Mr. Speaker, in regard to the business of the House, I want to inform hon. members, by your leave, that we hope to dispose of the legislation up to and including Order of the Day No. 23 in the course of this session. Order of the Day No. 23 is the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. The legislation appearing on the Order Paper subsequent to that will most probably have to stand over. Talks between the various parties are still in progress, but we hope to finish the session before the end of October. If necessary. I shall move next week that we have additional evening sittings.

Apart from the legislation up to and including Order of the Day No. 23 of which notice has been given, the pensions legislation, the Post Office Service Bill, the General Law Amendment Bill, the Defence legislation, which is being examined by a Select Committee at present, and the customary financial measures of the Minister of Finance still have to be introduced.

Today we shall follow the sequence of business as printed on the Order Paper, except that we shall, when we come to Order of the Day No. 6, give preference to Order of the Day No. 8.

Next week we shall give preference to the Water Affairs Vote and to the subsequent Votes, as well as to the legislation of the Minister concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Second Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 49—

With the passing of the Payment of Members of Parliament Act, 1974, it is no longer necessary now to effect a statutory amendment whenever an adjustment is made to the salaries of office-bearers and Members of Parliament. Nor is a statutory amendment necessary when the salaries of Ministers and Deputy Ministers are adjusted. The Bill which is now before the House serves to make salary adjustments without the need for a statutory amendment possible in the case of the State President as well. The amendment which is being effected by means of clause 1 will make it possible for the salary of the State President to be adjusted by way of resolutions here and in the Other Place.

Clause 2 amends section 15 of the Constitution Act. This is a consequential amendment which becomes necessary because pension and salary are related matters. The clause provides that the State President will in future receive 75% of his salary as pension. At present his pension is R18 000 per annum. This works out at 72% of his present salary. This percentage is being rounded off to 75%.

When this legislation appears on the Statute Book, a specific resolution dealing with the salary of the State President will be presented to this House for consideration.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, before the House adjourned, I had said that I would like to nail the lid to the coffin of the debate which took place here on the Sishen-Saldanha railway line. Immediately after that the House adjourned. The only additional comment I want to make at this stage is that various hon. members asked me about the contents of the Straszacker Report. This report is not in my hands, and by way of a reply to a question the Minister who is responsible for it, namely the Minister of Economic Affairs, said that he does not intend tabling the report. Therefore it will be understood that it would be quite unbecoming of me now to divulge the contents of that report to this House.

Was it a departmental committee?

No, it was a commission under the chairmanship of Dr. Straszacker. The hon. member for Maitland said in his speech that we would admit, in a year’s time, that they had been right, while the hon. member for Durban Point said that they had been right from the start. I am seeking the reasons why they should supposedly have been right. We submitted Estimates of Expenditure for the current financial year here. There were no problems in regard to that expenditure; no objection was made to it. In fact, additional expenditure was asked for in places. Because the necessary money was not available we proposed that certain rates adjustment take place in order to find the necessary money. In the consideration of these rates, it was stated on the opposite side that they had a solution. The hon. member for Durban Point, for example, said that they objected to the increased rates, and that he had a solution. I quote his words in this context: “If the Railway is to give uneconomic services in the national interest, then the national purse must contribute to those uneconomic services.” Surely the hon. member could not have been serious.

Schumann said that.

We need R150 million. The expected operating result for 1974-’75, for example, shows a deficit of R62 million. Does the hon. member now want to propose that this R62 million should simply be made available by the hon. the Minister of Finance from the Exchequer? Should the hon. the Minister of Finance simply contribute that money from year to year, as the Railways requires money, because there are certain uneconomic services? Surely the hon. member could not have been serious about that.

If it is in the national interests, yes.

Surely we have agreed on that, and I made it clear that the principle has already been laid down that we will in certain cases, where this is justified on the merits of the case, receive subsidies from the Exchequer. This is already being done in a few cases, and I also said that those cases could, be dealt with further on merit. Representations have to be made by the bodies that require the services. Negotiations can then take place. Such essential services which are not economic must be discussed with the Minister of Finance to see whether a measure of subsidization cannot take place to see whether those services cannot be made economic for the S.A. Railways. We agreed on that. But it is just not possible now simply to finance all uneconomic services from the Exchequer. I do not think the hon. member can expect me to take the statement which he made here seriously. Consequently we are back to where we were before. Apart from the possibility that we can perhaps consider certain cases of uneconomic services on merit, we have to rely on rates. The only matter on which we still differ, in respect of which we can conduct an argument as to which of us was right, is the effect which the rates increases are going to have on the economy of the country. My hypothesis was that it would make a difference of ½% to our cost-of-living index. Hon. members on that side of the House held other opinions on that matter. If we were now able to settle and dispose of this matter, where would we be then?

Back to square one.

Precisely.

Because you do not have a plan.

In other words, the only point on which we differed …

No, there are many points.

… and in respect of which that side alleges that they will prove to be right, will make no difference whatsoever to the ultimate results. The rates will still have to be levied.

I said you are back to square one: not us.

Yes, but that side is not completely excluded. The Railways is a national service, and the hon. member is part of this Parliament. He therefore shares these problems with us. He cannot stand aloof and say that he washes his hands of the matter.

I just want to say a few words about the socio-economic services of the Railways. It is alleged that these are historical in that we have always had them in the past. That is true, but circumstances have changed. What gave rise to the socio-economic services which the Railways rendered in the past? As those socio-economic services expanded and became more expensive and entailed greater losses for the Railways, the Railways were to an increasing extent compelled to increase the rates. That is why we have these high rates today, with which one simply cannot continue indefinitely and to which one will, at some time or another, have to call a halt, particularly in view of the changing economy. That is why we said that circumstances have changed, and that we cannot increase these already high rates further. Hon. members agree with me on that score. For that reason it is no longer the task of the Railways, and the Railways is no longer in a position, as was previously the case, to render these socio-economic services.

With regard to the burden of interest, I just want to say that it is in fact high, but I want to emphasize again that the hon. members who are concerned about this, do not really have reason to be so. As long as the interest is in proportion to the revenue, surely one does not have reason for concern. As the interest increases, as a result of the fact that greater capital expenditure is taking place, the extent of the activities of the Railways also increases and it earns an increased revenue. The hon. member may perhaps be concerned about the high burden of interest in this sense that more loans are being negotiated. Perhaps he is under the impression that as more loans are negotiated, capital expenditure from other sources is not increasing accordingly.

In the meantime depreciation also has to be taken into account. For that reason I want to reassure the hon. member that provision is continuously being made for the depreciation of our assets. This money is then paid into a Renewal Fund. That Renewal Fund is then used to replace existing assets. The funds in the Renewal Fund come from revenue and not from loans. In addition an annual contribution of R40 million is made to the Betterment Fund, which is also used for capital investment in order to improve our assets.

I think we should exercise a little patience in so far as the question of urban transport is concerned. We must wait until we have received the report of the Driessen Commission. However, this does not mean that the Railways is not planning and does not know where it is going. The Driessen report has, however, already been handed over to the responsible Minister and for that reason I think that we should simply leave the argument concerning urban services until we are able to consider the recommendations of the Driessen report.

Does the hon, the Minister have any idea when the report will have been completed?

The work of the commission has been completed. The report has been handed over to the Minister of Finance, and it will be considered soon.

The hon. member for Durban Point accused me of not having replied to the questions he asked and the subjects he raised. I should like to remind him of the fact that when I replied to the Second Reading debate I spoke for almost an hour and a half furnishing a reply to the matters which he had raised during that debate. In fact, the hon. member himself said yesterday that they want to express appreciation because I had responded and replied so clearly to the matters which had been raised.

I was referring to your reaction during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member also said that I treated hon. members in a reasonable and decent way.

Yes, in the Committee Stage.

Speaking of decency, I should like to point a finger a little at the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member accused me yesterday of allegedly misleading the House. In addition he ascribed an element of dishonesty to me.

No, “misleading”.

Now the hon. member is saying “misleading”, but what does that mean? “Mislead” means that I furnished the House with information which was allegedly not correct.

By mistake.

If it is done by mistake one is of course completely innocent. Then it is not “misleading” in the sense in which the hon. member used it. I want to point out to the hon. member that I take very great exception to that. I think the time has arrived for us to display sufficient respect towards one another so that insinuations of dishonesty which they are always levelling at other people can be kept out of our debates. This is perhaps something which can be used with success in a political debate, but it ought not to be the level of debate when the Railway Budget is being discussed. On the same level I could charge the hon. member with having misled the House yesterday when he was discussing the turn-round time of trucks, for he said that that time had increased, and he ascribed this to unproductivity on the Railways. I could therefore have done so, but that is not how my mother taught me. I grew up in a home in which I was taught to assume that other people are honest until they have been proved to be dishonest.

Did I say that you could have received the wrong information? Did I not say that?

The hon. member said that I had misled the House with the information which I had furnished to the House. Those are the words which the hon. member used. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must contain himself.

I want to point out to the hon. members on the opposite side that when they want to make use of tactics of this kind in a debate, it is not to their credit. It merely reveals a lack of good manners.

I should like to discuss the few subjects which the hon. member raised. The hon. member on behalf of the hon. member for Griqualand East …

Will you come to the question of the pension fund?

Yes, I shall deal with it. The hon. member asked on behalf of the hon. member for Griqualand East what the Railways intended doing in regard to the provision of rail facilities in the Bantu areas. My predecessor discussed that matter on numerous occasions. I think that we may, until such time as the contrary becomes true, accept that there is no change. Throughout the whole of South Africa, train services are being provided where and when they are necessary and economically justified. I assume that when the Bantu areas become independent one day, negotiations will be conducted with regard to the operation of the railway lines to the extent to which they pass through the Bantu areas. I say that I assume this, because I do not believe that the Bantu areas will at that stage be capable of managing the operation of those railway lines themselves. It is expected that the Railways will continue with such operations. In the knowledge that these Bantu areas are independent, they could then, when they want to do this, conduct further negotiations and perhaps acquire their own railway system if they are capable of managing it.

The hon. member put further questions to me in regard to the allowance which he requested should be paid to his Railway servants in the Transkei. This matter has also been discussed on many occasions in the past. The fact of the matter is that Government officials who do not fall under the direct authority of the Transkei Government, cannot obtain this allowance either. However. I want to inform the hon. member that since this matter has been raised with me, I shall give it my attention because I took over this portfolio only recently.

I shall therefore consider it further. Allow me just to reply briefly to the hon. member’s point in regard to the turn-round time of trucks. He said the Railways is unproductive because the turn-round time of trucks had increased from 8.69 in 1963-’64 to 10,49 in 1972-’73. However, there are numerous factors which have to be taken into consideration. The turn-round time of trucks is not in any way directly related to productivity. I merely want to mention a few examples. The average conveyance distance, i.e. the distance which the trucks cover, naturally plays a major part in the turn-round time. I should also like to inform the hon. member that the actual running time of trucks has decreased during this period. In 1963-’64 it was 1,96 days and in 1972-’73 it was 1,83 days, in other words, a decrease. In addition the hon. member must take into consideration that the Railways has undergone a tremendous expansion in regard to special purpose trucks. In 1963-’64 there were 1 934 special purpose trucks, and in 1972-’73 there were 9 317. The special purpose trucks are used under specific seasonal circumstances, in other words, for part of the year they are not in use. The running time of these trucks is, however, included in the running time of trucks. However that may be. I think the only way in which productivity can be measured properly, is against the expansion which has taken place over the years in the gross ton/kilometre service on the Railways. This service has, over the nine years from 1964 to 1973 increased by 31,8%, while the increase in the number of officials in the service has only been 2,12%. Here one therefore has irrefutable proof of greater productivity. How on earth could what is for all practical purposes the same number of Railway officials have done all the work if there had not been greater productivity on the Railways during this period?

What is the percentage of capital increase for the same period?

It is a very substantial percentage. I do not have the figure in front of me now, but it is a very substantial percentage.

In regard to the pensions, I should like to inform the hon. member that I personally initiated the increase of these pensions. After we had decided on the increased salaries in June of this year, I immediately, after the resolution had been adopted, called in the General Manager and his staff and said: “Now we must do something in regard to the pensions.” We then reviewed the pensions and initially it was the idea that only the pensions should be increased by 10%. This would mean that the minimum pension would be increased by less than 10% because there would not then have been an increase in the allowances, but only in the pension itself. It was I who, together with the staff decided—in fact, it was my proposal—that the minimum income level as will be increased by the same percentage. That is why we then decided upon a 10% increase in pensions to bring the total for this year, as has already been detailed, up to an increase of more or less 12½%, which is as close as possible to the increase in salaries. Then, of course, I went to the Cabinet to obtain approval for this increase because there has to be a measure of co-ordination in this respect between the Railway Service and the Public Service, and after a consideration of the civil pensions we felt, became civil pensions are in some cases as low as R118 per annum, that this increase should be granted. This is indeed the case—there is no untruth attached to it—that the minimum pension of a section of these civil pensioners is still R1 lower than the pension in the Railway service.

A handful.

I concede that the hon. member is correct on that score; it is a small portion, but I also want to tell him, as far as civil pensions are concerned, that there is no other provision for persons who retire with effect from 1 October this year; the pension remains at R118 as it previously was. Indeed, those who retire with effect from 1 October are in fact worse off. The hon. member could go into this matter and if I am wrong, he could tell me.

No, it is wrong.

But however that may be, Sir, this supplementation of pensions costs a great deal of money. The allowance which we are adding to the pensions to ensure that minimum income is already costing the Railways R14 million per annum. I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for making a plea for better pensions, but then he really should not at the same time object when I want to increase the rates to be able to pay this money to these people. Sir, this is the kind of irresponsibility we find among hon. members on that side.

They have short memories.

Yes, Sir, the hon. member could simply leave it to me. I shall look after the pensions and salaries of my Railway people; I shall keep on negotiating with them and I shall ensure that they receive their fair share.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does he not feel that it is fair that the minimum Railway pension should be equal to the civil pension? That is the point which I made yesterday.

Sir, the statement which the hon. member has just made is not quite correct; it has to be qualified. In any case I shall consider this matter again, but for the present there are no funds available to supplement the pensions. We shall in due course give attention to that matter again.

Sir, the hon. member also referred to a marine and harbour division. He said that I had not replied to that in my reply to the Second Reading debate, and he asked me to reply specifically to this matter now. Sir, I honestly thought I had said enough about this matter in my introductory speech in the Second Reading debate. I stated the opinion clearly that I was not in favour of the Harbours and the Railways being separated because the Harbours and the Railways were integrated to such an extent. If I were to comply with the hon. member’s request, it would cause tremendous complications, for the hon. member must remember that the harbours and other marine matters are co-ordinated under the Minister of Transport. Some of those matters fall under the Department of Transport, and Harbours fall solely under the Department of Railways. If we analyse the position we find that the building and licensing of ships, the competence of marine personnel, the conditions of service of seamen, the security of ships, accidents, etc., fall under transport, while the Railways renders a completely different type of service in the harbours, namely technical and engineering services, physical assistance for ships, freight handling facilities, and navigational services. Sir, this shows you the difference in the services which are being rendered. The hon. member now wants to join those two services together, the one which today falls under Transport and the other which falls under Railways. Sir, this would merely cause a duplication of work; one would have to establish a brand new top structure, and I do not think it would be to the benefit of the country to do anything of this nature, particularly because Railways and Harbours have so much in common and are integrated to such an extent; therefore it is not desirable to separate those services.

They are separated administratively.

Yes, they are separated administratively, but they are still under the same manager.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying this:I have an agreement with the railwaymen. My agreement with them is that I will look after their interests. I will see to it that they receive their fair share, and that they will receive a proper remuneration for the work they are doing. On the other hand our agreement is that they in turn will look after me, and that they must harness their strength to make of this Railways organization, to which they and I belong, a great and successful Railways organization in the interests of South Africa. The hon. member may leave it to me and to the staff of the Railways to operate a successful Railways organization in the interests of our country.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is intended to amend the Marketing Act, 1968. Hon. members are aware of the commission of inquiry which was appointed last year to inquire into aspects of this Act. Although an Act which is the subject of an inquiry of this nature ought not to be amended in principle before the inquiry has been completed and recommendations have been made in that regard, it seems that this is just not possible in the case of the Marketing Act. The field of application of the Act is far too wide for that. Indications are that the inquiry will still take up a considerable amount of time, and if all the proposed amendments were to be held over it would lead to an accumulation of statutory deficiencies which could seriously hamper marketing. That is why it is not considered desirable to hold over proposed amendments of an urgent nature until after the completion of the inquiry.

This Bill makes provision, firstly, for the Minister of Agriculture to fix prices for controlled secondary products, such as bread and butter, in the stead of the control board, in circumstances in which the fixing of those prices is influenced by the payment of subsidies by the State. By law such prices should be fixed by the relevant control boards with the approval of the Minister, but in practice the Minister is more probably the one who decides on them in consultation with the Cabinet. The reason for this is that the Cabinet, and not the control boards, determines the scope of the subsidy, while the subsidy, in turn, dictates any change in price. In addition to that, itis important to treat such price decisions as confidential. If such price decisions become known before the appointed time, it creates opportunities for hoarding which results in unjustified profit for the hoarders at the expense of the consumer for whose benefit the subsidy is intended. The composition of control boards from representatives of the various interest groups as an industry, makes it impossible to deal with such matters in secret.

This proposed amendment, of course, does not affect the producer’s basic right to decide on the price of his product himself. Hon. members will note that primary agricultural products are not included in the Minister’s proposed price fixing powers.

The Bill further provides that control boards which administer one-channel schemes, may be empowered to enter into an agreement with the Government of a neighbouring state for the marketing of products produced in that neighbouring state. Although various of the Republic’s control boards currently assist in the marketing of such products to a greater or lesser extent, it is felt that arrangements of this nature ought rather to be based on specific authorization in law.

