurance premium is payable, but in the case of the road safety levy the full 50 cents is payable on a vehicle purchased in December, although the owner will only use that vehicle for one month before he has to pay another 50 cents for the following year in January. I want to know what the reason for this is? I feel that this should be adjusted.

Sir, when I look at the estimates of expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Account, I notice on page 24 under “J” that an amount of R120 000 was voted for the Road Safety Council for 1972-’73, but no provision is being made for this year at all. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister would explain to me what the reason for this is?

Sir, reading the newspapers, one is alarmed to see, in almost every newspaper one opens today, the high toll of road deaths. Only this morning in the local newspaper we read—

When one turns to another newspaper, from the Border, one reads—

This was also over a weekend. Sir, I accept that our Provincial Traffic Police are doing a good job of work, not only in trying to keep death off the roads, but in assisting many people who happen to be stranded on the road with vehicle problems. We realize, too, that the Provincial Traffic Police are understaffed, and for this reason I know for a fact that many of them have to work overtime. I believe, Sir, that we as South Africans will have to get our priorities right in this regard. Our priorities do not seem to be right at all. When one comes to the cities, one finds many meter maids, and traffic officers, walking up and down the streets looking for parking infringements. Well, Sir, this is fair enough; I am not complaining so much about this, but when I think of what our few Provincial Traffic Police are doing on our main national roads, then it seems to me that our priorities are all wrong. I realize that meter maids and traffic officers in our cities fall under the municipalities, but if our municipalities can keep an eye on people for parking infringements, then I think it is time we spent more time and money on the prevention of accidents on our national roads.

More time on moving traffic than on stationary traffic.

The hon. member for Rosettenville rightly mentions that more time should be spent on moving traffic than on stationary traffic. While on this subject, there is a strip of national road which has caused quite a few deaths recently. This is the road between Cathcart and Queenstown in the Border area. This road is a real hazard and a danger to the travelling public today. It has a very bad surface. It is of course a tarmac surface but there are so many potholes that vehicles become very unstable when travelling along this road. Vehicles go into dry skids and we have had quite a number of deaths due mainly, I believe and the public believes, to the bad surface of this road. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for East London North will excuse me if I do not follow him up. I just want to say with regard to urban traffic arrangements that I partly agree with him. However, I want to react to what was said by the hon. member for Welkom. The hon. member for Welkom made out a very good case for an airport and air service at Welkom, but unfortunately he spoiled his whole argument in the end by dragging Bloemfontein in. I know that the Chambers of Commerce as well as the Afrikaanse Sakekamer have made representations for more services at Bloemfontein, but now the hon. member advocates the necessity of fewer services for Bloemfontein. On that basis I can give him the assurance, with the confidence he has in the hon the Deputy Minister, that his representations will not succeed.

I should like to exchange a few thoughts in connection with national roads. I think we will all agree that the national traffic requirements of South Africa have greatly increased over the past years, and that in future they will increase even more. There are, of course, two reasons for this increase. Firstly there is the increase in the volume of traffic, and secondly there is the economic development which is taking place in South Africa. Roads are of course a very important component of the infrastructure of our country. That is why a fresh approach to the construction of national roads in South Africa has become necessary. That is why it has also become necessary for us to think big when we are planning a road network in our country. That is the task of this department, as well as the task, more specifically, of the N.T.C., to carry out these tasks entrusted to it by Act 54 of 1971. I think we may be very grateful for the work that has been done so far by the N.T.C. After the matter had been studied very extensively, arterial roads were planned throughout the country. These arterial roads, which will serve as freeways, form the artery of the roads network throughout our country. The first arterial road is undoubtedly the road from Cape Town eastwards along the coast via Port Elizabeth through the Transkei and Natal to the border of Moçambique. We know what tremendous development is taking place in this particular area and we know, too, how the traffic, as a result also of other circumstances, has increased, and will increase in this area. A second arterial road that is being planned is the road from Cape Town along the West Coast up to the border of South-West Africa, more or less as far as Vioolsdrif. We also know what tremendous development will soon be taking place along the West Coast in the area for which the hon. member for Moorreesburg made such fervent pleas. I merely want to mention these roads to indicate that the N.T.C.’s view was very correct in determining these routes and the planning that will be taking place. A very important route that is being planned, is the route from Cape Town via Colesberg through the Free State, Johannesburg and Pretoria to Beit Bridge. That, then, is the third route. The fourth route is the road from Johannesburg eastward through Natal to Durban. The fifth route is the road from Pretoria through the Lowveld to the border of Moçambique. These are more or less the major areas where development is taking place and where these freeways will form the arterial roads with which the entire network throughout the country will be linked up.