Due to overlapping between the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Department of Health, arrangements were made to define the activities of those departments more clearly. To be specific, it was agreed that the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing would attend to quality control of all agricultural products, while the Department of Health should confine itself to the health aspect. Previously matters relating to quality, such as the requirements concerning the composition of milk, milk products, fruit juices and so forth, were regulated in terms of the health legislation. However, provision now has to be made for the promulgation of such requirements in terms of the Marketing Act in order to enable the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to take over these activities from the Department of Health. These activities are closely related to the control which the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has been exercising over the quality of agricultural products for many years.

Furthermore the Bill makes provision for additional matters for which a levy on products, for which a scheme is not in operation, may be utilized.

In conclusion I might mention that the proposals contained in the Bill were drawn up after consultation with all interested parties.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill for the simple reason that there are only a few important principles contained therein, with which we on this side of the House have no fault to find. However, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the amendment contained in clause 1, in terms of which he is taking the power to determine prices in cases where he pays subsidies on products, is in the first instance a major and important amendment to the Marketing Act in respect of the position as it is at present. I believe, of course, that it is no easy matter to have the powers of a control board in this regard exercised exclusively by the hon. the Minister. In other words, this is not a responsibility which, in my opinion, even a control board would have been eager to give to a Minister of Agriculture under these circumstances. One can understand that where the hon. gentleman does indeed pay a subsidy he, to a certain extent, has a far greater responsibility than the relevant control board itself. Consequently he is entitled to accept that responsibility. He does so for the very purpose of protecting the consumer to a certain extent in case that subsidy should be used by a hoarder to his own benefit. Consequently we accept that under these circumstances he will indeed accept that power. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister gave us the assurance and that it is embodied in this legislation that, in the case of a primary product, the Minister will not take over the responsibility from a particular control board.

As regards the second principle, i.e. to render assistance to our neighbouring states and then to protect those particular control boards when they make payments. I think that this is a very fine principle. The hon. the Min ster ought to protect the control board in this regard and ought to ensure at the same time that there are good relations between ourselves and the neighbouring states concerned. In my opinion there is no doubt that, on the basis of the implementation of the policy of the Government to afford the Bantu areas a larger degree of self-government, and since they do not have the facilities to do so, our control boards should undertake that marketing on their behalf. We may have an instance where the governing body of such a state requests that the revenue be paid to them, and that there is not sufficient protection for the producers concerned. I think that, in this regard, the Minister is making a change which is very important. If we can support him in any way, by helping either the neighbouring states or the areas which are going to gain a larger degree of self-government in the course of time with the marketing of their products, if we can help them in the promotion of their agricultural industry by means of the Marketing Act, we can tell the hon. the Minister that he can rely on the support of the agriculture group on this side of the House in that respect. That is why it gives me great pleasure to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for the support which that side of the House is lending to this legislation. I also want to say that we regard this arrangement as a very fine one. As the hon. the Minister said, there is a commission of inquiry which is conducting an investigation into the Marketing Act. That inquiry has to be a very thorough one, since the Marketing Act, which is a very good Act, has been in existence for many years, but as times change marketing becomes progressively more complicated. The commission has to take its time and do research so that this report, when it finally appears, may be a thorough report.

In regard to clause 1, I want to agree with the hon. member for Newton Park. Clause 1 amends the section of the Marketing Act which deals with State subsidies, and I think this amendment is necessary. In terms of this amendment a control board will not possess confidential information as to what the State’s contribution in the form of subsidies will be. I am satisfied that the clause has been framed in such a way that bona fide farming activities will not be affected by this legislation.

In regard to clause 2, I want to agree that the new arrangement, as it is now being proposed, will make things easier for especially the Wool Board and the Mohair Board as regards the matter of making final payments, etc. Furthermore, I want to express the hope that control boards, since they will have to negotiate with homelands to an increasing extent in the future, will conduct these negotiations in such a way that the homelands governments will be able to use co-operative societies within the homelands in order to link up with our system of control boards.

Clauses 4 and 6 are very useful clauses since they protect the public against the adulteration of products, the incorrect naming of products and the presence of impurities in products. Consequently we also support these clauses.

I was overjoyed to read clause 8 because I have always felt that there are many products which do not enjoy the benefit of the system of control boards. The benefit of the system of control boards is now also being given to canary seed, oil cake, seed cotton and ostrich skins. The system of control boards is a fine system and it is for that reason that we welcome these measures.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Humansdorp that the system of control boards is a fine system, but there is room for improvement all the same.

As far as clause 1 is concerned I want to say that, in the words of the Minister, this is a provision which gives him the right to prohibit hoarding where people make profits in an unfair way at the expense of the consumer. I think it would be defined more clearly if it were to be said that this was done at the expense of the taxpayer. I cannot see how it can filter through to the consumer. Only in the case of an increased price of bread or an increased price of butter can a hoarder buy it at a lower price in order to sell it again later on. In that case he receives the subsidy. In the case of bread, this may be the case with the miller or the baker. This step being taken by the hon. the Minister is proof of the deficiency existing in the system of control boards. I do not believe that the fault for this is always to be found with the members of the control board. We do know of cases of previous control boards having had difficulties with officials. This makes one think that the commission sitting at present could perhaps have a look at that, so that, in a revised system which will eventually be submitted to this House, after the commission has reported to the House, a very strong inspectorate may be appointed which will fall under the Marketing Board in order to prevent leakages of information, and so forth, from the ranks of the officials. I want to say that there are very fine officials on the control boards, but we have had experience of this, especially in the case of the Banana Control Board, with the result that we are now saddled with an eel-worm plague in the Transvaal and elsewhere. Of course, we also expect the Minister, after the commission has reported, to come to this House with totally revised legislation, and we also expect, although we agree with this legislation, that it will be a temporary measure only until such time as we have a consolidated Marketing Act. I believe it is high time for that.

Then there is another small point in respect of which I should like clarity from the hon. the Minister. I notice in clause 8 that canary seed is also defined and being included in the Schedule. Canary seed is a very important product in my constituency. It is a very important and a paying seed product. For a considerable time representations have been made to the hon. the Minister to allow the marketing of canary seed to take place through the agency of the Chicory Control Board. Is the fact that canary seed is now being included in the principal Act going to solve this canary seed dilemma?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their positive contributions. The hon. member for Newton Park understood the Bill for what it is. It embodies an amendment to the benefit and not to the detriment of anyone. The hon. members for Humansdorp and Albany also referred to the commission of inquiry. I can tell them that this is a commission consisting of members of both Houses, intelligent people who are going to re-write the Marketing Act for us and make proposals to rectify some of the anomalies in the present Act. They will consider all the aspects. The hon. member for Albany also inquired about steps to avoid hoarding. He is right: hoarding did take place at the expense of the taxpayer and to the benefit of the hoarders. I must give the hon. member full marks for that observation.

As far as canary seed is concerned, we have asked for this matter to fall under the Chicory Control Board, but problems did arise. The appointment of a canary seed control board is not justified either. However, we thought it would be well if canary seed, as in the case of, for example, wheat sorghum which falls under the control of the Maize Board, could fall under the control of the Chicory Control Board. The Chicory Control Board foresees problems, but we are nevertheless investigating the matter at present. For a long time we have been receiving representations from people in the hon. member’s constituency in connection with this very important product and that is why we have also included canary seed in this Bill. We shall still have to determine under which control board this product should fall in future.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill, in which amendments to the Wine and Spirit Control Act, 1970, are being proposed, provides for some new principles and, for the rest, is aimed at tightening up the Act technically in certain respects.

In the case of the amendments of a technical nature special attempts have been made to eliminate any doubt or obscurities which may exist about aspects of the wine marketing system, as it is being applied by the K.W.V. For example, specific legal authority is being established for certain provisions of the regulations concerning wine control, while others are now being incorporated as substantive provisions in the Act itself. Furthermore, the powers of the inspection staff have been revised and extended in order to comply with present requirements.

The changes in principle involve the following—

1. (a) Storage charges

In terms of the existing legal provisions storage charges may be levied on good wine which is sold in the course of any year and which is stored for the trade by winegrowers and co-operative societies until the end of the good wine year, i.e. 30 September. However, it happens to an increasing extent that this wine has to be be stored by winegrowers and co-operative societies on behalf of the trade for longer periods than merely until the end of the good wine year, and it is consequently being proposed that it should also be possible for storage charges to be charged for this longer period.

1. (b) Moskonfyt in exchange for wine

Various winegrowers who produce good wine themselves have made representations to the K.W.V. to provide them in exchange for wine, with moskonfyt and juice concentrate for the purpose of sweetening their own wines. In the absence of legal authority an amendment to the Act is being proposed in terms of which it will be possible for the K.W.V. to comply with such requests.

1. (c) Purchase of grapes through the trade

On account of certain legal provisions it is at present not possible for a licensed dealer or distiller to obtain grapes for the production of good wine directly from winegrowers. However, it is usually profitable for such a dealer or distiller, particularly in view of the so-called press surplus, to obtain grapes, instead of wine, from the winegrower or co-operative society. Since the sale of grapes for good wine purposes is not prohibited among winegrowers mutually, such dealers and distillers are at present making use of affiliated producer companies to obtain grapes. This development in the wine industry gave rise to various problems which will have to be ironed out in course of time. In the meantime it is being envisaged to enable winegrowers to sell grapes directly to dealers and distillers for a period of two years. However, the price at which such sales take place will have to be increased to the extent of the benefit involved in the Dress surplus. The Bill is accordingly providing for this now. Since the price of distilling wine is usually lower than the good wine price, and grapes are only sold to dealers for the production of good wine, it is necessary to prohibit grapes from being sold for distilling wine purposes. It goes without saying that the price arrangements concerning good wine may be undermined should the sale of distilling wine grapes be allowed.

1. (d) Application of Act to South-West Africa

Wine production and the conversion of wine into spirits are subject to strict control measures in the Republic, mainly in view of the economic arrangement of the wine industry. It has now become evident that the planting of vines in South-West Africa is being contemplated on a fairly large scale, and it is consequently considered necessary to make this Act applicable to South-West Africa even at this early stage so that the proposed development of the wine industry in South-West Africa may take place in accordance with the aims of the legislation of the Republic concerning the wine industry. The provisions of this Bill have been framed in consultation with all the parties concerned.

Mr. Speaker, as is the case with the previous legislation, no objections will be raised by this side of the House to the Second Reading either. I want to explain the reasons for our attitude.

This legislation owes its origin principally to the “Ko-operatieve Wijnbouwers Vereniging”, which we regard as one of the best organized farmers’ co-operative societies in the country. They most definitely represent a section of our agricultural industry which, I believe, may be emulated with satisfaction and great advantage by many other sectors in the country. Everything is aimed at protecting the interests of the winegrower, as well as the standard of the product. As was said by the hon. the Minister, as great many of the provisions of this legislation are contained in regulations which have been published and come into force over the years. Therefore, this Bill does not entail any radical changes. Since the K.W.V. is doing such a great deal to protect its producers and their product in order that they may also be assured" of a fixed price for their product, I think it is essential that one should say something in this regard on behalf of the consumer, who often notices the considerable difference between the price the producer receives for his product and the price he has to pay for it over the counter in the bar or in the hotel. Since the hon. gentleman now considers encouraging production even in South-West Africa, I hope that the trade will in course of time take cognizance of this development and that, if production is going to increase, the consumer will also derive some benefit from this, in that the gap between the price the producer receives and what the consumer has to pay, will be narrowed a little in some way or other. It is evident that the wine requirements of South Africa are at present such that our own production is insufficient to meet the requirements. I saw in the Press recently that the K.W.V. granted permission to enable us to import wine from France in order to supplement our own stock. I have nothing against this, and I believe it is a good thing that we should see to it that we have sufficient stocks. I believe hon. members on both sides of the House who have had the necessary experience can say that the wine we are producing in South Africa compares very well with any good wine produced outside our borders. This is an achievement which, to my mind, the winegrowers and South Africa as a whole have every right to be proud of.

I hope the wine industry will be extended even further and not only to South-West Africa, because once the Orange River scheme has been completed, there will perhaps be an opportunity to extend our wine industry to those areas which will be provided with water from that scheme. I sincerely hope that this will be possible. There are many areas which, although they were not known to be wine-producing areas twenty or thirty years ago, also produce grapes at present. We have areas such as these along the Orange River, the Vaal Harts scheme and elsewhere. There are therefore great possibilities for the wine industry in South Africa in the future in the more densely populated settlements and areas where water will be available.

This legislation is designed to tighten up control over the industry, to protect farmers engaged in this industry, to protect the product itself and to see to it that the consumer will be able to obtain a product of the highest quality. We on this side of the House therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Newton Park for his support of this Bill. I hope it will never be necessary for us to differ from one another on this product. I must also thank the hon. member for Newton Park for the fine compliments he paid to the KWV. I want to confirm that they thoroughly deserve those compliments. The hon. member for Newton Park also said he wanted to break a lance for the consumer. I agree with him on the sentiments he expressed, and I want to give him the assurance that, if it is at all possible for the producer to do so, he will seek to narrow the gap between the price the producer receives and the price paid by the consumer. As I have said on a previous occasion in this House, the producer would like to see the consumer enjoying this product which the winegrower is so proud of.

The hon. member referred to the importation of wine, but we know this is merely a temporary situation. Even France found herself in this critical position a few years ago where she had to import wine from us temporarily. I am not unduly concerned about the wine which has to be imported now.

Had the principal Act been bottled, there would have been a label on the neck of the bottle with “1970” written on it. It was a good product we produced by means of the principal Act in 1970. It was cast in good form. As is the case with wine, it also matures and improves. In 1972 we had a look at the product we produced in 1970. We scrutinized it and modified it a little. Today we are uncorking it so that it can breathe a little and be allowed to improve its quality. As is the case with wine, one should not tamper with legislation too often. However, one has to keep a watchful eye over it so that it does not become vinegary. Under the 1970 Act, certain practices developed which were harmful to the industry and the amendments which are being proposed now, are aimed at restricting these practices for the benefit of the industry and also the country.

The first matter I should like to raise here, is the question of the registration of premises, for which provision is being made now. In the past dealers bought and processed grapes while the premises were never subject to registration. Wine is a valuable and delicate product, and apart from all other requirements, I believe it is desirable that these people should now be compelled to register their premises. One cannot handle a delicate and fine product such as wine at just any place. After all, there should be some control over those premises.

Clause 6 now provides that no winegrower is allowed to obtain wine for distillation purposes from another winegrower or any co-operative society. Therefore, a co-operative society which possesses a distillation plant is not allowed to obtain wine from another co-operative society which does not possess such a plant. This has always been the case. However, the trade was exempted from this provision. The trade is also being restricted now. I wish this measure could have been extended so that it not only applies to distillation wine but also to the production of good wine. The hon. the Minister held out the prospect to us that this would be an interim arrangement. However, what happens in practice? I just want to say a few words on this score. Major licensed commercial interests are now buying grapes from members of co-operative cellars. They select particular varieties; they select a certain quality and in so doing help themselves to the cream of the crop. The co-operative societies have the right to fine their members. Unusually the constitution of every co-operative society contains a provision in terms of which they are allowed to fine their members, but these prices which are being paid for this special product are such that these small fines are paid laughingly. People do not even worry about it. What is the result? The co-operative societies are stuck with large quantities of wine which do not have that special quality; they are stuck with the vin ordinaire which they probably will have to sell to the same commercial interests. If they are unable to sell that wine to the commercial interests, they will have to use it for distillation purposes. This is a very unhealthy state of affairs. That is why I feel that we should definitely restrict this practice, too, whenever the opportunity arises to do so.

The export of wine is also being dealt with in this Bill. As a result of the insertion of clause 15(2) this is not allowed, except with the approval of the KWV. Sir, we export to countries in which there is strong competition, and where politics must also be taken into account. Experience has shown that a high quality product is not easily put off by political boycotts, particularly not when the product has become part of a person’s drinking habits over a long period. However, the overseas market is very sensitive and delicate and for that reason we have to consider it with great care, because it is of great importance to us, and for that reason it ic a good thine for the KWV to have control over all liquor exports.

As far as the storage charges are concerned, Sir, I can give you the assurance that this will be greatly appreciated by the co-operative cellars. It requires an enormous amount of money to provide storage facilities today; these are expensive and money is scarce. Sometimes this product of ours necessarily has to be stored for fairly long periods of time, and it is only fair that these co-operative enterprises should be compensated when rendering this service to the trade.

Sir, as far as the transportation of liquor is concerned, winegrowers and co-operative societies are now, on account of the addition of clause 18(a), being prohibited from transporting wine for dealers and distillers and from rendering certain services or making certain payments. Sir, it has become essential for us to effect this change. Unfortunately it is a fact that there is a fair amount of competition even among cooperative cellars as far as the marketing of their wine is concerned. Contracts are sometimes entered into with co-operative cellars, which really means that these cellars or winegrowers undertake to transport the wine to the premises of the dealer. What they are really doing, is to compete unfairly with their fellow-co-operative societies, and for that reason it is a good thing that all their transportation will have to be undertaken by the buyer himself in future. Grapes are, in fact, allowed to be transported; this is still being allowed in terms of the Act.