I think that we should be very grateful to this department and the N.T.C. for this early planning they have done. It goes without saying that it is gigantic planning that is being held out in prospect, planning which will take many years and cost a great deal of money to be carried out. When a country is developing as South Africa is developing, it is necessary for this money to be spent on the roads network.

I understand that for the next 10 years more or less R1 500 million is planned to be spent on this road's network. It goes without saying that these freeways have to be of a very high quality to be able to carry the volume of traffic and also to meet the safety requirements for our roads. That is why safety will have to be built into these roads We hope that it will make a great contribution to the diminishing of the accident rate on our roads.

Not only has this network been planned; a start has already been made to carry out that planning. I believe that 787 kilometres of these roads have so far been completed. It goes without saying that certain stretches that are the most necessary will be built first.

Under Act 54 of 1971 stretches of the old national roads which have been deproclaimed will revert to the provinces. This, of course, is in agreement with the Borckenhagen Report. I want to stress tonight, however, that the fact that these roads are being deproclaimed and returned to the provinces will in no way detract from the importance of these roads, because these roads still form the network of our entire roads complex throughout the country. What is important, however, is that these roads will be maintained. I am concerned about the possibility that the provinces may not be in a position to spend the necessary money on the maintenance and reconstruction of certain roads where necessary. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport to plead with the Treasury for sufficient funds to be made available to the provinces so that these roads may be maintained. So far 8 490 kilometres of old national roads have been deproclaimed and returned to the provinces. These roads are old, and will need major maintenance costs for them to be restored to a safe condition But because the traffic on these roads will diminish, they will still after reconstruction be able to give many years of service to South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think we will all agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein East that not only are roads terribly important to the economy of the country but that we have reached the situation in South Africa today where the provinces and the local authorities are unable to carry the burden of their own road building. They require a great deal of Government assistance. For many years we have been appealing to the Government to provide that assistance.

I want to come back to the Jan Smuts Airport. I wish I could offer the same congratulations as my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Durban Point. Jan Smuts airport has undoubtedly a very beautiful building, but it is not the building that makes the airport. It is what you find within the building that makes the airport. It is a strange thing that when a visitor arrives from abroad he is usually a bit diffident and a little uneasy particularly when he is a stranger to the country. It is his reception at an airport which really at once creates either a good or bad impression upon him of the country he is visiting. In September and October of last year I had the privilege of touching down at some 16 airports, including two behind the Iron Curtain, namely Warsaw in Poland and Prague in Czechoslovakia. I approached these two airports with a certain amount of trepidation but it was the very sincere and very efficient welcome at both these airports that made me feel reasonably at home for the moment. I think this is lacking at Jan Smuts airport at the moment. First of all we do not appear to be using porters in the customs hall at the airport any longer. A great number of our visitors who are coming from abroad are elderly visitors and are finding problems with removing their luggage from the automatic conveyor belts. It is true that the airport is well-equipped with these luggage trolleys, but there are no porters to take the luggage off the conveyor belts. On three occasions I especially went to the Jan Smuts airport just to see what was happening, because I had the feeling that we were not providing the showcase at Jan Smuts that we should be providing. That was the first thing that struck me. I understand that there have been some problems about porters stealing luggage, overcharging passengers and one or two other problems This I believe is something which should be put right. We must not say that because this is happening we are going to withdraw the service. What you must do is to put the porter service right. I believe that Jan Smuts needs a porter service because you still get porter service in most countries of the world today. Be that as it may, not being able to get a porter you load your luggage on your luggage trolley and you approach the exit from the customs hall. As you come out, when you look in front, you see a notice which says: “To the Buses.” When you look to the left you see a notice which says: “To Internal Flights.” Whichever direction you take, either to the bus or to the internal flight, you find yourself and your trolley faced with three or four steps. I have mentioned this to the hon. the Minister and I want it on record, because unless something has been done about this over the past couple of months since I have been down here, it is something that ought to be attended to urgently. As hon. members will appreciate, the dear old ladies and the dear old gentlemen with their trolleys and three or four suitcases have to stop at the steps, try to off-load their luggage, carry the luggage up the steps, drag the trolley after them and reload again. Then they have to push their trolleys to the bus or to the national service Fortunately most South Africans are good, kind and hospitable people and they assist these visitors. However, it should not be necessary to have to negotiate the luggage trolleys up or down steps. I remember that, when I stopped over at Frankfurt airport, one of the bad features that struck me was that, when I wanted to convey my luggage to the International Locker Service by trolley— there are no porters in Frankfurt—I had to cross a road and, to do so, I had to go down a pavement which was about a foot high and had to lug the trolley up onto the pavement on the other side again. These factors create an impression on people when they arrive at an airport. I hope that immediate steps will be taken to rectify this matter. I understand that there are problems regarding structural alterations— the Post Office, apparently, is not at the right place—but at least ramps should be put in immediately so that one can easily negotiate the steps with these trollies. This must be done, or, otherwise the porter service must be reinstated immediately, which I think should be done any way.