There remains one minor matter in respect of which I should like to say something, and this concerns the appointment of inspectors of the KWV. It is essential that we should make our cellars, our storage places, our tanks and our trucks subject to inspection. Furthermore, it is sometimes essential that inspectors visit the farm of a winegrower to ascertain whether he has the required number of vines laid down in his quota, but the Act lays down that such an inspector is allowed to enter the premises without any prior notice. It is perhaps right that this should be so, so that a fanner cannot bring everything in order before the inspector arrives. But, Sir, if a person arrives at my farm and starts walking around without first having asked me whether he may do so—and this perhaps applies to all farmers—he will get into trouble. We shall set the dogs on him or chase him into the ostrich camp, or something of that nature. Sir, I appreciate the necessity for this clause; I appreciate that inspections have to be carried out, but I think we should, after all, consider effecting a minor change here so that the inspector should at least telephone the owner of the farm before entering the premises, because otherwise he may get into trouble.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Newton Park. He realized that the amendments affected the interests of the wine industry and the producer. He mentioned a very important matter when he pleaded for better quality. The hon. member also referred to the difference in the price the producer receives and the price the consumer has to pay. Sir, this is an open question. All of us are feeling unhappy about the high prices. As soon as a shortage arises, people start buying up wins. I know of some people in the Transvaal who have never bought red wine all their lives and who, once they heard there was a shortage of red wine, stock-piled boxes of red wine because it has now become a scarce article. We have had the same experience with butter. When people learnt about the shortage of butter, everyone suddenly started eating butter. These are some of the difficulties we experience when shortages occur from time to time. I want to thank the hon. member for his positive contribution. The hon. member for Malmesbury knows the industry inside out. He pointed out important aspects, but he need not be concerned about the inspection. All the clauses contain a provision to the effect that it will not be necessary for the person to give prior notice of his intention to inspect the farm. I do not know whether this applies to wine farmers, too, but I know that, in the case of other farmers, if one notifies them that one is going to carry out an inspection, everything is in order by the time one arrives on the farm. This is merely a provision to the effect that he is allowed access to the farm and inspect matters, without notifying the farmer. When a decent inspector—and we are all decent people—arrives at the farm unexpectedly, he goes to the owner and asks him to accompany him through the premises. This is the intention of the Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

The purpose of this amendment is merely to rectify a discrepancy between the Afrikaans and the English text.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The entry of Britain to the EEC implied the possible loss of one of our most important export markets for wine unless an acceptable certification scheme could be established. My Department of Agricultural Technical Services took the initiative in devising such a system, and in this it had the wholehearted support of the entire industry.

The system in accordance with which our best wines are at present being classified and graded according to origin, true cultivar type and vintage, was introduced in terms of legislation passed by this House during 1972. It was based on the traditional European systems, with adjustments to satisfy expected local conditions. In practice it has become apparent that further adjustments are necessary. The Bill, which is being submitted to this hon. House for consideration today, provides for such adjustments and the opportunity is also being utilized to propose certain corrections.

Technological progress in the field of wine-making makes the production of wines with a high sugar content without the danger of secondary fermentation possible today. In view of this, I therefore propose that the permissible sugar content be increased from 20 to 30 programmes per litre. In terms of EEC regulations the maximum permissible alcohol content of liqueur wines is 22% per volume. I am satisfied that this percentage is also justified under local conditions and therefore propose an adjustment to bring our wine legislation into line with international requirements.

It sometimes happens that wine of a quite exceptional quality is produced although it does not comply with the requirements of the Act. The judging of such wines, for which a special standard of quality is set as prerequisite, is at present being done by officers of my Department of Agricultural Technical Services. However, I think that this task is in keeping with the other tasks which have been entrusted to the Wine and Spirit Board, and I therefore propose that this task also be entrusted to this board.

Since extremely confidential information is frequently discussed at board meetings and becomes known to certain persons during the course of the proceedings, I deem it necessary to make express provision for a secrecy clause, which will be applicable to members of the Wine and Spirit Board, the Government Brandy Board, and to other persons who administer the Act.

Although the system of classification and grading of liquor has only been in operation for a short while, the indications are that this is a step in the right direction and that it constitutes great advantages to the entire wine industry. The important role which the Wine and Spirit Board plays in this, cannot be over-emphasized. To ensure the continued efficient functioning of this board, I propose that its powers of certification be expanded to include year of production and indication of vine cultivar, and that the membership of the board be expanded to ensure the balanced representation of interested parties. Owing to the increase in the functions of the board I also propose that authorization be granted for the appointment of committees of experts to advise the board on specific matters.

Classification and grading is a continuous function which extends from the vineyard through the wine-making process to the eventual sale of the wine to the consumer. Thorough record-keeping and inspections to ensure correctness, are therefore essential. Owing to the manpower problem I can only make a few of my officers available for this. Closely related functions are already, in terms of other legislation, being performed by another body and I therefore propose that authorization be granted for the appointment of that body on a contractual basis to undertake specific tasks in respect of certification.

Distortions of the derivatives from the names of well-known vine cultivars which are protected in terms of the Act when the wine is sold, frequently cause great confusion. I therefore propose a prohibition on the use thereof.

The application of the provisions in regard to demarcation and definition of areas and estates for the production of wine of origin, presents certain administrative problems. Proposals to eliminate these are contained in the Bill, and ought to contribute to the simplified disposal of such applications.

The Act provides at present that the particulars of a seller shall be inscribed in “large and easily legible letters and figures” on a label affixed to the receptacle in which liquor is sold. Because largeness and legibility are relative concepts, particulars are sometimes inscribed on labels in an inconspicuous way. Not only does this obstruct the inspectors in their task, but it may also mislead the public. I therefore propose that the way in which particulars appear on a label, be made subject to approval by the administering official.

It is for obvious reasons not possible to make the system of classification and grading of liquor by the Wine and Spirits Board applicable to imported liquor. I therefore propose that imported liquor be exempted from this provision. However, when the sale of imported liquor under an indication of origin, vintage or true cultivar type is contemplated here, it is being proposed, in all fairness to the local industry, that documentary proof in this regard be required from the country of origin. For the sake of uniformity it is being proposed that the labelling requirements for locally produced liquor be made applicable to imported liquor as well. In addition I propose that when imported inquor is bottled locally the labels on the receptacles should contain an express indication that it has been bottled in the Republic.

There are indications that certain persons envisage importing liquor with a view to mixing it with local liquor. This envisaged procedure represents an unhealthy tendency which could harm both the producer as well as the trade. I therefore propose that the sale of such mixtures and blends be made subject to authorization by the administering officials.

It appears that there are various practical deficiencies in the existing powers of the administering officials and inspectors to enter upon premises, carry out inspections and take samples. These persons are frequently obstructed in this way and cannot perform their task properly. The successful application of the wine certification scheme requires unrestricted access to wines and the records which are kept of such wines. I therefore propose that these powers be defined more comprehensively for the sake of efficiency.

Allied to this I propose that the court be empowered to declare any wine, which is the object of a person’s conviction in terms of this Act, to be forfeited to the State or to have it destroyed.

Lastly, I propose that powers of delegation be granted to the administering official, and that the customary indemnity clause be inserted.

This Bill was drafted in close collaboration with organized agriculture and the liquor trade. The principle contained therein seeks in particular to ensure that our best wines of origin are identified and appreciated as such. Subsequent to the publishing of the Bill certain minor adjustments have appeared to be necessary, for which I shall move the necessary amendments during the Committee Stage. I trust that the Bill and the amendments will receive the full support of hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, as far as this legislation is concerned, I think it is quite correct that the House should have a great deal of sympathy with the Wine and Spirit Board, particularly since this board has only been applying the certification scheme for the past two years. I may just say that I think the vast majority of the consumers have already grown accustomed to this and that they accept and appreciate the progress which is being made. The hon. the Deputy Minister came to this House with this legislation in order to effect changes to the existing Act, and to make the classification of area wines even easier, and to exercise better control over these. Since all these things are aimed at improving the quality and the standard of the product—in the same way as one of the previous measures which we had— I think that one cannot object to the passing of this legislation. One just finds it regrettable that legislation such as this has to be submitted with a clause making provision for secrecy by such an institution as the Brandy Board. But one can understand that information which is made available by such a board and discussed is frequently of a highly confidential nature, and that secrecy is for that reason essential. We on this side of the House accept this legislation because it places the procedure, the convening of the meetings and the constitution of the Brandy Board on a proper basis. This measure is purely administrative, and is, I believe, going to facilitate the functions of this particular board considerably. In addition, a prohibition is now being placed on derivatives from the names of certain wines in order to protect the product in this respect, and I believe that this change is also an essential one. This side of the House, therefore has no objection to this Bill being passed.

Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of wine this afternoon, I only hope that when we adjourn for dinner, we shall partake of that product, in a civilized manner, of course. We are glad that the Opposition, through the mouth of the hon. member for Newton Park, is supporting the legislation. As the hon. member said, this Bill, just like the previous one, has come to this House after very thorough consultations with the parties concerned.

The Bill which is now before us represents an attempt to bring about further stability and order in the wine industry, in the interests of the producer, but also in the interests of the consumer in South Africa and overseas, where our product is sold. I think that this is another instance where we may pay tribute to the fine co-operation between the Ministry of Agriculture, to be specific, the hon. the Minister and his Deputy Minister, as well as their staff, and the KWV, which acts as the spokesman of the winegrower.

This wine certification scheme, which has been referred to by the hon. member for Newton Park as well, is only two years old, but has already produced very positive results, such as a greatly increasing awareness of quality on the part of the producer and of the consumer as well. However, this scheme is only in its initial stages, and I want to ask the Department of Agriculture —I do so on behalf of the KWV—not to hesitate when they deem it necessary to come along with further adjustments, but to feel free to do so, in order that this industry may continue to develop and to gain in strength.

I am glad that it is now being ensured through this Bill that sections 21 and 22, which were inserted into Act 25 of 1957 in 1972, will be conscientiously enforced. I do want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister, however, that I find it a pity that to the extent to which the administering officer mentioned in clause 3(1)(a) obtains certain powers, it will mean that those powers, which have up to now been exercised most competently by the Wine and Spirit Board, will now be removed from this board, or that its powers will be curtailed. I am aware of the fact that the Wine and Spirit Board takes decisions on matters of policy and of administration, and that, with the aid of experts, it handles the technical judging of wine. I do feel, though that the Wine and Spirit Board should continue to have control over the issuing of certain certificates and that it should not be left solely in the hands of this officer mentioned above, i.e. someone in the Public Service.

As regards the question of secrecy, which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Newton Park, I want to associate myself with him. If I were to be a member of this Wine and Spirits Board, I would not, as a member, be entitled to disclose any decision to an outside party, or to use the information in the favour of some company or other. This could have very serious results. Perhaps I should say here, and I think that the members of the Wine and Spirit Board realize this, that the members of this board should take care to act on this board as members of a particular board and not as individuals bent on promoting the interests of certain groups or undertakings. We know that the people serving on this board are responsible people. We know they will not transgress this legislation. However, I do want to say that this is a cause of concern to us, and for that reason we are grateful for the insertion of this secrecy clause.

In conclusion I want to repeat what I have said in regard to the delimitation of areas. The fact is that this development has given rise to a very great regional awareness and regional pride in the wine-growing areas of the Western Cape. Sir, you need only visit the wine show which is held in the Breë River valley every year. I am only mentioning the one I know. I am glad that one was held in the Boberg as well this year, in the Wellington/Paarl area. Sir, if you visit those wine shows, you will be surprised to see how proudly the producer discusses the wine of his cellar with the people who visit the show. This regional awareness has grown phenomenally. I have here the September edition of Wynboer, the official organ of the KWV. I should like to read a short paragraph from this to provide further confirmation for my statement. In the editorial of that edition of Wynboer I read these words—

I say this because we have come a long way since the days when we made our wine the way the old Romans made theirs. The old Romans went about it as follows: They took ten parts must, two parts vinegar, two parts moskonfyt and 50 parts fresh water. The recipe further required the mixture to be stirred with a stick three times for five consecutive days. Then you had to add 64 parts old sea water. Sir, this is the recipe according to which the old Romans produced wine.

That is Worcester sauce.

I do want to add, though, that this was wine made for the slaves to drink in winter. As I said, we have come a long way since then. I am glad to be able to say that I find that the smaller areas within a delimited area are now competing enthusiastically among themselves. Each of these small areas offers its particular wine with great pride and allows it to compete with a similar wine from another small area, or even a region. Sir, this all helps to maintain a sharp awareness of quality. After all, when one has tasted a good wine for the first time, it becomes a good friend, and once one has learnt to make a particular wine one’s good friend, one will always treat it with very great respect and one will never abuse it. For that reason it is a privilege to me and I am grateful to know that clause 6 will give further recognition to the principle of delimitation, as it relates to wines from areas, general areas and subdivisions of areas. For that reason it is a privilege to me to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced this Bill with the loving care of somebody who has a true appreciation and knowledge of wine. We know his knowledge of wines having seen him hit the jackpot twice on Monday at a small wine-tasting ceremony which we had at the Wine Institute on a jaunt which we all appreciated very much indeed. We should like to convey our appreciation through him to the department for allowing us the privilege.

In the light of those remarks I take it that the hon. the Deputy Minister will listen to a few thoughts that I have on this industry. I note that the provisions of this Bill deal, inter alia, with the sale and export of wine. I want to make an appeal through the hon. the Deputy Minister to the wine industry of the Cape, which obviously is the noblest part of our agricultural industry, that it must be very careful not to export too much of our wine. Red wine is in rather short supply and it is the life-blood of the country. We all love it. If we land up in a position here in the Cape where wine is produced …

Like our crayfish.

Yes, like the crayfish. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. A few years ago you could get as many crayfish as you wanted, but now you have to travel all the way to Europe and America to buy South African crayfish. It would be a shame if the same thing were to happen to the wines of South Africa and we as South Africans were denied the joy of splitting a bottle of wine with our friends to enjoy the nectar of it.

In the same vein I have reservations about clause 12 in which provision is made for the destruction of wine. I cannot think why, if there is a shortage of good red wine and somebody contravenes the Act and his red wine is confiscated, it should be destroyed. I would suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should seriously consider amending this clause. The suggestion I wish to make to him is that in line 10 he should delete the word “destroyed” and insert instead “redistributed thirty to Parliamentarians”. [Interjections.] In that way we could save it and perhaps improve the nature of our debates in this House, especially if it is supplied to us at dinner on a Wednesday evening or at lunch on an ordinary sitting day. We have much pleasure in supporting this Bill at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to anyone to handle a Bill which meets with such general agreement in the House. Therefore I want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park very much for his support. We realize very well that when we come to the House with a good case, he, being a farmer himself and coming from my part of the country, will recognize a good case and give it his support.

In regard to the question of secrecy, which was referred to by the hon. member for Worcester as well, it certainly goes without saying that we should define this very clearly. In the past it was tacitly assumed that information submitted to the board should be kept secret. Since we are all merely human, the possibility exists that such information may in fact leak out, to the embarrassment, not only of the party concerned, but of the board as well. Consequently we have deemed it necessary for this matter to be spelt out clearly in the Bill.

Where the hon. member for Worcester has stated the case on behalf of the KWV, I want to give him the assurance that, as he and the KWV as well as the farmers of the Western Cape are probably well aware, the Minister’s door is open to them. When they present a good case, they are certainly listened to. We always do this with a sense of responsibility, in order that we may take into consideration all the parties concerned, commerce as well as the consumers. I should like to agree with one of the previous speakers who mentioned the sense of responsibility displayed by the farmers who practise viniculture, and I want to pay tribute to them in that respect.

As regards the problem experienced by the hon. member for Worcester in respect of delegation, I want to make it clear, with reference to clause 3, that the board has no powers of delegation and that at the moment, therefore, it actually has to issue and sign all certificates, etc., itself. However, it is not practical to expect board members, being the leaders in the wine industry, to issue such documents personally, and for that reason it is being proposed that the controlling officer to be appointed in terms of the Act may be instructed by the board to issue these documents.

I do think that he should be quite satisfied in the light of this. I just want to mention that we are grateful for the fact that our wine is being supplied by the winegrowers of the Western Cape these days and no longer by the Romans. The whole idea of this labelling which indicates vintage and origin has only one aim, of course, and that is to improve the quality. There I am in full agreement with him. To the hon. member for Albany I just want to express my sincere thanks for his compliments. Even here in Parliament one does not get by without a little bit of luck sometimes. I want to thank him very sincerely. We agree with what he said here.

In regard to the liquor that is to be destroyed, I just want to say the following: In terms of the present Act, if someone is convicted, he simply takes his liquor and starts selling it again. That is why this clause has been insert, so that the liquor may be seized and destroyed if necessary. I do not suppose that all the liquor would be good for members of this House—I am thinking, for example, of skokiaan and similar brews mentioned here by the hon. member for Worcester. I do not suppose that we would want that liquor here. I thank all the persons concerned who contributed to the rapid progress made with this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment-—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this Vote covers a whole series of matters, including the weather bureau, national roads, government motor transport, civil aviation, the National Transport Commission, etc., etc., and it is impossible to have a general discussion on all these matters in the short time available. Consequently it is necessary to choose only one or two matters and to confine one to them in the few minutes available. The one division causing much concern is that dealing with road carrier certificates.

†Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal in detail with the policy in the debate on this Vote because we have a Bill before the House, a Bill which reviews the whole question of road carrier certificates and the machinery for issuing such certificates. I am not going to deal with the general administration, nor the general principles, which themselves are a subject which would require a full debate, but I do want to raise, because it is a matter of concern to me, the implications of one specific case which I believe is not unique. This is a case which I raised by way of question in this House on the sixth of this month, when I asked the hon. the Minister questions about certificates in respect of a company which had changed its ownership and had not complied with the law and had in fact continued to operate with the old carrier certificates in spite of the provision that when the ownership of a firm changes, the certificates are not transferable. I learned from the hon. the Minister’s reply that after the change of ownership, 150 temporary carrier certificates had been issued to this firm; that when this was brought to the attention of the board, 12 temporary certificates were issued to replace the permanent certificates. The court subsequently instructed that 20 further temporary certificates be issued, and subsequently 36 and 12 more respectively were issued “on merit”. When I asked why this had happened, I was told that it was because the board had not been aware of the change of ownership, and that the reason for the issuing of the certificates was the accumulation of goods in the Durban harbour. Mr. Chairman, these certificates are like gold because only the members of the Harbour Carriers’ Association can get a certificate, and that is a complete closed shop. There are many people who are trying and have tried to get into this business. The specific reason for changing the Act was to prevent people from buying a shareholding and thus obtaining access to certificates which they could not otherwise obtain. Sir, those are the facts given by the hon. the Minister. The reason given for the fact that no action was taken, was that the National Transport Commission was dealing with the matter. I then put a question on the same day to the Minister of Police and asked him whether any complaints had been laid. His answer was yes. He said that no arrests had been made and that the matter was before the Attorney-General. Mr. Chairman, let me analyse this innocent-looking reply that nobody knew about it, but that as soon as they knew about it they took action. I want to give one or two facts. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister who deals with this, certain questions. I have here available the ND registration numbers and the make of 40 vehicles which are being operated by this company in Durban, outside Durban and allegedly as far as Johannesburg and further afield. I have all the numbers here and am prepared to make them available to the Minister. Has his department got that information, if so, how do 40 vehicles operate on 12 permanent carrier certificates—not permanent, but temporary certificates issued to replace permanent certificates, temporary permits? How do 40 vehicles operate on 12 temporary regular certificates, as I will call them, apart from the specific ones issued for specific journeys? I also want to ask him whether it is true that this matter was reported to the local board in Durban. Let me give the sequence. Information was obtained in the middle of July that this change of ownership had taken place. On 17 July the matter was reported to the competitions officer of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. He was not prepared to do anything about it On 17 July the Railway Police were notified. I have the names of the people concerned and everything else. The answer was that they were too busy to do anything about these vehicles operating illegally. On 19 July it was followed up by a member of the Railway Police who said that they were not interested in vehicles operating within the Durban area and he could not do anything about it. On the same date the chairman of the local Road Transportation Board was telephoned. He was given specific information and asked to send out an inspector to go and impound a vehicle doing illegal transportation work at Pinetown from the harbour. The reply was that he had no inspectors available and that the S.A. Police should be contacted. A charge was then laid with the S.A. Police, and I have quoted the reply of the hon. the Minister. Action was then taken. The next day, however, that same vehicle which had been taken off the road, despite the Minister’s reply that no vehicle was impounded—it may not have been impounded, but it was taken off the road—was out again and operating on the road. Now this is a story, Sir, of the reporting of an illegal act to the Railways, to their competitions officer, to the Railway Police, and to the chairman of the Transportation Board. Eventually only the Minister of Police’s department took any action and that action was negated the next day. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has had a request from any of the new directors of this company to interview him, or whether he has seen any person from this company. I want to ask him whether he has been asked for an interview or whether he has granted any interview in this regard. I ask this because what is being spread around now in Durban is that they have friends in high places and it does not matter; they are going to carry on operating. I want to make it clear that I do not suggest that the “high places” referred to are here, but I believe that the hon. the Minister, when the matter was brought to his attention, should have had a full and thorough inquiry. If he had done so, if he had gone to the Carriers’ Association and made inquiries amongst legitimate carriers, he would have got exactly the same facts which I have got here and he would then have known the full picture. I have done my best. I have raised it, officially and unofficially. I am given to believe that there is one White director among the Indian directors of this firm, and that it is the White director who is alleged to have influence. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to clear this matter un once and for all. I have the names of the directors here. There is a Mr. U. B. Pillay, Mr. O. L. Redlinger, and a Mr. Doidge. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I just want to mention that this Vote wifi be dealt with by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to try to anticipate the hon. the Deputy Minister by replying to the hon. member for Durban Point in regard to this matter.

Today I want to speak about our national roads, and specifically the Garden Route. Now it is true that as long as humanity wants to make use of the mobility afforded him by the motor-car, we shall need bigger and better roads, in South Africa this task, the building of good throughroads, is entrusted to the National Transport Commission. Even in spite of the speed limits, we shall need roads of a reasonable standard on which we are able to maintain a reasonable speed. This question of speed and of good roads is not a today’s problem only. We read in the Bible in Nahum 2, verse 4—

As you can see, this is a very old problem We realize that when one has to build roads, one has to disturb nature; one has to disturb ecology to a certain degree, and also the animal and plant life. That is why it is the task of the National Transport Commission to make a very detailed study of the routes to be followed by every road it plans. The National Transport Commission makes use of all the technical information it can get from the C.S.I.R., local managements and other organizations. Particularly when the road has to pass through indigenous forests and over lagoons and river mouths, they have to be very careful. In planning the Garden Route, the National Transport Commission made a very good and thorough study and even built models of the river mouths, etc. A freeway can also be a very beautiful thing. I once read a good description of it. It read as follows—

It is true that a fine road can enhance an area. It need only follow the contours as far as possible which would then form soft lines and would blend with nature. A second requirement for a good road is that the soil that has been shifted should be put to good use and the unsightly bare surfaces should be graded and properly covered by vegetation. I think we can say that this does in fact form part of the policy of the National Transport Commission. It is a fact that well-cared-for road verges become places where plants and grasse and even animal life multiply. Often threatened plant life is given a better chance of survival on those roadways than in the veld. A freeway is the highest form of road building and because this is so, the greatest amount of attention is given to the planning of a freeway by the ecologists, the nature-lovers and protectors of the environment. They are quick to say that we should spend a few million rand more merely to reserve some specific place. That is why the planning of roads requires cool heads and a practical approach. This is what we have had in the planning of the Garden Route between Humansdorp and George. It is true that this is where the biggest indigenous forest in the Republic is situated and it is also true that this road passes through one of the most beautiful areas in the Republic. The Press and certain bodies have created the impression that the Commission merely draws lines and that they do not take all the aspects of nature conservation fully into account. For that reason I want to sketch briefly the history of this planning.

The planning has extended over a period of more than four years and R1,4 million has already been spent on the planning of the route. A number of alternative routes were investigated. There was the Langkloof route, for example. If this route were to be followed, a tunnel would have had to be constructed through the Outeniqua Mountains, a tunnel which would have cost more than R90 million. Apart from that, this route would have to run through the narrow Langkloof area which is agriculturally highly developed. It would therefore have damaged much farming land and it would have cost a great deal to reimburse the farmers. Apart from this, there is already a good road in the Langkloof including, I might add, one of the longest stretches of straight roadway in the country. In addition there is already a railway line serving the people of this area.

The existing road through the Garden Route is a poor and tortuous road that requires attention. It is also true that the local inhabitants have for a long time been insisting on better road transport. If the road were not to cross the lakes at Knysna—one of the most beautiful parts of the country—and over the Keurbooms River mouth, it would have to follow a very difficult route along the foot of the Outeniqua Mountains. On the latter route, no less than 11 bridges would have had to be built. I just want to mention, as a matter of interest, the names of the Rivers over which the bridges would have had to be built. They are the Touw River, the Duiwe River, the Diep River, the Holkrans River, the Geelhoutboom River, the Karatara River, the Homtini River, the Knysna River, the Gouna River, the Bitou River and the Keurbooms River.

A number of high bridges would have had to be built and the Keurbooms River bridge would have had to be two and a half times as long as the Van Stadens River Bridge, which is one of the biggest in the country today. It would have caused the cost of the route to rise from about R90 million to over R160 million. The Commission consulted all possible bodies. They held discussions with the Department of Forestry, the Department of Planning, the provincial administration, the Department of Nature Conservation, the Parks Board and the Divisional Councils, and having done this, decided on a route, a route through the dunes and next to the lakes. They planned this route very judiciously so as only to affect the Keurbooms Lagoon and so as to cross the lakes at an easy place where it will do very little damage.

In addition, the route will affect very little indigenous forest. A distance of only 17 km of forest will be affected in the course of this route of more than 250 km. With regard to the Garden of Eden, about which there were so many objections, the route is only going to affect 1½ km of it. This area is perhaps one of the most beautiful little spots in our country, but we cannot avoid it because the Garden of Eden gets broader both towards the sea and inland. In other words, the national road will pass through the very narrowest section of the forest. I think that the National Transport Commission will also make a plan as far as the elephants whose habitat is that area, are concerned. They will probably construct a corridor for the elephants. Special meetings have been held where everyone has been given a chance to air their objections to this route and all the objections that have been raised have been thoroughly investigated. For that reason I want to say that this road is not only going to be an asset to the whole country, but to that whole area. I cannot but say that the National Transport Commission has done its duty in this regard.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Just before the midday adjournment the hon. member for Durban Point raised a certain matter here and I think I should take the first opportunity I have to furnish him with the information I acquired in the lunch hour.

Apparently the difficulty of the hon. member for Durban Point concerns two transportation organizations, namely Moodley’s Transport (Pty.) Ltd., trading as International Delivery Company—the complaints concern them—and J. B. Harrington (Loveday Cartage (Pty.) Ltd.), which lodged the complaints in respect of Moodley’s Transport.

Sir, I am going to try to provide the fullest possible information at my disposal. Section 14(2) of the Motor Transport Act provides that if anyone acquires a controlling interest in a company after motor carrier certificates have been issued to such company, such motor carrier certificates would, unless the National Transport Commission or a local road transportation board were to give its approval to the acquisition of that interest, automatically be suspended with effect from the 21st day after the date of such acquisition, or from a later date if the National Transport Commission or the Local Road Transportation Board had given its approval to such acquisition. What this amounts to is that as soon as a Controlling interest is acquired in such an organization by a different person, immediate notification must be furnished, and if this is not done, the certificates are suspended within 21 days. That is what this means.

What happened in this case, was that there was a change in the board of directors of Moodley’s Transport on 1 September 1973. The original directors were K. and J. Moodley, and the new directors, as far as I am able to ascertain, are Messrs. O. F. L. Redinger, Y. Pillay and M. J. Doidge. These three directors omitted to inform the local Road Transportation Board of Durban that they had acquired the controlling interest in Moodley’s Transport and that it had been transferred to them although Mr. Pillay maintained that he had given notice of the change on 13 September 1973. It would appear that this allegation is untrue, if we look at the later correspondence, because on 4 June 1974, Moodley’s Transport wrote to the local road transportation board giving the names of the new directors and the change of address, and at the same time apologizing for not having informed the local road transportation board at an earlier stage.

What date was that?

The date is 4 June 1974. The original allegation was that they had given notice as far back as September 1973, but in their letter of 4 June they asked to be forgiven for not having done so. In other words, we can take it that the allegation that this had been done on 13 September of the previous year, was not correct. From this it followed that during the meeting of the local road transportation board which took place on 16 July of this year, an application for ten additional vehicles was made by Moodley’s Transport and it then transpired that the controlling interest in Moodley’s Transport was now held by different directors.

On the following day, 17 July 1974, the attorneys for Moodley’s Transport applied by letter to the local road transportation board, Durban, and, being unaware of this change of directorship—this being now a different local road transportation board dealing with the matter—the local road transportation board of Durban had already, during the period immediately after the change, viz. after 1 September 1973 up to 16 July 1974 when the change came to its attention, issued 150 temporary motor carrier certificates and one annual certificate in respect of an additional vehicle, to Moodley’s Transport. You will, realize, Sir, that the local road transportation board cannot be blamed for this, because according to the explanation I have given, they were totally unaware of the change.

You say it was a different board. What other board was that?

I beg your pardon, I used the wrong word. Unaware of the change in directorship, this Durban board did this. I did not, therefore, mean a different board, but this same board. This board had already issued 150 temporary motor carrier certificates. I take it that this is the 150 to which the hon. member referred.

Sir, I just want to explain to the House what a temporary motor carrier certificate is. One man can be given four different certificates on one day for the same vehicle to perform four different tasks, or he can acquire such a certificate for each one of his vehicles in order legally to perform a particular task for a given period, in other words, this explains what the hon. member for Durban Point said, that he cannot understand—and I will come to the 12 certificates later—how 12 certificates can be sufficient for the operation of 40 vehicles. Here they possess 150 temporary motor carrier permits.

For specific journeys.

For specific purposes and for specific routes.

Routes?

Journeys or routes. At present I do not have the details of each of these 150 certificates at my disposal. But I say that this explains why one can operate all of one’s 40 vehicles, as the hon. member states, and be entirely within the law. After the local transportation board had, on 17 July 1974, received the applications in terms of section 14(2) of the Act No. 39 of 1930, to which I have just referred, it referred the matter to the National Transport Commission on the following day, i.e. on 18 July, in terms of existing administrative procedures.

The application was received in Pretoria by the National Transport Commission on 19 July 1974. In the meantime, on 19 and again on 22 July, one Mr. G. V. Harrington of Loveday Cartage submitted the complaints to which I believe the hon. member referred, to the chairman and the secretary of the local transportation board. Because a decision by the National Transportation Commission in this regard was being awaited at this stage, naturally no steps were taken by the local road transportation board. On 14 July 1974, the National Transportation Commission decided not to approve a later date for the suspension of the certificates.

What date?

Not a later date. What I mean by that, is that when the 21 days expire, suspension automatically takes place, but the National Transport Commission may stipulate a later date. The National Transport Commission decided on 24 July that they would not stipulate such a later date and the certificates remained suspended and the National Transport Commission upheld the suspension of those certificates. This decision was communicated to the local road transportation board on 25 July 1974, i.e. a day after it had been taken, with an indication that Moodley’s Transport, just like any other person, was free to apply for temporary certificates, something that was also considered to be entirely legal. On receipt of an application for temporary authorization, the local road transportation board granted temporary authorization, on 25 July 1974, to 12 of the vehicles belonging to Moodley’s transport in lieu of the 12 certificates which had been suspended, on condition that the suspended certificates were surrendered. However, Moodley’s Transport maintains that these certificates had been lost, and upon the secretary’s insistence, a sworn statement to this effect was submitted, namely that the original certificates had been lost. The 12 temporary certificates were subsequently issued to Moodley’s Transport on 26 July 1974. The period of validity of the certificates extended from 26 July 1974 to 10 August 1974, and on 9 August 1974 it was extended from 11 August to 17 August. Subsequently, on 15 August, Moodley’s Transport reapplied for a further extension, but on the same day this was refused by the local road transportation board. As a result, Moodley’s Transport obtained a court order ordering the local road transportation board to issue 20 temporary certificates pending the lodging of an application to the courts to review and set aside the decision by the National Transport Commission. This was in respect of a decision on 9 August 1974 by the National Transport Commission to refuse the acquisition of the controlling interest by the new directors of Moodley’s Transport. On the basis of this court order the local road transportation board issued 12 temporary certificates for the period 20 August to 18 September. Sir, apart from the 12 temporary certificates granted in place of the 12 suspended annual certificates to which I referred, the local transportation board, after having become aware on 16 July of the change in the controlling interest, issued another 36 temporary certificates to Moodley’s Transport. Sir, taking this into account, we are dealing with two phases here. The first period is from 1 September 1973 to 16 July this year; it was during this period that the local road transportation board became aware of the change for the first time. The second period is the period after the local road transportation board became aware of the change. Firstly, in respect of its actions when it was unaware of the situation, the actions of the local road transportation board were, in my opinion, entirely justified, and in that case the issue of certificates was a normal transaction. As far as the rest of the matter is concerned, Sir, I have given you its history, and there is no indication whatsoever, from the information at my disposal, of any irregularity or of anything improper having occurred.

Sir, in conclusion I may just tell you that the department intends to oppose the application to the Supreme Court made by Moodley’s Transport to review the decision by the National Road Transport Commission concerning the acquisition of the controlling interest. I may also just tell you that the interdict was confirmed on 20 September 1974 and that the road transportation board, Durban, was directed to renew the 20 temporary certificates in the meantime until the decision of the court became known. In the meantime the road transportation board inspectors also ascertained that 30 of the 40 vehicles for which certificates had been issued, belonged to Moodley’s Transport and 10 to other bodies. A charge was laid with the court in respect of the 10 vehicles, and the public prosecutor indicated on 19 September 1974 that he was not prepared to prosecute in this regard.

Sir, I want to refer to yet another aspect of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban Point. He asked why the local chairman of the road transportation board had not sent an inspector; he maintained that he had not done so. From the information at my disposal, it is correct that there was a limited number of inspectors and that at that moment he did not, in fact, have any. Sir, the hon. member raised further questions which were not quite so innocent He asked whether there had not been an application for an interview with me by anyone concerned with this matter and whether I had in fact granted such an interview.

That is a fair question.

Yes, it is a fair question, and my reply to it is this: the first time I heard about these people, was when the hon. member raised the matter here in the House. I ascertained, too, that they had applied for an interview with neither the chairman of the National Transport Commission nor any of his senior officials. This I find extremely strange; as far as I know there has been no communication of whatever nature. Then the hon. member states: “One White director alleged that he had influence in high places.” Sir, if the hon. member for Durban Point possesses such information, then I think that he should make use of the privilege of the House to make that information available in full to the House. Sir, this is an unpleasant kind of insinuation and in my opinion the House is entitled to be put in possession of all the details in this regard. If anyone alleges that he has “influence in high places”, then in my opinion, before an hon. member makes an allegation of this kind in this House, he should check his facts more carefully and ensure that he gets hold of more details. One cannot let an allegation of that nature hang in the air in this House. In my opinion this House is entitled to hear more about this particular matter from the hon. member for Durban Point. Provisionally I want to leave the matter at that, in the hope that the hon. member for Durban Point will make available to this House all the information at his disposal in this regard, and that he will make available to this House every bit of information he possesses which could be of help to us in pursuing our investigations further. I shall reply to the other hon. members at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has asked me to make available to him all the information I have. I have made that information available over the floor of the House. Out of courtesy, weeks before this debate. I advised his department that I was interested in this matter. I then placed a question on the Order Paper which the hon. the Minister of Transport or his Deputy answered. It was in the name of the Minister of Transport, but I am not sure who answered the actual question.