Then there is the question of the customs hall. The customs hall as such is good. The question of the green and red lights does not interest the hon. the Deputy Minister, but what is happening there is that, as you come out of the customs hall, you are met by a mass of people, particularly when a large aeroplane arrives. Sometimes two or three aeroplanes arrive within an hour, some of them being jumbo jets. As a result you get a mass of people standing outside the customs hall and looking into it because there are only large windows between the customs hall and the public reception area. I have been told that plans have been agreed upon and will be implemented very soon to provide a barrier between the public and the customs hall. What is happening—and this is from my own observations—is that the customer …

The customer?

I have a business sense in all these things. They are in fact our customers. The visitor arrives, he is looking for his friends, he is trying to push his little trolley, he has a customs officer trying to deal with him and everything becomes one complete, unholy mess. The public must be segregated and separated also visually from the arriving visitors. This is done at every airport in the world. I know of no airport in the world where, when you arrive and go through the customs, there is a multitude of people looking on. Any altercations you may have with a customs officer is not their business. I have seen customs officers, as I am sure we all have, open a bag, empty out its contents and examine them. It does happen. It is the customs officer’s duty and job to do this. Therefore I believe it is urgent that, if we want them to perform their function properly, we must have a barrier, whether it is a wall, a partition, or whatever, between the public sector and the customs hall so that the one will be cut off from the other.

Talking about the airport and the approach to it, I mentioned to the hon. the Deputy Minister the other day that, when you come from the northern side of Johannesburg and want to go to the airport, the easiest route to take is the M1. You travel past the Edenvale hospital on your right, you then turn left in the direction of Modderfontein and then turn to the right to join M1 going south. There is no sign at all telling you that you can get onto this road or that this is the way to the airport. The hon. the Deputy Minister told me that this was a provincial matter, but it is his airport and he must look after his customers going to his airport. I hope he will see to it immediately that the proper signposts are erected so that people, travelling along that road, will know where to turn to the right to get onto M1 and on to the airport. There is a sign telling you how to get onto Ml if you are travelling north, but you do not want to travel north but south, for that is the easiest, the quickest and the safest way of getting to the airport.

The last point I wish to raise is a matter which I have raised with the hon. the Deputy Minister previously, namely the question of the catering arrangements. I asked him about the lounge and bar service of the main dining-room on the departure floor. All he could tell me at the time was that he would go into the matter. Just to recapitulate very briefly: As you so up to the departure hall, you have a cafeteria on the left-hand side where, as I have said, you can get coffee and tea. On the right-hand side there is a lounge where you can get drinks and beyond that there is a restaurant. The restaurant is very good, as is the service in the lounge where you can get a drink. However, as I have explained, you cannot get a drink and coffee or tea at the same place, unless it has been changed. Furthermore, the seating accommodation at the tables is very bad. I believe that, on this floor too, there should be some place where you can be served with tea or coffee. Today you only have as far as I know on the departure floor a small cafeteria on the left-hand side facing it. These are important things, because the comfort of your passenger is a very important thing today. You can travel anywhere in the world today and visit any of the great airports and you will find that each time you go back to one of these airports there is an improvement. They are constantly improving the facilities at the airports of the world. Tourism is the greatest export commodity that exists in the modem economy and we in South Africa, despite some differences of opinion and despite some problems regarding tourists, want the maximum number of tourists we can get. The best advertising, despite the work that is being done by Satour, the Railways and other agencies, is a person whose first impression is a good impression, because this relaxes your visitor, makes him happy and he starts off on the right foot. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to tell me that attention is given to these matters.

Mr. Chairman, personally I find it a great pleasure to refer to the speeches by the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Humansdorp in connection with the promotion of local civil airports. While expressing my appreciation, I just want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he would not perhaps positively influence the supporters of his party in my constituency since I recently had the experience that they played the role of demonstrators there and lay in front of a big bull-dozer. I must say that I was placed in a rather difficult position, because if they had not been such pretty girls I would perhaps have decided to close my eyes. However, in the end I decided to keep my eyes open. In any event, this is already a fait accompli, but I still think that the agitation which preceded the realization of the ideal —and coming from the United Party supporters in the constituency—was quite uncalled for and unnecessary.