There is a simple issue at stake here. The local Road Transportation Board met and, according to the Deputy Minister, who now confirmed this a few moments ago, on 16 July received for the first time the information that there had been a change of ownership. That was his statement. Am I correct?

He said “yes”.

That is what he said. But. Sir, the very company concerned advised the board on 4 June 1974 of the change of ownership and, according to the Minister, apologized for not having done so sooner. In other words, the board was aware of this one month and twelve days before the hon. the Deputy Minister alleges that it received that information for the first time, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister himself. One month and twelve days earlier it was aware of that information. But, Sir, what the hon. the Deputy Minister has not answered is why, after an objector, a legitimate objector, had gone to the Railway department concerned, the competitions department, and received no help; had gone to the Railway Police on two occasions and been refused any assistance in dealing with a crime; had reported to the chairman of the board that a crime was being committed and been told by the chairman that he had no inspector to deal with the matter; had gone to the South African Police and had a vehicle removed from the road, a vehicle which the following day was back on the road; the board issued temporary certificates to this firm and subsequently issued further certificates “because it was in the public interest”. This in isolation would be one matter. But it is not in isolation. Certificates for transport from the harbour are like gold. It is alleged that people are prepared to pay tens of thousands of rand for a certificate for harbour carrier transport. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister now to tell me how many new operators have received a single certificate in the last ten years to convey traffic in the harbour. I challenge him to give that figure. I have asked in this House for it, but I cannot get it. I want to know how many new operators have been admitted and allowed to convey traffic from the harbour. It is a closed shop and the only way you can get into that closed shop is by the back door. Here is a back door. I am dealing with a back door now. Yet, when this was found out and reported, it was allowed to go on. Apart from the sub judice angle, it was allowed to go on, and it is still continuing. I do not want to repeat what I have said before. These new certificates were issued not by court order; they were issued because it was in the public interest to help clear the cargo and they were issued to somebody who broke the law trying to get into the harbour by a back door.

The hon. the Deputy Minister admits that the condition for temporary certificates was that the old permanent certificates had to be surrendered. They have not been surrendered. And, notwithstanding the failure to meet the condition that the old permanent certificates be surrendered, new temporary certificates were issued. Mr. Chairman, I demand a full inquiry into every aspect of this matter. I ask for a full inquiry into every aspect of this case, where evidence will be taken from the harbour carriers, from the old owners of Moodley’s, from the new owners of Moodley’s, from the objector, from the Railways’ competitions officer who was approached, from the Railway Police—and I shall give the hon. gentleman the name of the officer approached, who refused to take action—and from the officials who were aware of this and who received the information on 4 June. I say this although the Deputy Minister alleges that they became aware of the change of ownership for the first time on 16 July. There must be an investigation into whether in fact the reason why the permanent certificates were not handed over was because of an argument between the old and the new owners over payment. I accept that the hon. the Minister did not receive an application for an interview. This is the rumour; I have made it absolutely clear that because of the incredible and unbelievable continued issue of certificates to an illegal operator, the rumour had spread that this firm had friends in high places. I made it quite clear that I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to blow that rumour apart by giving the facts. He must not now accuse me of “skindering”. I asked him; I said I was raising this in order to clear the air.

I did not say you were “skindering”.

Well, then, not “skindering”; you said I must give the information. I said clearly that this was a rumour that had grown out of the incredible continued operation of a firm running 40 vehicles on 12 carrier certificates, plus a few specific ones issued afterwards. I now ask the Deputy Minister to tell the House how many of the 150 certificates were for specific journeys to carry a specific load and how many were open temporary certificates to continue for an extended period. Without that information his explanation of how 40 vehicles, whose numbers I shall give him, are operating on 12 certificates holds no water. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not only not cleared this up; by the admission that a month and twelve days before he claims the board knew about it, the board had been advised of the change of ownership—and in fact there was an apology for failure to notify the board of the change of ownership earlier—I believe that the position is even worse than it was before, because while I thought 16 July was the first time the board was aware of the change of ownership, the Deputy Minister himself has disclosed that it was notified more than a month before that date. And, Mr. Chairman, what about the continuous extensions? When the board laid down a final date, it was extended for a week and then re-extended. Only when an interdict had been claimed—incidentally, one of the rumours was that an interdict would be asked for—did the matter become sub judice. Up to that point, voluntarily and freely, the board continued to issue these temporary certificates or to extend them.

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. the Deputy Minister will say, “Ja, jy aas weer”. But he knows the history of what has happened in road transportation in Natal. He knows that some years ago every single field inspector on the staff was within a period of two years tried and convicted of corruption. Against this background, he should be doubly careful, trebly careful, four times as careful, that no hint and no whisper of anything out of order should occur within this particular area, now that that record has fortunately been cleared up. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, due to the limited time at my disposal, the hon. member for Durban Point must pardon me if I do not go into his arguments too deeply. What I actually cannot understand is that the hon. member became so excited. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave him a proper explanation in regard to this entire matter. The impression I gain, however, is that the hon. member for Durban Point is following the poor example set by many hon. members on that side by continually indulging in gossip.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “gossip”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

Actually I am on my feet to speak about a matter which, in my opinion, is a cause for concern and serious thinking not only to us in this House, but also to everyone outside. I should like to speak about the high number of road accidents in South Africa. Loss of life as a result of road accidents in South Africa, which usually goes hand in hand with disruption and in some instances the total extermination of families, is decidedly one of the saddest social phenomena of our time. Our people have to pay a tremendous price for the privilege of using modern means of transport on our roads. We know that the human factor is responsible for virtually 80% of all road accidents. The remaining 20% are caused by factors such as the unroadworthiness of vehicles or the condition of the road.

I want to emphasize that education, whether of the person as the driver of a vehicle or as a pedestrian, forms the crux of what has to be concentrated on. To think for one single moment—this is important to me—that the speed limit of 80 km per hour on our roads outside urban areas and 60 km per hour on our roads in urban areas spells the end of road accidents in South Africa, is merely an illusion, in my modest opinion. The problem is far more comprehensive than that.

Let us dwell for a single moment on factors which determine how proficient a driver a person will be. The most obvious of these factors is the person’s physical condition; i.e. the person’s visual and auditory powers, his reaction ability, the co-ordination between his limbs, his age and his mental characteristics. The most important factor in this regard is the level of his intelligence, the standard of his education, the social role he plays, his socio-cultural background and his behavioural pattern. A person’s temperament, personality and state of mind also play a very important role in determining his reaction ability and the action he will take.

I am mentioning only a few factors in order to indicate that the causes of road accidents in South Africa are legion. I want to point out that it is decidedly one of the most difficult problems to solve in South Africa. I want to emphasize that those who think that speed is the only cause are in my opinion living in a world of their own. Engineering, education, legislation, the behaviour of motorists and traffic control, to mention only a few, are important aspects of the prevention of road accidents. Speed, therefore, is not the only offender.

What causes me concern in regard to the entire matter, however, is the fact that notwithstanding the fact that there are speed limits, we find today that the accident rate in South Africa is increasing once more. I think it is important that we should consider other causes of road accidents in South Africa, over and above the speed factor.

The speed limits which were introduced as a result of the oil crisis, dramatically decreased the number of fatal accidents overnight. The limits of 60 and 80 km are still being applied strictly and the magistrates are mercilessly stern, but the accident rate in South Africa is again starting to show a gradual increase. There is much conjecture about the reason for this. Some say that drivers become lax, that they constantly have to watch the speedometer and that their attention is consequently no longer on the road as it ought to be. Whatever the cause, accidents in South Africa are on the increase and intensive attention ought to be given to the problem. The public obey the speed limits, with the odd exception. What is required now, however, is a continued investigation into all the other causes of accidents, while keeping an open mind so that we shall not sit back with a feeling of self-satisfaction and regard speed as the only problem and one that has been solved at that. There is still a great deal that is wrong, both on the part of drivers and on the part of those who are charged with keeping our roads safe. Nonsensical road signs are still to be seen everywhere along our major roads. There are temporary speed limits which try to enforce a snail’s space of 5 km per hour, and road excavations which remain unattended for weeks after the installation of electric cables. There are also road signs which, in spite of their obvious ineffectiveness, are not changed year after year. As far as the public is concerned, pedestrians still saunter to and fro across freeways and farmers apparently still think that these expensive roads are intended for their cattle. Safety belts are only fastened now and again, while brakes and lights may be only tolerably good.

While I have now tried to indicate that speed is not the only offender in respect of road accidents, and that speed limits were introduced primarily to conserve fuel, I want to plead seriously with the hon. the Deputy Minister that when the fuel crisis is something of the past in South Africa, a general speed limit of 120 km per hour be introduced on the freeways. When one thinks of all the fine freeways which are being built today and one thinks for a single moment that all the freeways can only be used at 80 km per hour, one should seriously start thinking of taking those roads which cost millions of rand into reconsideration. On our better main roads I want to plead that the speed limit be fixed at 100 km per hour, and that on roads which carry heavy traffic or are not in a good condition, the speed limit be determined in accordance with the conditions. I want to say very clearly that I am not pleading for the speed limits to be higher than they were. Indeed, they should be lower than they were prior to 3 November 1973. This matter causes great inconvenience in South Africa. There is large-scale wasting of manpower and great inconvenience to the travelling public. Now, I also know, however—and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking our general public in South Africa, most sincerely for the fact that when they were called upon to conserve fuel as it would be in the national interests of South Africa— that everyone, the whole of South Africa, every single person co-operated. This proves that our people in South Africa are patriotic and do what they are required to do in the national interests.

In the short time at my disposal I unfortunately cannot quote many of the authorities in this regard. Perhaps I could at least read a few of them. In the Rand Daily Mail of 11 June 1974 a report appeared under the heading “Traffic Chief Wants Speed Limit Increased”. In this report the following was said—

In The Natal Witness of 12 June 1974 a report appeared under the heading “Speed Limits should be on Sliding Scale: Road Safety Symposium”. In this report the following was said—

A later article on the same topic had the heading: “Speed limit points made.” I quote—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Welkom has dealt at some length with road safety measures and has brought into question the desirability of various road safety speeds. From the reaction he got from hon. members on the other side of the House, I do not think he has the lobby entirely in agreement with him. International standards also are disagreed on this contentious subject which after all involves the saving of human lives.

Prior to the adjournment of the House for lunch, the hon. member for Humans-dorp addressed this House on the question of the Garden Route. I sensed that in delivering his address on the Garden Route he was on the defensive and in fact was making a plea in support of the attitude taken up by the National Road Transport Commission in what has become a highly contentious and highly sensitive subject. After all, this subject deals with the building of a freeway through the most beautiful and unspoilt part which we have in South Africa. He has spoken on behalf of the Road Transport Commission, but I intend to speak on behalf of tens of thousands of South Africans who may differ radically with the findings of the Road Transport Commission. In a sense I intend to speak on behalf of Parliament. I believe that when one plays about with the concept of building a national highway, one must consider the fact that this highway will be some 80 metres in width and that cuttings through the most beautiful scenic areas, of a depth more than three times the height of the Old Mutual building in Cape Town will be involved. We believe that there should be special consideration, and that it should be made known to Parliament and the public before final decisions are taken. I want to say that those who are opposed to the siting of the present Cape Town to Port Elizabeth highway through the Garden Route in its present route and present location have never contested the fact that there should be a major highway between the main cities of Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. However, those who are so concerned about the preservation of this priceless heritage for the future of all South Africans have in mind the ecology, topography and the social impact that it would have on this area. I see in the one report of the National Road Transport Commission a statement that by the year 2000 we shall have 25 cities of the size of Johannesburg in South Africa. When one sees this, one realizes the need for giving special preference to preserving the few beautiful recreational and wilderness areas which we still have. We on this side of the House submit that despite the fact that it has been stated in reply to a question that all local authorities were consulted and that most experts were consulted, no environmental impact study was commissioned in order to examine all the aspects of the destruction of the environment concerned. Furthermore, no such report has ever been made public. We understand that a public meeting was held at George. From Press reports it appeared that the public and those present were given a grossly discourteous hearing by the people who were in charge of the meeting. I say in all earnestness that I appeal to this House and to the hon. the Minister concerned that there is not such urgency in connection with the construction of this road through the vital area of the Garden Route, where it affects our estuarine areas, our vleis, our indigenous forests and our mountainous areas, that we cannot halt at this stage and learn the lesson that was learnt in America. In America leading environmentalists have made it quite clear that the day of the freeway may in fact be brought into question. I particularly want to refer to an international authority, Prof. McKarg, the head of the school of landscape architecture at the University of Pennsylvania. While attending a symposium in South Africa he expressed his amazement when he heard of the present proposals for the Garden Route freeway. He stated that he believed that the existing scheme had not been tested from an ecological point of view. He stated, too, that he could not credit that a nation enjoying such a unique natural resource of incredible value to its people should be prepared to build a highway and so destroy such an irreplaceable asset. He commented further:

This has happened in America, Sir.

It is inevitable that there is a clash at the moment between the engineers who are concerned about building roads economically and roads that are technically suitable, and the environmentalists. I submit that those environmentalists who are opposing the projected location of the road, are not starry-eyed romanticists. They are concerned with the heritage bequeathed to us by nature. For the misuse of this heritage, the rape of this wonderful area, not only the Road Transportation Commission will be held to account, but future generations will also question the wisdom of our decision to undertake a road of this magnitude through such ecologically sensitive areas. We believe that there are one or two areas in particular which could even now have been avoided. I refer to the Keurbooms River estuary, the lake areas and the indigenous forests. It is quite clear that irreparable harm will be done to these areas. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that he should give this House the assurance that, when the decisions were taken, due regard was had to the Forest Act, No. 72 of 1968. Since this road will cut through demarcated forests, I may point out that section 8(2) of this Act states quite categorically that—

Subsection (3) goes on to state that—

An identical provision is contained in the National Parks Act. This road does pass through national parks and wilderness reserves and I wonder whether due regard has been taken of this provision. It is because we in South Africa are so conscious of the responsibilities of Parliament that these provisions were made. The very fact that there are four or five potentially different routes which, after they were considered, were turned down because of the question of expense, leads me to point out that, where we are dealing with such an ecologically sensitive area that is so vital to tourism in this country, one does not take into consideration the 10%, 15% or 20% in additional costs. It has also been proved that this road is going to be a freeway for fast heavy duty trucks between the two respective cities. It is highly questionable whether this road will in fact serve the interests of tourism. I believe one should not play with such international assets in the tourist field and in the ecological field as the Kruger National Park, the Victoria Falls in Rhodesia or the Garden Route in the Cape. I therefore submit that Parliament has not been given the fullest possible report on this matter and that the public of South Africa have not been given the opportunity to consider the ultimate damage that may be done to South Africa. We submit that we should follow the American practice and introduce legislation that will make it compulsory in the case of any major undertaking of this nature that an environmental impact study should first be carried out and that the results of that study should be made available to Parliament and to the public before such a project may be authorized.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had been here this morning and had listened to the hon. member for Humansdorp he would have received all the replies to his questions. This is because the hon. member for Humansdorp, in my opinion, dealt with the whole matter to the satisfaction of the House. He explained very clearly that the authorities entrusted with the planning of this road planned and decided upon the route with all the necessary circumspection and care. It was explained to us that all the factors bearing on nature conservation were in fact taken thoroughly into account. I suggest that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens read over the Hansard of the hon. member for Humansdorp—he would be a lot wiser after having done so.

But I also want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban Point with reference to the explanation by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I hope I can have the attention of the hon. member for Durban Point. Unfortunately I was not in the House for the entire period—I had to go out—but I understand the hon. member had a complaint to the effect that on 4 June of this year, the local road transportation board of Durban was given notice that the interests in the Moodley Company had been acquired by other shareholders, but that in fact, it was only on 16 July that the local road transportation board took cognizance of this letter of 4 June. He maintained that in the period between 4 June and 16 July, temporary certificates could perhaps have been issued which should not have been issued. I understand that his complaints concerned the discrepancy between these dates. If that is so, I want to tell him that that is quite normal.

That is not true.

The letters are first placed on the file. On 4 June it was received on file by the secretary. The members of the local road transportation board do not sit in their offices to go through the files every day. They only look at the documents when they become before them on the day settled on for the hearing. It is obvious, therefore, that it was only on 16 July that the road transportation board had the first opportunity of becoming aware of the shareholding in the company concerned. It was at that same meeting, held on 16 July, that the road transportation board also decided to go no further with the ten applications for temporary certificates. They said that a proper application had to be submitted, and this was only done on the following day. Section 14(2) prescribes a fixed procedure, and this company had not followed that procedure before 17 July. The hon. member should have known that and then he would not really have had a case against the hon. the Deputy Minister. Sir, it was not my intention to discuss these matter, but I had no choice but to react to some of the remarks made opposite.

But it is obvious that you know nothing about it.

But then the hon. member knows even less than I do. If he mentions this discrepancy in debates as a reason for there having been a “miscarriage of justice”, or for there having been something suspicious, then he is entirely on the wrong track.

May I put a question?

Certainly.

Is it not legally obligatory for the certificates to be suspended 21 days after a change has taken place, in the ownership of a company, and was this done in this case?