The second matter I would like to touch on is a very delicate one and concerns the licensing of Bantu buses for the transport of Bantu from outside the municipal areas to the municipal areas. This is a matter with which I have been concerned for the past few years without having achieved any reasonable degree of success. Nevertheless I would like to refer this to the hon. the Minister with a view to a possible inquiry to see to what extent the policy of the National Transport Commission might not be adapted to the higher loyalties of orderly development, the Group Areas Act and labour control. In practice all these are being circumvented at present in a manner which I shall now indicate. These buses transport labour, and now I am not referring to transport within municipal areas, but in areas outside the municipal boundaries. This affects a policy the logic of which I am quite unable to understand, and I think that this is a very limited viewpoint. If one can transport non-Whites to Pretoria for a distance of 20 miles westwards of the Pretoria municipal boundary, and from the Randburg boundary to the north-west for a distance of 10 miles, I ask the question: Why can this not be done from Rustenburg to Pretoria, and from Brits to Randburg, and from Carletonville, Ventersburg and Lichtenburg to Krugersdorp? This therefore affects the same principle and the same policy and this can only lead to one thing, namely chaos, absolute chaos. I had the experience that in his time the late Dr. Verwoerd deproclaimed, at my request, three farms at Krugersdorp which indulged in the recruitment of labour through Krugersdorp, for this very reason of eliminating the confusion and unorderly development. At present this transport is circumventing the regulations. And this is quite apart from considerations of health, because there are no facilities at bus stops and these people must of course satisfy their natural urges just there. This may lead to road accidents, because sometimes this is done in such an indecent manner as to cause one to turn one’s face. Virtually every three miles, 10, 12 and 15 of them are standing in a group so as to travel from areas outside the municipal areas into the municipal areas to go and work there. This also gives rise to circumvention of other aspects, namely people spending the night illegally in urban areas, i.e. overnight vagrants. Sir, this is not being exaggerated. I have received written requests from schools, churches and the Police requesting me please to step in and help them, since the position is becoming untenable. The Police cannot handle the situation every afternoon when 200 Bantu are offloaded by buses in their area. They have plenty of other work to do. The schools complain that social conditions are deteriorating. Church-sites, too, are polluted by nearby bus stops. This is a totally uncontrolled situation. The municipalities are unable to do anything. They are unable to supply facilities outside their areas of jurisdiction, quite apart from the damage caused to harvests and telephone lines and insulators. This complaint is not limited to my constituency alone; it affects the whole of the Rand complex. Personally I am fully convinced that there is no practical need for such a service, because it is in conflict with the provisions of the Group Areas Act and the laws relating to influx control and labour control. The services supplied there, are supplied by the farmers themselves. If they want to take their servants to the city either to see a doctor or to go shopping, they do this themselves with great pleasure. Otherwise there is no major practical need for such a service—and this I want to emphasize—outside the municipal boundaries. There is no requirement I can think of to justify that service, apart from the remuneration received by the carriers in that respect. However, this causes great confusion and impedes orderly development there, because squatting takes place and superfluous Bantu congregate. We have the unofficial establishment of locations and residential areas. If one drives into the city in the morning, one gets the impression that it is a homeland, with the groups of Bantu standing along the road. 10, 12 or six every two or three miles, waiting for the buses. And this takes place to the great alarm and dissatisfaction of the community for the reasons I have mentioned. If we allow squatting and the resultant increase in population to develop in an unrestricted way, and later wake up and realize that we must provide housing for these people, where do we go with them? There is no control whatsoever. All the control measures which exist, are being circumvented by this service. I repeat, I cannot be convinced that a necessity exists for this service outside the boundaries of local authorities. I say with great respect that it gainsays the policy of the National Transport Commission to go 10 miles outside the municipal boundary to bring in Bantu. Remember, this is not a prescribed area for the recruitment of labour. Every town area has its prescribed labour area where it may undertake recruiting, and these are not prescribed areas for the Rand towns. This gainsays their own policy. Then they might just as well allow this same thing to happen at Ventersdorp, Lichtenburg, Standerton and Mafeking; because after all, this is already happening up to 10, 12 miles outside the municipal boundaries, and this is in fact illegal. I want to make a serious plea here and address a friendly request to the Deputy Minister—I am not on the war path—please to consider whether a way cannot be found better to reconcile the existing policy of the National Transport Commission, and higher loyalties towards Government policy and orderly development in the urban areas.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens put certain questions to me in regard to the proposed route of the national road from Cape Town to Durban. Since we had met here in the Cape, I went to the trouble of obtaining an aircraft and inviting my colleagues, whose constituencies are concerned with this matter, to join me on a trip in order to take a closer look at the position. In addition, I invited the chairman of the National Transport Commission and the members of the Commission as well as the chief engineer of my department to join us on the trip, and we went to have a look at the position there. I have great sympathy with the owners of the apple orchards at Elgin, which falls in the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for Caledon. The hon. member for Caledon and one of his people who is concerned with this matter, accompanied me there. They indicated to us quite clearly the situation which prevailed there. I can assure the hon. member for Gardens that it is the policy of the National Transport Commission to have as much consultation as possible with everyone involved in this matter. This is what will happen in this case too. I should like to assure him that nothing is going to be done over-hastily in this regard.