The local road transportation board only took due cognizance of this matter on 16 July for the first time, because it was only then that the documents came before it. It then directed the company concerned to put the matter in order. It was only put in order by means of the proper application in terms of section 14(2) of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act. The application was submitted on the following day, 17 July. On that day, for the first time, the local road transportation board had the matter before it so as to give it their due attention. If hon. members had listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister they would know that it was then referred to the National Transport Commission and shortly afterwards, the National Transport Commission took certain decisions with regard to the matter, inter alia, that certain certificates had to be suspended and returned. These are the facts of the matter and I see nothing suspicious in them. I really cannot think why the hon. member has kicked up such a fuss about this. The hon. member has taken up some of my time.

I should like to address the House in connection with the Driessen Commission which is going to come up with certain findings in regard to urban traffic in South Africa. I regard urban and suburban traffic in South Africa as being of prime importance for us in the future. We are therefore chafing to hear the findings of that commission because the entire situation has been accentuated by the oil crisis into which we have been plunged; the more so, since in this oil crisis I have had certain visions of a re-evaluation of the private car as a means of transport and the possible rationalization of our public transport as a result. I had visions of the hold the private car has on our entire society, the domination of our way of life by the private car, virtually the domination of our existence by the private car, being broken by this oil crisis into which we have been plunged.

I think that future historians may find that no single technological development has so revolutionized and dominated the way of life of the people of the twentieth century as has the private car. I want to state that it has had an influence on the layout of our towns and the situation of shopping centres, that to many it has become a status symbol and to others an aggressive weapon. It has caused problems for our guardians of historical places and our nature conservationists and there is a running battle between those who want to let the car have its way and those who want to protect the beauty of our nature and our places of historical interest. Sometimes the car is the loser and sometimes the nature conservationist is the loser. In particular, the car has brought about a tremendous change in the matter of person-to-person contact. Instead of the hearty handshake people get when they meet each other in the street, one now has to be satisfied with a wave of the hand by the drivers as their cars speed past each other.

The fuel restrictions brought to light the fact that this idol, the car, with its seductive speed was also a cruel murder weapon. I further want to point out that as a result of our deference to the demands of the car, we have to maintain a vast system of roads in our metropolitan areas. I now want to speak briefly and concisely because my time is getting short. I had visions of us being able, in the course of the whole process, to rationalize the transport systems in our cities. The entire world is battling with this problem. I am told that in a city such as Paris, motor traffic has increased by 50% over eight years. Various solutions have been suggested by people who exercise their minds with regard to these matters. There is the possibility of the staggering of working hours, which has already been mentioned by the hon. the Minister; there is the limitation of private traffic to certain freeways during the peak hours; there are open traffic lanes for buses in peak hours; there is the automation of ticket sales and ticket inspection in public transport; there is the protection and improvement of public transportation systems; there is the greater co-ordination between the various public transportation systems; there is convenient shelter for people who want to make use of public transportation systems; important, too, is the question of the development of electric buses to replace the existing motor buses, something that has really gripped the attention of the West in recent times. There is the possibility of limiting parking in the cities in order to discourage the use of, the private car in this regard. To me, however, one of the most important and most interesting developments in the battle by the European cities against the domination of the car, is the creation of traffic-free city centres: [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville devoted portion of his speech to a spirited defence of the hon. member for Humansdorp who, he claimed, had answered all the questions posed by the hon. member for Gardens before he had even asked them. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him. I am afraid that the questions posed by the hon. member for Gardens still stand.

I want to talk about the necessity for a more enlightened approach towards the planning of national roads. I want to stress how important it is that there be maximum co-operation between the Department of Planning and the Department of Transport. I would go further and I would request that the hon. the Ministers concerned should as a matter of course appoint a multi-disciplinary committee of investigation whenever major national road undertakings are envisaged. One only has to look at the Garden Route freeway debacle to realize the necessity for this sort of action. This multi-disciplinary committee would consist not only of designers and civil engineers, but ecologists, regional planning experts, town planners, soil scientists, conservationists, hydrologists as well as representatives of all the local authorities concerned …

A representative of the Prog Party as well.

Yes, a representative of the Prog Party would be a very good idea because his ideas would probably be just a little more enlightened than the ideas of the hon. the Minister in this respect.

He will mess it up!

They should consider all aspects of the scheme. I hope that this is being done to some extent already. However, this should be done publicly with due and courteous regard to any representations that may be made by the public. I particularly stress the word “courteous” because I do not believe that representations made by members of the public during the controversy over this Garden Route freeway were courteously received. From their attitude, officials clearly regarded any objectors as enemies. There is no doubt at all that in the minds of many of the public the scheme was not at all properly investigated from the start. The result was a colossal and emotional row which need never have taken place. The fact that the planners have modified the scheme considerably seems to indicate that the original planning was not beyond criticism, to say the very least. What is probably the most regrettable aspect of the whole affair, however, was the breakdown of public relations communications. Nearly 50 000 South Africans signed petitions protesting against the route. The La Grange Commission set up by the Department of Planning as a sub-committee of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Planning Advisory Council to investigate the preservation of river mouths, lagoons and vleis …

[Inaudible.]

No, not your commission—… in South Africa, expressed its disgust as follows. I quote—

Mr. Chairman, South Africa does not have very much prime recreational coastline left; and this does not only apply to coastlines. We are steadily cutting down the heritage of our national resources because every year we find that there are fewer and fewer areas of natural beauty left. In spite of what the conservationists can do, inroads are continually being made into our indigenous forest areas. Sir, with particular respect to indigenous forests, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give this Committee an undertaking that the department will be very careful that the provisions of the Forestry Department Act, No. 72 of 1968, will not be ignored, even though I understand that there is a loophole in this law because Government departments are exempted; but it would be a very nice gesture indeed from the hon. the Deputy Minister if he would give this undertaking. One gets the impression that the officials did not know what they were about when the newspaper in George claimed that this Forestry Act was being ignored. The Secretary for Transport then said that the issue would be placed before Parliament, but upon discovering that Government departments were in fact exempted, he apparently promptly withdrew. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go particularly into the pros and cons of the whole affair. It is just a colossal mess. Large sections of the road have been built already, and some of the most beautiful parts of the country are going to be irreparably damaged. Further changes must still be made in the project to minimize the highly uncertain consequences of what can only be regarded as totally inadequate planning. Sir. I want to make this point: Various experts were quite right and various member of the public who made representations were quite right in saying that there was and still is a basic lack of planning. This is perhaps primarily because of an inadequate structuring of governmental decision-making processes for major road-planning and all related matters. Sir, planning a road in terms of engineering problems is just not good enough; total planning is necessary, involving the many disciplines that I have already mentioned earlier in my speech. But the other point that I want to make is that I believe that the Government’s attitude to the participation of public groups in the debate on the pros and cons of the scheme was scandalous. The most extraordinary, ludicrous hostility developed between these groups and the Government. There was what has been described as downright rudeness from officials to protesting individuals; there were refusals to make the results of studies available to worried members of the public; there were insults; there were numerous verbal fracas, and on one occasion people almost came to blows. Sir, it was a pretty ridiculous spectacle, and basically both the officials and the hon. the Minister of Defence, who happens to be concerned with this because the roadway goes through his constituency …

Whoever told you that?

I read all about the hon. the Minister’s meeting in George. The hon. the Minister of Defence held a meeting in George, where I believe that his conduct was not very pleasant at all. He saw protestors almost as agitators. He sees agitators behind every bush. Implicit in his attitude and the attitude of officials was a basic denial by the Government of the right of voluntary groups to participate in a debate on a vital issue of public concern. This whole approach appears to be an attitude that is fundamental to the aproach of the Government. Far too often this total arrogance manifests itself. The authorities concerned could have been frank with these groups; they could have been polite to them; they could have talked nicely to them. Many acknowledged experts were treated very rudely indeed when they were just eager to help. They could have shared their problems with them in a spirit of co-operation, but did this happen? No, not at all. They could have worked, with them towards a solution, but that just did not happen. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that democratic politics is not only ballotbox politics. Opposition to the freeway came from supporters of all political shades of opinion, not just supporters of the Progressive Party but supporters of members of the other side of the House as well. There is no doubt at all that the controversy over this has resulted in considerable changes to the scheme as far as the environmental aspects are concerned, and it seems that there has been a change of attitude in the department in that better studies of the Garden Route freeway are in operation. Fourthly, I believe that a broad spectrum of advice on other national roads is being sought. Perhaps that is a good thing after all. One can only congratulate the department and express the hope that this trend will continue. One hopes that this lesson will be a salutary one and that they will listen in future, and that other departments will also take note. Finally, I would like to ask that special attention be given to three aspects of this Garden Route plan, which is still very disquieting indeed. They are, firstly, the crossing of the Keurbooms River estuary, secondly the crossing of the Wilderness lake, and finally the route through the Garden of Eden forest. I think that they should be looked at again.

I am not going to follow up on what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because I fear that I must takes the strongest exception to the scandalous references he made with regard to our officials and their actions in pursuance of their work.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “scandalous”.

I withdraw it. Sir, this matter has been dealt with very thoroughly by the hon. member for Humansdorp, but I fear that there are none so deaf as those will not hear, and there are none so blind as those will not see. I am therefore going to leave the hon. member at that. The hon. the Minister can deal with him shortly.

Sir, I should like to make use of this opportunity to deal with a matter which, I believe, has not been properly dealt with in this House in the past: I refer in particular to the buildings at Jan Smuts Airport. The official commissioning of this new international terminal building at Jan Smuts Airport, which took place, if I remember correctly, towards the end of 1972, was definitely one of the high-water marks in the history of our country, and today I want to make use of this opportunity to pay tribute particularly to those who were intimately concerned in the matter. Here I have in mind in particular the Secretary for Transport and the Secretary for Public Works and those people who were concerned in the matter along with them, for the able way in which they acted in this regard and for what they have produced there for us. This building, the total surface area of which is almost equivalent to ten rugby fields and on which, at the peak of construction, approximately 1 200 tradesmen and workmen were employed, was created for us there as an architectonic and aesthetic masterpiece. Jan Smuts Airport is the gateway to our beautiful country, South Africa, and what they see there makes a lasting impression on those who enter or depart from our country. This building was planned for the security and convenience of the travellers and in all respects compares very favourably with the best and the most modern airports in the entire world. I also want to convey my congratulations in particular to the artists involved for the works of art they have created for us there, although I have to admit that I am not always able to understand the symbolism of all these works of art.In true South African fashion, South African building material was relied on in constructing the airport—our own limestone, our own marble, our own granite, our own carpets, our own furniture and our own wall tiles. These were very successfully built in. This terminal building is an international building in all respects where all facilities may be enjoyed by all race groups. It is a pity that owing to financial circumstances it has not yet been possible to build the telescopic corridors from and to the aircraft. However, the building has been designed in such a way that these will in fact be added later when they are urgently required. I therefore want to make use of the opportunity to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister in particular and to ask him as a matter of urgency whether the time has not arrived for serious consideration to be given to building these telescopic arms even now, with a view to the future. The Jan Smuts Airport was originally opened to international traffic in 1953. At that time there were only 200 000 passengers of whom about half were international passengers. Movements of aircraft at that time amounted to about 9 000 while only about 3 000 tons of air freight per annum was transported. The growth since then has been phenomenal. Movements of aircraft have already passed the quarter million mark. International passenger traffic has risen to about 750 000, i.e. an increase of about 16% per annum. In 1971-’72 Tan Smuts handled 96% of all our international air freight, 38% of the total domestic traffic and 67% of the domestic air freight traffic. Looking at the statistics available, it is very interesting to note that according to the reply to a question put in this House, the domestic passenger transport in April of this year was as follows: The number of incoming passengers was 75 298 and departing passengers, 71 804. I think that April was a good month to choose because in that month the National Party also grew. In may, air traffic was as follows: 1 968 incoming and 1 968 outgoing flights. In May the number of incoming passengers at the international level amounted to 43 612 as against 59 524 outgoing passengers, while there were 831 incoming and 833 outgoing flights. There are a great many other figures which one could mention, but I only mention these in order to indicate the tremendous volume of traffic that has already developed there.

If one bears all this in mind, one has the greatest respect for the staff of the airport who had to work under very difficult circumstances in the past. One cannot believe today that they were able to handle that number of passengers in the limited space they had to work in before. I also want to express my particular satisfaction with the vast development that has taken place there, inter alia, the provision made for parking space. This has brought about a tremendous improvement.

However, one bottleneck remains, namely the traffic interchange at Jan Smuts Airport. This traffic interchange, too, is almost completed. It is being worked on at high pressure and there is no doubt that it will be a happy day when this job is completed. Often I pity the stranger who finds himself in that maze of roads. I think it would be as well to install better road signs.

This airport is only one of the many in South Africa I could praise. We in South Africa therefore have no reason to be ashamed of what we have already achieved in this field.

In the time at my disposal there is still one other matter to which I want to refer. With reference to what has already been said here, I, too, have a few things to say about our speed restrictions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister whether the time has not arrived for them to resubmit this matter to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The whole question of speed and fuel savings could profitably be investigated on a scientific basis. It should be borne in mind that we in South Africa have thousands of continental cars built for high speed. They have high-compression engines and at a higher speed they perform better and use less fuel. I should like to see it being determined scientifically to what extent there is a correlation between speed and accidents. I admit that the accident rate has dropped enormously, but this could have occurred as a result of the reduced amount of traffic on our roads, the reduced number of night journeys which take place and in addition, the reduced number of weekend trips over long distances. All these factors could have contributed towards the drop in the accident rate, and not only the fact that we have had to drive more slowly. In an investigation of this kind we should have to determine whether the number of man-hours lost as a result of the lower speed, is justified.

I want to plead on behalf of the law-abiding citizens of our country, for whom it is very difficult to comply with these speed restrictions. We should like to stay on the right side of the law, but it is extremely difficult for us to keep to these restrictions. Only a small concession would cause far more of our citizens to be placed within the category of law-abiding citizens. I do not at all intend championing the cause of lawbreakers, but I do want to plead for those who are prepared to remain within the law. We are only asking for a small concession. I do not want to prescribe the speed limit, but I think that when this is determined scientifically, we could find that relief would in fact be forthcoming in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to raise the issue of the Garden Route freeway linking Port Elizabeth with Cape Town as part of the road from Lourenço Marques to Cape Town. We are not against the freeway, because we believe in promoting and supporting progress, and certainly believe in better roads. However, considerable doubt was expressed by the public as to the feasibility of the Garden Route freeway. We saw that the Wild Life Society of Southern Africa submitted a petition of something like 45 000 signatures in protest against certain aspects of this road. A “Save the Garden Route” committee was formed to object to certain aspects of the building of this freeway. This committee is normally referred to as Sagrocom and on, it serve some of the most prominent businessmen and engineers in the country, men like Dr. Andrew Roberts, W. D. Lyle, Mr. Langford, and others who live in the area. The Ratepayers’ Association of Plettenberg Bay and Knysna as well as many members of municipal councils have raised objections to the planning and the siting of the road. It became a contentious issue in the Press as well as in scientific circles. There were personality clashes between members of the public and the members of the National Transport Commission. It even involved prominent visitors from the United States like Prof. McHardy, as well as the hon. the Minister of Defence. The National Transport Commission adopted the attitude that no other person or body had a mandate to ensure that the national road or freeway was feasible or justified and that it was the sole responsibility of that body. They felt that only the National Transport Commission had the right and responsibility to plan, locate and construct national roads as empowered by the National Roads Act of 1971. This might be so, but the public want the assurance that the right decision was taken and that justice was done. Obviously they are not happy with the feasibility study or the assurances given by the National Transport Commission. No one is able to decide on the merits of the present decision, not even the National Transport Commission. The problem is that there is already a good national road along the Garden Routy known as Routy 2. Why duplicate it with another national road and concentrate and funnel the traffic through a recreational area known for its exceptional beauty, thereby destroying the very assets we want to protect? This is especially so as there are three other possible routes. The one is by way of Uitenhage, Steytlerville, Willowmore and Oudtshoorn. The Second alternative is by way of Hankey, the Baviaanskloof and Oudtshoorn, which leads on to Cape Town. The third possible route is the one through the Langkloof to Oudtshoorn and George or Cape Town. The Langkloof route was regarded to be the best of the alternative routes [Interjections.] It is amazing how sensitive Government members are about this sort of thing, except when it comes to the ecology, because they know that they … [Interjections.] We are told that there are already a main road and a railway line along the Langkloof and a rew freeway would involve destroying valuable apple orchards and valuable farming land will have to be expropriated. A road tunnel will also have to be built costing about R90 million. We also heard that the traffic count is less than 1 000 per day through the Langkloof. We are aware of these facts. We also know that the present traffic count along the Garden Route is about 1 500 at the Storms River and that it increases to something in excess of 3 000 near George and Knysna. This was apparently the main reason for deciding upon the Garden Route.

None of these arguments is sufficiently persuasive or compelling and I do not believe that the other alternatives were really properly investigated and seriously considered in spite of the so-called R1,4 million which was spent on planning. Planning does not mean investigation of other alternative sites. The objection to the Garden Route freeway is that it funnels additional traffic into a supersensitive recreational area through which many people pass without being inherently interested in the Garden Route itself. Traffic on a freeway is not allowed to stop and consequently very little benefit is derived from the beauty on both sides of the road. Although compromises to the alignment of the road were made away from the easier coastal route, it will still cross various estuaries, lagoons, vleis and forests with additional bridges required across the Swart Vlei, the Serpentine, the Knysna Lagoon, the Bitou River, the Keurbooms River, etc. I know all these places and this could seriously affect the delicate balance of the estuarine ecology where marine animals spawn and breed unless it is well-planned to avoid interference with the tidal action and siltation. Although various authorities, such as the Department of Planning and the Environment, the Department of Forestry, the Department of Nature Conservation, and the local authorities such as the divisional councils were consulted, none of these bodies has the personnel or the money to undertake an in-depth investigation of the kind of ecological impact that a road of this nature could have. Only a small section of that total length of road was submitted to a land-use evaluation and I have the report here. The area was 32 km in length and 11 km wide. I know what an undertaking of this nature involves. It must be multidisciplinary and you need ecologists, botanists, zoologists, geologists and people of that nature. I am convinced that where people of this nature were called in, it was only subsequent to the decision that the new freeway would follow the Garden Route. The whole area between George and Nature’s Valley should have been investigated, and preferably, the whole route.