Sir, perhaps I should deal in greater detail with this route for the sake of clarity. For record purposes it may be a good thing that we should state quite clearly what the position is. As the hon. member knows, the route from Cape Town to the Strand has been completed and opened to traffic. After consultations were held with the Cape Provincial Administration it was decided to abandon the so-called coastal route, which was to have skirted the mountain at Gordons Bay, passed the mouth of the Steenbras River and proceeded past Kogelberg. We flew over that part of the world the other day. I am not an engineer, but as a layman it was quite clear to me that this would be an impossibly expensive road if it were at all practical to build it. There are certain major engineering problems one will have to face, particularly at the mouth of the lagoon below Bot River. To my mind, the National Transport Commission very wisely decided to abandon that route. What is left now, is the other route over Sir Lowry’s Pass. The termination of the route from the Strand over Sir Lowry’s Pass/Grabouw/Bot River is now being considered and then the apple orchards at Elgin will come into the picture. The hon. member for Caledon pointed out to me that the irrigation problem in particular is very serious there. These people have laid on a network of pipelines to their orchards. As was said quite rightly by the hon. member, this is expensive land with a high production potential, and I should like to give him the assurance that the National Transport Commission is very well aware of this situation and will do nothing there which will be to the disadvantage of the people involved. Two alternatives are being considered. One alternative is to build the road around the mountain on the seaward side, i.e. south of the apple orchards. The terrain there will be somewhat difficult to negotiate; there is a private dam there—Henderson’s Dam—and one alternative is for the road to go around the dam. The other possibility which is being investigated is to follow more or less the existing route, but there are also quite a number of plantations in the area belonging to the Department of Forestry, and so forth. From the nature of the case these are not as valuable as the apple orchards, but it is also highly undesirable to build a national freeway of the proposed standard, parallel with or next to the existing road, because this existing road will have to serve as the access road for people who have to join the freeway later. I want to assure the hon. member that this problem will be considered sympathetically.

Sir, between Bot River and Mossel Bay various alternative routes are being surveyed in order to ascertain the best route; this is now being done between Bot River and Bredasdorp, past Puntjie, De Hoop Vlei and Stilbaai, and so forth. The reason why different routes are being surveyed— in some cases two and in others three— is to give the National Transport Commission the opportunity of discussing this matter with local bodies, such as farmers’ associations, agricultural unions, or industrialists in the area. Alternative proposals will then be submitted. All those alternative proposals will then be investigated, from an engineering as well as other points of view. The planning of the route between Mossel Bay and George has been completed, except at Great Brak itself. Work is now being carried out between Mossel Bay and Great Brak. The consulting engineers are at present investigating the alternative routes between George and Knysna, and they are planning the national road between Knysna and Plettenberg Bay at the moment. In the area referred to by the hon. member, consulting engineers are busy with the planning of the section between Plettenberg Bay and Lottering, including the three major bridges in that area across the Groot, Bloukrans and Bobbejaan Rivers. They are planning and investigating those three bridges in that area. Work is being carried out between Witelsbos and Humansdorp, and the consulting engineers are at present planning the national road between Humansdorp and the Gamtoos River. Between the Gamtoos River and Nocton Farm the national road is being built departmentally, except the Gamtoos River bridge, which will be built on contract. From Nocton Farm via Port Elizabeth to Colchester the road has, of course, been completed and opened to traffic. I think this covers all the matters raised by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Welkom made a plea for an airport at Welkom. I want to congratulate him as the representative of his constituency, because he made an excellent speech. It was with some nostalgia that I recalled the days when I was in a position to make such a plea for my constituency. But now I do not know. If I want an airport, I do not know whom I must go to. However, it is with regret that I have to say that I cannot react positively right now to the plea made by the hon. member, despite its being an excellent one. I think he furnished the answer himself when he said that this airport is quite near to Bloemfontein and Jan Smuts. From the point of view of the State we are compelled to plan national air traffic routes. Consequently airports have to fit in with our air traffic route system You will agree with me straight away that an airport at Welkom does not fit in with that pattern in the way the plea advanced by the hon. member justifies here. I want to say to the hon. member that there are other priorities at the moment which must be given preference over Welkom. I do not mean that Welkom has been written off for all time. But the problem of Welkom is that the feeder air services, in view of the manner in which they operate their service, are responsible for their own downfall on account of their successful services. It is our experience that if a feeder service is operated somewhere and if that feeder service is very successful and handles a great volume of traffic, the people say: Look at the large number of passengers we have; why not allow the aircraft of the S.A. Airways to call at this airport? Our feeder air services are in fact prejudicing themselves simply because of their efficiency. I am afraid this is also what is happening, among other things, at Welkom now, i.e. that the feeder service to Welkom is efficient. The volume of passengers are increasing and so is the scope of the trips, and now the hon. member wants us probably to give more priority to it than we are able to. It is with regret, therefore, that I have to say to him that I cannot furnish him with a positive reply.

Is there any hope for the future?

Yes, there is always hope for the future. The matter does not warrant the priority we probably want to give to it, but there is in fact hope for the future.

He must keep that speech for another day.

The hon. member for East London North advanced a plea for an instrument landing system at East London.

†The position is that we already have an instrument landing system at East London. It has been in operation since 1968-’69, but that is on runway 28. There is an ILS system on runway 28, but if he looks at the estimates for this year he will find that an amount of R175 500 is being budgeted for a category 2 ILS system on runway 10 at East London. So his request has already been met.

The hon. member mentioned the possibility of splitting the levy of 50c pro rata over the period of a year. This would amount to 4c a month. I do not know how the administrative costs of working out 4c a month would be justified in this case. I do not think a levy of 50c per motorist per year is at all too much for the work being done by the National Road Safety Council. They are doing tremendous work. The total income of this council from this 50c levy amounts to roughly R1½ million per annum.

I do not think it is asking too much of the motorist that he should invest 50 cents per annum in his own safety and that of the other users of the road. Earlier on, in reply to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I referred to the question of road safety. I think we are all entirely agreed on this subject and I think we are all very much impressed by the seriousness of the situation as it exists at the moment. I fully grant the hon. member that you hardly open a newspaper without reading about deaths and other accidents on the roads. I think levying a payment of 50 cents per annum on motorists is not unreasonable. I do not think it will be justified to split the levy into small monthly payments of 4 cents each.

The hon. member mentioned the road from Cathcart to Queenstown. That road has been deproclaimed as a national road and this has been the position since 1971. It is now a provincial road.

*I am indebted to the hon. member for Bloemfontein East. He furnished us with a most interesting explanation of the national roads position and pattern. I have nothing to add to what he said, except to tell the hon. member as a matter of interest that the National Transport Commission has now started a ten-year plan. The total amount to be budgeted for this ten-year plan over the period of ten years will amount to R1 317 million.

†The hon. member for Parktown mentioned the question of porters at Jan Smuts. I must agree with him in one respect. I think a bad porter at an airport can create the worst possible impression of a country. I should prefer having no porter at all to having a bad one. I think we are agreed on that. I had this sort of experience at the railway station at Paris. I arrived there by train and after I had paid the taxi, I found that porterage of my luggage from the train to the taxi cost me more than my taxi fare from the station to the hotel. I can assure the hon. member that I have never since travelled by train to Paris and I never shall. That is the sort of impression that porters can create.

The problem is, first of all, that we cannot have porters within our transit area at Jan Smuts. There are, of course, porters available to carry luggage from the building itself to private motor-cars, taxis or buses. However, up until now the system of using small push-carts has been very satisfactory. I shall investigate the particular problem of steps which has been mentioned. I do not know exactly where the steps are situated, but the department will go into the problem.

As far as the division between the customs hall and the rest of the building is concerned, I may point out that our sin perhaps lies in the fact that we built too luxuriously at Jan Smuts by making use of too much glass. That matter will also be investigated.

As far as the signposting is concerned, I wonder when last the hon. member happened to drive there.

Two weeks ago.

Well, I had to drive into Jan Smuts at about noon yesterday and I found the system quite good. On the tarred surface itself they have painted small aircraft. One cannot possibly lose one’s way at the moment if one merely follows these small painted signs on the surface of the road. I concede that at times it may be a bit difficult because you have to sort of pass the entrance and then come back again on the new throughway in order to enter the airport in the vicinity of the Holiday Inn Hotel. However, the route is very clearly signposted by means of these small aircraft on the surface of the road and I did not experience any problems yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? Is the hon. the Deputy Minister referring to the approach to the airport or to the turn-off from the road to get on to N1? Is the hon. the Deputy Minister talking about the turn-off to the right on the road going from the Edenvale Hospital towards Modderfontein? Is that road now signposted?