Tell us what it says in the report you are referring to.

I read it and I have this land-use evaluation with me. It is too long to read out here. However. I know what it says and I also know that it is only limited to a very short area. We believe that an ecological impact report should be submitted for every major development in South Africa, including roads, that it should be made available to the public and furthermore, that it should be tabled in this House. This is what happens in other countries. Hon. members opposite may laugh but they will in due course be educated to these things once they get on with that education. There should also be a socioeconomic impact report because the dual carriageways of 80 metres wide cut straight across communities and their daily lives splitting asunder or cutting off development and affecting the lives of the whole community. It makes it difficult for people to cross over from one side of the road to the other. The Transport Commission adopts the attitude that they are not compelled by any law to undertake an ecological or socio-economic impact report and will only do so when they find it necessary. It has obviously become necessary that there should be such an Act which provides that all major schemes be submitted to a land-use evaluation survey. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to reply to the debate that has just been conducted on the Garden Route. I shall try to take up as little as possible of the Committee’s time. Let me begin by saying, with reference to what was said by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, that we are thoroughly aware of the provisions contained in the Forestry Act and that those provisions were taken into consideration in planning this road. However, I must add that it goes without saying that in order to submit something of this nature to Parliament, all the necessary surveys have to be made and plans have to drawn up to enable the particulars to be furnished. In this case it appears that it will probably not be necessary, for I understand that the hon. the Minister of Forestry is going to introduce an amendment to the Forestry Act next year to remove all the doubt referred to by the hon, member for Orange Grove by making the provisions concerned not applicable to the National Transport Commission.

Disgraceful! That is a backward step.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has spoken of the unfriendly reception that people get from officials. I should be very glad if hon. members would be more specific. This is my responsibility, after all, and if such unfriendly reception occurs or if proper consideration is not given to matters submitted to the responsible parties, I should like to have those particulars. I should appreciate it very much if the hon. member would give me those particulars.

I have taken some trouble and spent a good deal of time in acquainting myself with the circumstances pertaining to the planning of this road. I have personally come to the conclusion that the route that has now been decided on is the right one. I should like to explain the considerations briefly. The hon. member who has just spoken said that there was already a road in existence there, but the existing road no longer serves its purpose; it is in a bad condition, and from the nature of the case a new road has to be planned. The hon. member will admit, too, that this is not just a road connecting Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, but that it is a freeway running along the coast up to Durban. It is a very important road and from the nature of the case it is necessary for such a road to be constructed there. The traffic count on this road is increasing by approximately 7% a year and the maximum count of vehicles made there is 3 000 a day.

The question has been raised why the route on the coastal side of the mountain was chosen. The hon. member has mentioned the possibility of the Langkloof or of a route lying deeper into the interior. As regards the Langkloof, I want to say that if that route had been chosen, it would have meant that the road would have had to swerve from Mossel Bay towards the Langkloof in order to cross the mountains from there. The cost would have been considerably higher. It is estimated that the cost would have been approximately R90 million higher if the road had to swerve away at Mossel Bay and then to follow the Langkloof route. I do not want to elaborate further on the Langkloof, for the hon. member for Humansdorp has dealt with the subject very competently. He has drawn attention to the value of the farms situated there, the railway line running along there, the fact that the kloof is so narrow, etc. If one compares the cost of the two proposed routes, one finds that the length of the road through the Langkloof would be 257 km up to the point where it rejoins the coastal road, and that it would cost R325 million, as against the approved route over a shorter distance of 255 km, which would cost R220 million. So it is a good deal cheaper. I do not mean to imply that the cost factor was the only consideration, for there were many other considerations. However, it goes without saying that the people at George and Knysna would also like to have good roads. The hon. the Minister of Defence, who represents those people, will confirm this. I should like to give the Committee the assurance that all possible research has been done in this connection. In the process all interested parties have been consulted, including the Department of Planning, the Le Grange Commission, the Department of Forestry, the nature conservation and roads departments of the Provincial Administration of the Cape, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, the Parks Board, the CSIR and all the local authorities. I may inform this Committee that the hon. the Minister of Defence assures me that the local authorities of George and Knysna— i.e. the local divisional councils—approve of this route. The people serving on those councils are not all Nationalists; there are many United Party supporters as well—let me give hon. members this assurance—-particularly at Knysna. The divisional councils, as well as the municipalities of George and Knysna, are all in favour of the route that has now been decided on.

Sir, land evaluation studies were made, and after everything had been taken into consideration, this route was decided on by common consent. But now hon. members may ask me why the route was not moved closer to the Outeniqua Mountains so that it need not pass so close to the coast. The main objection seems to be against that part of the route that passes through the vicinity of the Wilderness. Once again the reply is that the choice was determined by financial considerations. As the hon. member for Humansdorp has already pointed out, many bridges would have had to be built if the route had been nearer the mountains which would have increased the cost tremendously. To be specific, it would have cost R162 million as against R88 million for the route near the sea. One may also ask why the road cannot run along the plateau only; that is to say, not beneath the Outeniqua Mountains, but a little further on. It has been found that if the road were to be built there, it would create a serious danger of erosion which would be much more damaging to the lakes in that vicinity. I said a short while ago that the contentious places were, inter alia, the lakes. As far as the lakes are concerned, only Swartvlei will be affected by this road. The Serpentine lake, too, will be slightly affected. Then objections have also been raised to the part of the route that runs through indigenous forests. Sir, the forests in that area cover approximately 36 000 ha. Only about 17 ha will be affected by this road. Now there is a great hue and cry, as if this road were going to spoil the indigenous forests. The only two places where the natural forests will be affected, are Platbos and a small area at the Garden of Eden. Only 1/2000th of the total area will be affected by the road.

What about Witelsbos?

As far as river-mouths are concerned, the Keurbooms River is the only one that will be affected. In fact, the road at Keurbooms River is being moved further away from Plettenberg Bay than it is today. Years ago, when the present road was built, there was a great fuss, too, because the road had to run along there. It is now being moved further away and everything possible is being done to eliminate the danger of spoiling the river-mouth. If the road were not to be built there, but higher up across the river, it would cost an additional R30 million. Sir, just allow me to say this for the sake of interest, since this is not the first time that these arguments have been conducted. In 1944 the Administrator of the Cape Province, Mr. Brand van Zyl, wrote to Mr. Sturrock, the then Minister of Transport, to object to the present route. He raised serious objections and concluded the letter as follows—

Then Mr. Sturrock, the United Party Minister of that time, wrote back to him and said—

He came to the conclusion that the road would just have to run along there. In other words, we are now having a repetition of the fuss that was made at that time. When it has died down, we shall all find that the right decisions were taken after all.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for being so specific in explaining why this particular road has been built in the area in which it has been built. I am glad he adopted a responsible attitude and did not laugh at the number of members on this side of the House who have put forward other views concerning this particular highway. Might I just say that the hon. members on this side are trying to ensure the protection of the ecology and the national heritage of this wonderful country of ours. All we are asking of the hon. the Minister is that he and his department will ensure that the building of this road will not damage for all time the national heritage of South Africa. [Interjections.] These members on my left my talk, but I would like to quote from Hansard with reference to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. At issue here was the building of another big project, i.e. the pipeline at the oil off-loading station in Durban. Members on this side of the House questioned the construction of this pipeline because of what it might do to the ecology of Natal (Hansard, Vol. 25, col. 2343)—

We asked for guarantees.

Just as we are doing now—

Have they given it?

The Minister: That oil terminal is going to be built, and when it is built it will enable tankers of 200 000 and more tons to offload their oil at that terminal.

Have they given guarantees?

The Minister: I do not know; they probably have. According to the information I have, they have. Why is the hon. member laughing? What is amusing about this?

Because you do not know whether they have given any guarantees.

The Minister: The people who should be concerned about a guarantee are the Durban Municipality.

And the Government.

The Minister then changed the subject. I should like to read to hon. members of this House a newspaper article which appeared on Wednesday. The article refers to a South Coast oil pollution scare:

I should now like to refer to a more recent news report which appeared in this morning’s Cape Times—“Oil spillage covers 27 km of beach”:

I should like to take the few minutes left to me to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention this matter of oil pollution on our coasts. [Interjections.]

You must keep quiet over there in the kitchen.

This morning I had a telephone call from the town clerk of the borough of Amanzimtoti. He said that two spills had occurred in the last few days.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may the hon. young whipper-snapper refer to this side of the House as the “kitchen”?

Order! Did the hon. member refer to a part of this House as the “kitchen”?

Yes, Sir, but I withdraw it. Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may hon. members opposite refer to me as a “whipper-snapper”?

Order!

I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that this morning I had a telephone call from the town clerk of the borough of Amanzimtoti with respect to these oil spills. He stated that the spill occurring at present on the Amanzimtoti beaches is the worst ever in Amanzimtoti’s history. In the past these oil spills have been blamed on ships that were passing our coast. However, I believe that it is now very clear that these oil spills come from this off-shore mooring buoy just off the Bluff at Durban. The town council of Amanzimtoti has suggested that they form a deputation to come and see the hon. the Minister in this connection with a view to possibly requesting that this off-shore mooring buoy be removed. I gave them my assurance that I would raise this matter in the House this afternoon. As I have said, I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will assure this Committee that he and his department will take the necessary steps to ensure that this type of pollution does not occur again in Durban.

I honestly believe, Mr. Chairman, that our nation cannot afford to have these pollution events on our coastline. It is doing a tremendous amount of damage. It is all very well for hon. members on the other side of the House to laugh at us when we bring forward these problems. Sir, what is the result of this pollution that is occurring on the Natal coast? It is not just the cleaning-up process that is involved. Sir, this is my constituency that I am talking about: I know these beaches: I have swum on them. The sand on these beaches is so full of black oil that it will take many, many years for this oil to disappear, if ever. In fact, every time an oil slick has hit the beaches, the payloaders and the lorries have come out to remove this mass of oil that appears on our beaches. Sir, the oil is also spread all over the rocks. We get all the holiday-makers from the Transvaal and the Free State coming to Amanzimtoti and to Warner Beach, and what happens to them? They are all covered in oil up to their knees. Sir, this is affecting tourism in Natal and I believe it is costing this country a considerable amount of money. After the last oil scare we had, we found that R500 000 was put at the disposal of the municipalities to clear up this mess.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether his spraying equipment is really adequate to cope with a major oil spill on our coastline. In answer to some questions which I asked a few weeks ago, he said that it requires a ratio of one to 20 of dispersant to handle a spill and that this is sprayed from his vessels which can travel at 104 knots under the best conditions, and which have to drop their speeds to two knots under adverse weather conditions. Sir, looking at these figures it is quite clear to me at any rate that we cannot cope with a major oil spill on the coasts of South Africa, and for this reason I think it is absolutely essential that the hon. the Minister should take every step to prevent these things from happening, because, as they say, prevention is certainly better than cure. I would like to ask him for his assurance that his department is investigating all ways and means of ensuring that we do not have these oil spills on our coastline. A case in point is this off-shore mooring buoy in Durban. I believe that this is under the jurisdiction of his department. Why has this happened? We were given guarantees that this particular pipeline would never leak: that it was of such a nature that it could not leak, and yet we have had one of the biggest spillages now that we have ever had in the history of that part of Natal.

I would suggest that there should be better control of shipping on our sea-lanes and that we should possibly move a lot of these ships further out to sea. I know that laden tankers are adhering to the 12-mile limit and that they are sailing out of danger, but we had this recent event of the Producer wrecking itself on the Aliwal Shoal. Every day we who live on the South Coast can see these ships coming up so close to the coastline that it is inevitable that sooner or later we will have more of these events, and it is for this reason that I call upon the hon. the Minister as a matter of national urgency to get on top of this problem and to assure us in this House that he is doing everything in his power to ensure that this does not happen again.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to refer to the hon. member for Durban Point again. He asked for a full inquiry. I should just like him to be very specific and tell me what he means by a full inquiry. In my humble opinion all the necessary steps have been taken in this regard. The transfer of ownership of the certificates to the company was declared null and void by the National Transport Commission; a court interdict was issued; the normal court procedure will be followed in this regard and I therefore do not want to refer to it since the case is sub judice. Certain matters were referred to the prosecutor and he refused to prosecute. I just want the hon. member to tell me what additional full inquiry he wants into the Moodley affair. I want to give him the assurance that the department is investigating the entire matter and has taken cognizance of his remarks in the House and, in the light of that, will follow the normal departmental procedure in investigating the case. If there is anything he requires in addition to this, I should be glad if he would indicate to me the nature of the additional inquiry he requires.

Would the hon. the Deputy Minister be prepared to make available to me the results of the inquiry? I would then be able to tell him whether or not the entire matter has been covered.

If that would satisfy the hon. member, I undertake to do so.

The hon. member for Welkom spoke about the high road accident figure. I want to thank him for the suggestions he made in this regard and the positive contribution he made. I am particularly pleased that he pointed out that speed is not the only cause of the high road accident figure, although it very definitely is a factor. But I grant him that it is not the only cause. And when speaking about road safety, one cannot deal with it fully within the scope of a debate such as this. That is why I think the hon. member was very skilful in being able to deliver such a fine and sound contribution on this subject in the short time at his disposal. I wholeheartedly agree with him that, had it not been for an energy crisis which had caused the fuel situation, I should have been very pleased to accept the speed limits he suggested. I have already persuaded the National Road Safety Council to make a recommendation of this nature, but the matter is subject to the energy crisis at present and should be seen in the light thereof. Unfortunately I cannot say any more on this score at this stage.

I am not going to reply to the hon. members who spoke about the Garden Route, for I think the hon. the Minister of Transport has given them a very adequate reply, and I have nothing to add to it. In this regard I just want to say that I derived great pleasure from listening to the hon. member for Humansdorp, who knows his part of the world, his ecology and his circumstances. I find an interesting contrast here, Sir, for they say a good and patient listener, and I tried to be one this afternoon—I do not mean by that that I have no knowledge of the matter—is someone who knows everything about a subject and who can nevertheless listen attentively to someone who knows nothing about it. That is why I found it interesting to listen to the contributions which were made by the other side about the Garden Route, but seeing that, as I have said, the Minister’s reply is adequate, there is nothing I wish to add to that.

The hon. member for Bellville referred to the Driessen Commission’s inquiry into urban traffic. This commission was appointed by the hon. the Minister of Finance and the report therefore goes to the Minister of Finance. In fact, it has already been submitted to the Minister of Finance and I should therefore, before commenting on it like to hear the hon. the Minister of Finance’s judgment on it. From the nature of the case the hon. member will appreciate that far-reaching financial implications are involved, and therefore the Department of Finance, too, will have to make a thorough study of it. But I have the necessary confidence in the chairman of this commission, for a variety of reasons which I do not need to go into at this stage. I also have confidence in the members of this commission and I had a little glimpse behind the scenes at the kind of work they have done and I belive that when that document becomes a public document, it will render a major contribution towards the solution of a very thorny and difficult problem. But until such time as it is available, we shall have to bide our time.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned a multi-disciplinary committee of inquiry and he further dwelt on the question of the Garden Route. I do not think that he requires a reply.

*The hon. member for Kempton Park said flattering things about the designers, builders and persons in charge of the organization responsible for the Jan Smuts Airport. I should like to associate myself with his remarks and on behalf of the parties involved, since they do not have the opportunity of speaking in the House, I should like to thank him very much for the words of thanks he expressed. I am sure they appreciate it greatly that cognizance has been taken in this House of a magnificent task which is being undertaken in the interests of South Africa.

The hon. member also asked to what extent there was forward planning in respect of Jan Smuts. He referred to telescopic corridors and so on. I can point out to him that a continuous planning process is in progress, that projections about the future of Jan Smuts Airport are being made and that the existing capacity measured against future requirements is continually borne in mind. From time to time requests will be made in this House for additional money in order to continue with these processes.

The hon. member also referred to speed limits and fuel saving measures. I think he stated a very legal and topical problem which I hope will come to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. In fact, I should like to convey it to him. The problem is that the speed limits of 80 km/h is apparently based more specifically on American model motor-cars which, as a result of their typical assembly and engine, offers a more economical power supply at a lower speed. I want to agree with the hon. member that the economic fuel consumption of continental motor-cars, of which there are thousands in South Africa—I believe that the percentage of these motor-cars is considerably higher than we think and possibly even higher than 50%—most probably takes place at a higher speed than 80 km/h. However, I am speaking without having any scientific knowledge at my disposal but I think the hon. member’s suggestion is quite valid and warrants further investigation.

The hon. member for Benoni received a reply from the hon. the Minister, and I leave him at that.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti mentioned the problem of oil pollution on the beaches of Natal. Everything possible is being done to combat oil pollution on the beaches of South Africa. It is a vast problem but I am fully aware of its magnitude since I have over the last three years been saddled with the administrative aspects attached to it. I can only say that we already have two of the “kuswag” type boats spraying chemicals in the vicinity of the oil slick which he has mentioned. Everything humanly possible is being done. If it is taken into consideration that we have had 72 oil spills over the last few years since I have been connected with the department’s activities in this regard and we also take into account the tremendous success which we have had with the limited means at our disposal, I think we have every reason to compliment the department on what they have achieved throughout these years.

Do you want to hear what the people on the beaches say?