I went both ways. I went into Johannesburg and back again to the airport and I had no difficulty. I must point out however, that this is a provincial matter as that road is beyond the boundaries of the airport and I can do nothing about it, as it is quite beyond my control. The road which is within the limits of the airport itself is clearly signposted and I am sure the hon. member will agree that there is no problem in that regard.

Yes, that is so.

In regard to the serving of liquor in the bar and diningroom, I shall ask the department to investigate the matter.

*The hon member for Randburg raised certain problems in this regard. Much of what he said deals with a matter he has to raise under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. This does not concern my department at all. This matter will receive attention and be investigated to the extent to which the local road transportation board is involved in it.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to touch on that gruesome accident that has taken place in the Karkloof Hills at Greytown. I do not want to go into detail because fortunately the hon. the Deputy Minister is a qualified pilot himself and therefore it is unnecessary to tell him things that he knows himself Pending the result of the inquiry into the accident, what has come to light is that the pilot filed an open flight plan with the air traffic control in Johannesburg. The pilot also did not request what they call overdue action and could therefore have altered his journey at any stage en route. Had he filed a detailed flight, a full-scale search would have been set afoot. Had this been done, Mrs. Delport’s life could most likely have been saved. I wonder if we can truely imagine what this 13 year old boy went through at the scene of an accident in the bush, with the pilot dead, his brother dead and his mother dying in his lap. While this is still fresh in our memory, I wonder whether we should not consider granting this young man a medal for his devotion and bravery. If there is no means of awarding him a medal from the hon. the Minister’s department, I wonder if we cannot approach the hon. the Prime Minister, who I believe can award a medal.

What I want to speak about today is road safety. The long-awaited report of the committee of inquiry into the Road Safety Council, an inquiry which has taken almost 2½ years, has at last been tabled. I notice that the chairman of the committee has become acting director and that the secretary has been appointed head of publicity—this must be mere coincidence— of the National Road Safety Council. This is the new name of the organization. I was one of the witnesses that was interviewed by the committee. My most important point was that the National Road Safety Council should be removed entirely from the political arena. This is not even mentioned in the report. Therefore I must continue to plead for this. How any political party can elect itself as a saviour in the field of road safety, is surely beyond comprehension. Should we not be allowed to pool our resources, ideas and experience in order to try and overcome this useless carnage on our roads? If your child, a youth in the prime of his life, is brought home lifeless as a result of a car accident, through which door do you expect political sympathy to enter? These matters are too deep and too tragic ever to be treated lightly. Has the time not arrived for a committee representing all parties in this hon. House to meet around a table to discuss this vital subject?

If you want to have all parties represented on that committee, it would mean that you would be making this a political matter.

No, I am not making political propaganda at all. I am very serious about the matter. As was mentioned here just now by an hon. member, over the last weekend there were 11 deaths and 80 people injured in road accidents in the Western Cape. How much longer must this continue while we are playing politics with road safety? Other than the quarterly report which is issued by the Road Safety Council, a pamphlet on road safety was, I believe, issued recently in Pretoria. It bore a most alarming title: “Stem Nat en vrek op die pad”. I do not believe for one moment that the author intended to insult the Nationalist Party; it was merely a “gimmick” to draw attention to the seriousness of the situation. I believe that he, too, advocated that road safety should be removed from the political arena. If this is only done, I and many others— even members on the other side—will feel that we are making some progress with this vital matter.

I want to read a small article which appeared in the Argus of the 8th February, 1973, under the heading “Scandal on the road”:

How serious is not the situation! Can we continue to ignore it? Do you not agree, Sir, that we are an exceedingly strange society? During 1970 the Road Safety Council organized yet another campaign for pedestrians The Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund contributed R50 000 apart from the amount the council itself contributed. With what result? The number of accidents and casualties involving pedestrians increased! This is another case of wasting the tax-payer’s money. Slogans will never decrease the accident rate. This has been tried over and over again but has been proved a dismal failure. As an example, they say that all nuts on a motor vehicle should be tight with the exception of the nut behind the wheel. That slogan raises shrieks of laughter in a bar and then another round of drinks are ordered for the road! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg who has just resumed his eat, usually makes a very positive contribution in this House. I must say, however, that as far as his introductory ideas to this speech are concerned, he is completely at sea. I can assure him that road safety is by no means approached by this side of the House from a party-political angle. Anyone with an idea like that, or who makes statements like that, simply does not know what he is talking about.

So much has been said here this afternoon about airports that I actually feel hesitant to begin this little speech of mine, but as a member who represents the Southern Cape in this Parliament, I also have my duties to perform. I should like to have a word with the hon. the Minister about the airport at George. When this has been completed, it will serve the whole of the Southern Cape. This airport has been on the drawing-board for many years and a while ago we read in the Press that things are stirring again. If we look at the transport facilities of the Southern Cape, we see that they are relatively poor and that an airport is what is really lacking in these modern times in which we are living. The reason for that is that some time ago the area around Mossel Bay, George, Knysna and Oudtshoorn in particular was declared to be one of the growth points in the country. When this happens in an area such as this which is particularly suited to light industries, one can expect a stream of businessmen coming to investigate the place, to determine whether they could establish a factory there. They are people with limited time at their disposal and are usually in a hurry. For the businessmen and for the future economic development of that region, an airport is therefore an urgent necessity. Secondly, there are the holidaymakers. The Southern Cape probably has the best beaches in the country, one could almost go as far as to say in the world. The hasty holidaymaker, coming from all over the world to enjoy a wonderful holiday there, must make use of trains which are very fully booked during holiday periods. They would make abundant use of an airport. Then, too, we have the public of that region, which lies just in the centre of the route between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, who could also make use of it. We believe that if it is completed, it may also serve as an alternate airport for Cape Town, which will be much nearer than Kimberley, at present being used as an alternate airport for Cape Town. I would therefore be greatly obliged if the hon. the Minister could tell us how far the planning has progressed, when the work will begin in all earnest and the airport completed, and when it is completed, how it will be integrated with the South African Airways.

In the few minutes remaining, I would like to say a few words about marine pollution and when I talk about marine pollution, I refer only to oil pollution. Since the department took over this division, there have been a few ships which sprang a leak along the coast and which caused grave problems. The department succeeded in pumping the oil from those leaking ships into other ships and they have done this in an exceptionally praiseworthy manner. None of the oil which could have polluted our beaches, was lost. Pollution of the sea by oil and the prevention of this, is a major and difficult task, because in the first place one requires preventative action here. If one wants to succeed in this matter, it does not help to wait until a ship is leaking or sinking and then to speed to its assistance and see what can be saved. Before the fat is in the fire, it has to be removed. In fact, it should rather be kept away from the fire altogether. Sir, it is of course true that no one can have prior knowledge of when a ship will sink, when it is going to be struck by some object, when it is going to run aground or when it is going to develop a crack or anything of that nature. But I believe that in the first place we must have an international code here to enable us to act on an international basis in this sphere. It seems to me that many of these tankers which convey oil around our coasts, are rather decrepit and that many of the owners do not care two hoots what kind of ship they have in the water, just as long as they can off-load the oil, albeit with some luck, and put the money from that consignment in their pockets. Many ships are registered in harbours which do not care two hoots what condition the ship is in, whether it is seaworthy or whether it complies with certain national requirements, as long as it can just be registered there and supply revenue to that harbour. I believe that in the first place an international code should be established, so that an oil tanker has to comply with certain specifications. If it does not, then it should not be allowed to convey oil by sea. We also believe that a system should be devised whereby the owners may be compelled, if any of these regulations are contravened and a ship begins to leak, to pay damages and make good the costs incurred by the department which has to rectify these blunders. It also happens that many ships, when they return empty and are on the open sea, are cleaned inside and in this way too, tons of oil are discharged into the sea, and it does not take long for ocean currents or the winds to cause this to drift towards our shores. Now you can realize that we, having holiday resorts on our South Coast and not having other industries with the result that the holidaymakers assure us of so much revenue, are very jealous of the beauty and cleanliness of those beaches. If it should happen that a disaster were to strike us and a few of the beaches are totally polluted by oil the holiday-makers would disappear. Once a place has a bad name, the holiday-makers do not easily return. Once a beach has been polluted by oil—sometimes it is a few feet deep—it is a tremendous task to get those beaches clean again. We believe that this is exceptionally important for our tourist industry, particularly along our South Coast, that we should apply ourselves to this task and, bearing in mind that prevention is better than cure, try to keep the oil as far from our coast as possible. If it should happen that, as a result of an accident or collision, oil does leak, the department must of course be prepared to speed to the assistance of those involved and to keep as much as possible of the oil away from the coast.

Sir, it is not only our beaches that can be harmed in this respect; I also think of our marine life. If one discusses this subject with experts, they paint a very grim picture of marine pollution which already exists as a result of oil discharged into the water. Although the sea has fantastic powers of recuperation and the ability to destroy the waste material which is discharged into it—through the salts in the water, waste material such as iron, etc., is dissolved —it is not capable of doing this in respect of oil. When oil is discharged, this forms globules which sink and pollute marine life.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.