Well I go to the beaches myself; I used to have property on the Natal South Coast and nobody loves the Natal South Coast or any other part of our coast more than I do. I too do not like washing my feet every time I go for a stroll on the beach. I have the fullest sympathy with the people on the beaches. [Interjections.] Fortunately we do get a little gratitude from time to time. The Wild Life Protection Society of Southern Africa recently addressed a letter to the Secretary of Transport and amongst other things it reads—

So, we do get appreciation for what we are doing. I can name, as examples, the many similar disasters which occurred along the Cape coast. Sometimes under very adverse and difficult conditions most of these oil slicks were cleared up and stopped short of reaching the beaches. In this regard the department acted immediately and vigorously to stop this sort of pollution reaching the beaches.

You are full of slick stories.

When there is an intelligent interjection, I respond to it readily, but I do not readily respond to nonsensical remarks. The two present cases of oil pollution are currently being combated by two coast-guard vessels and the origin of the oil is being investigated. It is not always easy to ascertain the origin of oil pollution. I have a suspicion that a number of the empty tankers which pass the Cape wait until they round our coast before emptying their tanks. A number of them have already been identified. I have a suspicion that this process does not take place merely by chance, but that there are some of them which, instead of emptying their tanks in the normal way on their voyage from Europe to South Africa on their way to the Persian Gulf, wait until they round our coast before doing so. We are dependent, as far as identification is concerned on, inter alia, the analysis of the oil, but everything possible is being done to identify those ships and to recover the costs. In the very short time that oil pollution has been assigned to it, the department has done everything in its power to deal with the problem. There are five coast guard vessels, numbered one to five, that are performing this task.

A specific case at a specific beach was mentioned.

And I shall furnish a specific reply to that. It is essential that this entire problem be seen in its true perspective. We do not wear such large blinkers as the hon. member for Durban Point who always views a matter from one angle only. We are in the process of acquiring two of the most powerful tugs in the world to assist in combating this problem. We are in the process of purchasing pumping equipment to the value of more than R300 000 to pump the oil into tankers. Thousands of rand have also been spent on dispersants, and so on. The organization which has been developed and the dedication of the officials—and I should also like to include these people in this matter—dealing with oil pollution have to be experienced to be appreciated. These people direct their energies at the problem at once and render all possible assistance to deal with it. Local authorities should also, however, and they are, in fact, doing so, do their share to assist us in this regard. They should continue doing so.

What is the department doing to prevent these oil slicks from occurring rather than cleaning it up after they have occurred?

I can mention a few examples of what we are doing in this regard. I have requested the department to go into the possibility of changing the navigational rules applicable around our coast. The International Chambers of Shipping in London and the department entered into an agreement which also included the South African Shipowners’ Association as well as the Society of Master Mariners, the S.A. Navy, etc. The following recommendations were made—

I need not name the points as the important fact here is that they should keep at least 12 miles out to sea. It was further recommended—

As the hon. member knows, we now have complete covering by means of the Decca system. I can name a number of further arrangements which have been made, but time does not permit me to do so. I could name a number of positive steps which we have taken in the meantime to prevent oil pollution. I shall ask my department to have another look at this buoy in Durban. If the situation proves to be completely unsatisfactory, we shall have to find other ways and means of dealing with the offloading and loading of oil in Durban. There are certain obstacles and technical problems of which I am aware and of which I have been informed, but we shall try to find solutions. If we cannot find satisfactory solutions, we shall have to evolve another system altogether. I promise hon. members that my department will go into that matter.

*With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I have replied to the questions of the hon. members. I want to thank them for a very pleasant debate, and I want to thank the hon. the Minister in particular for being so kind as to assist me here in a most efficient manner.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? In this specific instance the cause of the pollution is probably at the connection of the buoy. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister who is responsible for any leaks at the buoy? Is it the Railway Administration or is it the tanker which is supplying the oil?

To the best of my knowledge, the oil companies are responsible for that. I shall investigate that particular aspect and shall try to find a solution for it.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill which is now before the House makes provision for increasing the salaries payable to judges by an average of 15%.

As hon. members know, general increases were granted with effect from 1 July 1974 to those who are remunerated from the Treasury. However, the remuneration of judges is laid down by law; consequently it is necessary for the proposed amendment to be made. Accordingly, the intention expressed in clause 2 of the Bill is that the increase should take effect as from 1 July 1974.

It may be mentioned for the information of the House that in addition to their salaries, judges receive an annual tax-free and non-pensionable allowance of R2 700. The allowance is being left unchanged.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill will obviously have the support of this side of the House. However, I think that the time has arrived for judges’ salaries to be reviewed especially in the light of the changed circumstances. I think we all accept that judges occupy positions of high responsibility and honour, and the traditional standards and reputation of South African judges are enviably high in the world. It is of fundamental importance that the persons to be appointed as judges should, as far as it is reasonably possible, be those who are best fitted to discharge the priceless task of administering justice in accordance with our law. Any obstacle to the achievement of that object, such as the payment of inadequate emoluments to judges which could dissuade them from accepting judicial appointment, must be regarded, of course, as a very serious destraction from the ideal of justice and as a disservice to justice. As we all are aware, judges are appointed from the Bar, and as a general rule the cream of the silks are chosen. A strong Bench requires a strong Bar to support it and to provide a recruiting ground for judges.

A judicial appointment should be regarded as the professional crown of a career at the Bar and the economic inducements to attract men of ability to the Bar in competition with other professions and other callings must be of such a nature that the emoluments of a judge are regarded as the top limit of reward in so far as it is possible for a substantial part of the life of the person contemplating the Bar as a career and therefore contemplating judicial office as the pinnacle of his career.

I think there is no doubt whatever that times have changed. One is aware that the hon. the Minister was a practising advocate until very recently when he assumed high office. We are delighted that we have a Minister of Justice who is himself aware of the nature and workings of the legal profession. Therefore the hon. the Minister is aware of the fees advocates charge these days. I think it is not in any way a misrepresentation or an exaggeration to say that junior advocates of some five years’ standing, to be conservative, are earning far more—in some cases twice as much—as the judges of the Supreme Court earn in terms of the Act.

Things have changed.

Things have changed, as my hon. friend says.

The other important factor that I think must be borne in mind is that the average age at which persons are appointed to the Bench these days is substantially lower than it has ever been before. It is commonplace that persons are appointed who are not yet 40 or who are in their early forties. This has three very important results. In the first place, persons who are appointed have had less opportunity to amass any considerable private means while they were at the Par because they have been there for a substantially shorter time than was the case before. The high income tax which advocates in legal practice have to pay as a result of their relatively high earnings is without any doubt another factor which has a disastrous effect on the ability of any professional man to build up any kind of substantial private means. In the second place, newly appointed judges face a substantially higher expenditure for the proper maintenance of dependants since they have younger wives and young children whose requirements and education are expensive items which continue for a long time after that person’s appointment to the Bench. Thirdly, I think that the country and the fiseus, indeed, gain by these youthful appointments since fewer people get pensions, and this only after judges have rendered long service and have made correspondingly greater pension contributions.

The fact remains that, if any advocate declines an appointment to the Bench not because the emoluments are not high enough or do not compare with what he is now earning, but because they are not really sufficient in the light of the changed circumstances, then the system of justice of which we are all extremely proud, and the standard of judges that we have in this country—judges who have no peer in this world—must inevitably suffer. There are many other factors that pertain to judges and not to any other person in high office. For instance, they may not be directors of companies, which even Cabinet Ministers are entitled to be in a limited way.

I think that the whole question of judges’ emoluments in relation to the changed circumstances that now exist, as well as the question of their pensions and the question of widows’ pensions need to be reviewed. As the hon. the Minister said, the judges in terms of this Bill will get an increase of 15%, but the total figure does not seem to be proportionate to their responsibility. The scale of emoluments should bear some proportion to the responsibility of the judge and should bear some other relation to what members of the Bar and other senior officers of the State are earning. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give consideration to a review of the whole question of judges emoluments. We shall support the Second Reading, and if the hon. the Minister wants to take the further stages of this Bill today, we are prepared to accept that.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to a few of the points raised by the hon. member. I want to tell him that I agree with almost everything he said, except that I cannot agree, of course, that the amounts we are proposing this afternoon are not quite sufficient. It is of course a fact that as far as the salaries of judges are concerned, we shall never be able to compete with what is earned by the advocates at the Bar. I am talking now of good, sound advocates. They will always earn twice or three times as much as the salaries of judges. That is part of the whole pattern. There is a convention, of which the hon. member is aware, for judges to be appointed mainly from the Bar. Sometimes judges are in fact appointed from the Administration. There are precedents for this. In this way, for example, law advisers have been appointed. I am thinking of the late Mr. Justice Van den Heever and others. One of our chief justices was a law adviser. However, most of the appointments are made directly from the Bar. The department must of necessity look to the Bar for its future judges. Since this is the case, I consider that it should form part—I believe that this is in fact the case—of the ethical codes of the Bar that when the Government asks a person to assume this high office, he should give the matter very serious thought before declining the offer for financial reasons.

I quite agree with the hon. member that nowadays we appoint persons at a somewhat earlier age than we used to. In the cases where such persons are appointed, we must not forget that they should be of the calibre that would enable them to be appointed to the Appeal Court later on. This requires years of experience, of course. So it is not an unfavourable tendency for people to be appointed at an early age sometimes. The ideal is for a person to achieve what he wants to financially and otherwise at the Bar. When he is tired of the hard work required of him by the Bar—and it is very hard work—he must consider going to the Bench when he is called upon to do so.

I think that should be the ideal, not to try to compensate them for what they lose as advocates, but to give them a reasonable salary, taking into account the status of the position, the way of life of the person who holds it and the requirements of the times. If we do take this into account, I think the salary scales which we are now proposing here for the judges are not unfair. On the contrary. It is quite a good salary. However, I quite agree with the hon. member that there are aspects that we should take into consideration. I am thinking, for example, of the pensions of judges’ widows. This has already been raised in this House, in the maiden speech of the hon. member for Koedoespoort. Before we come to the discussion of my Vote, I want to tell hon. members in advance that I have already referred this question to the department, to be studied by them. For the rest, I appreciate the fact that we may take all the stages of this Bill now.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee State taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

A committee under the chairmanship of Dr. A. J. van Wyk was appointed by the Minister of Health in 1965 to inquire into the care of mentally retarded persons who are ineducable. It was part of the committee’s terms of reference to make recommendations on the policy to be followed by the Government in regard to mentally retarded children who are trainable, and the provision of facilities for the training and accommodation of these children.

The committee, known as the Committee of Inquiry into the Care of Mentally Deficient Persons, made its report in 1967. The report was released and tabled in 1968. This committee defined a mentally handicapped person as someone who, by reason of an arrested or incomplete development of mind, has a marked lack of intelligence, and, either temporarily or permanently, inadequate adaptation to his environment. There is no known cure for the mind that has developed incompletely, nor for a marked lack of mental ability. However, by means of intensive training many mentally retarded persons can overcome their inadequacies to such an extent that they adapt themselves fairly successfully to their environment. In fact, the committee of inquiry found that there were many ineducable children in private and public institutions who could be developed to the maximum of their limited abilities with the aid of purposeful and systematic training programmes. Consequently it was one of the committee’s recommendations that an education authority should accept responsibility for those children who could in fact be trained, and the Government decided to assign this function to the Department of National Education. The department has to accept responsibility for the education, training, hostel care, provision of staff to training centres and transport, where necessary, of all trainable White children. After the children have been trained, a decision has to be taken in consultation with the Departments of Social Welfare and Pensions and of Labour as to who of them may go to protective workshops, to sheltered employment or to the open labour market. Those who have not benefited by training are to be referred to institutions under the control of the Department of Health.

In South Africa and in certain countries of Western Europe the limit between so-called scholastic educability and scholastic ineducability is placed at I.Q. 50. However, the reservation is always made that the cutoff point is not a definite I.Q. The committee considers children with an I.Q. of between 50 and 59 to be border-line cases, who would be classified either as subnormal or as imbeciles, depending on the level at which they are functioning.

Any system of classification which uses the I.Q. as the only norm is not always a reliable one. There is no perfect connection between a person’s I.Q. and his social behaviour. For instance, a high I.Q. is not necessarily indicative of a positive, good social adaptation. Nor is the I.Q. a constant and true reflection of the individual’s potential mental ability. There are many factors which may have an adverse effect on test results, such as illness, fatigue and other factors that affect concentration under test conditions.

However, the I.Q. remains an important norm in the system of classification. It is only in border-line cases that the other factors must also be taken into account in order to make a differential diagnosis. A wrong diagnosis may have tragic consequences for the child in question.

In his book Community Services for the Mentally Handicapped (1964), Tizard gives the reason why the cut-off point is placed at I.Q. 50 in so many countries. According to the author it is related to the demands made on the mental ability of children between the ages of 8 and 10 years when they learn to read, write, and to make simple calculations. An intelligence quotient of 50 appeared to be the dividing line between the children who were in fact able to acquire these skills and those who were not. I izard emphasizes that there are in fact children with lower I.Q.s who nevertheless learn to read, write, and do arithmetic, but at best they achieve only Grade 2 (Sub B) or Standard 1 level. But as far as the mental ability of the child is concerned, an I.Q. of 50, as determined by an individual intelligence test, is therefore the point at which scholastically educable children and scholastically ineducable children are separated.

†In its report the committee discusses three categories of mentally retarded children, namely the subnormal, the imbeciles and the idiots. The subnormal are children who are unable to make satisfactory progress in the normal classes of a primary school as a result of mental limitations. These pupils will benefit best by the courses offered in special schools or special classes for the subnormal. Their I.Q., as far as it serves as a guide, lies roughly between 50 and 79. These children are, however, already adequately provided for by the provincial education authorities.

The imbeciles described in the second category are so seriously retarded that they are exempt from compulsory school attendance on the grounds of their uneducatability and require special care, education and training. It is particularly this group, with an I.Q. of between about 25 and 49, that may be trainable and should be catered for in training centres.

Children who are classified as idiots are so severely retarded that they are incapable of looking after their own basic personal needs and require constant care. Their I.Q. is usually below 25 and it is unlikely that any of them will be able to benefit by a programme of training. These children are cared for mainly in licensed homes and other institutions under the control of the Department of Health.

It is not possible to draw a clear distinction between the two concepts educability and trainability, because an educable child also receives training and a “trainable” child also has to be educated in so many respects. The term “trainable child” should therefore be used in a specific sense. The committee says that where the term “trainable child” is used it has a definitive meaning connoting different aims in the education and training of mentally retarded children as opposed to the so-called educable children, where the educational aims are bound up with the learning of subject matter of a more scholastic nature.

It is essential to draw a definite distinction between trainable and untrainable mentally retarded children, since mentally retarded children are trainable. Moreover, a lower limit should not be set for a particular child’s I.Q. There are also other factors that have to be taken into account. A though it is found that children with an I.Q. of about 30 are generally unable to benefit much by the programme of education and training which is offered for such children at an institution, it is nevertheless not desirable to set an I.Q. of 30 as the lower limit. The lower limit should rather be left open so that all children can be given a chance to show what they are capable of. Therefore, if there is any doubt about a child’s chances of making progress, such a child should at least be given the benefit of a trial period.

According to the committee’s report, one-half to three-quarters of all children at the so-called day centres will display one or more types of neurological disabilities. There will also be children with brain damage and cerebral palsy, as well as a number of epileptics.

The committee drew attention to other disabilities such as lack of motor co-ordination, sensory defects, retarded speech and language development, and general backwardness as regards social competence. It has already been pointed out that the concept “trainable child” implies different objectives as regards education and training. In a programme of education and training that is followed due account will have to be taken of these children’s abilities as well as their defects. In the first place, it is clear that subject matter of a more academic and intellectual nature is of doubtful value to trainable mentally retarded children.

The relationship between the mentally retarded child’s chronological age and mental age gives a clear picture of its ability. For instance, a retarded child with an I.Q. of 50 at the age of six years will have a mental age of only three years, while at 16 years of age its mental age will be years.

This goes to show that there are definite implications to be considered in preparing syllabuses for mentally retarded children. In the first place, it is important to obtain a reliable measurement of intelligence. Secondly, it is also most important to plan correctly as regards what the child has to learn and when he is mature enough to lean it. Something that will have to be guarded against is the mistake of presenting the subject matter at too early a stage.

It is clear that most trainable children are still in the pre-school stage of development as far as both emotional and mental development are concerned. The methods of teaching and training will therefore have to be similar to those used in nursery schools. This means, as the committee puts it, that play activities rather than the more formal school activities should be employed to stimulate the natural development of physical, social, practical and mental skills.

These methods are then gradually superseded by the methods employed in kindergartens. Opportunities to learn must be specially created for the mentally retarded child. The every-day life situations which the normal child learns incidentally and intuitively have to be created for the mentally retarded child in such a way that its attention is specially focused on them.

*There are other factors which influence the teaching methods of the mentally retarded child. Let us consider the following briefly:

A relatively high percentage of these children show sensory defects such as deviations in regard to the refraction of the eyes, co-ordination of the eyes, the perception of printed matter, etc. The teacher should always be aware of the possibility of these defects being present in a child, and part of his daily task will be the careful planning of a programme of perceptual training for these children. It is of the utmost importance that the social competence, such as practical self-help, looking after one’s possessions, routine safety measures, etc., and the emotional maturity of trainable children should be measured objectively, and that areas of weak or no development should be recognized so that a special training programme which has been drawn up with a definite purpose in mind and is designed to promote the development of social competence may be presented and carried out.

The rate at which mentally retarded children learn corresponds more or less with the rate at which normal children of the same mental age learn. This means, more or less, that the learning ability of a twelve-year old child with an I.Q. of 50 will correspondent with that of a normal child (I.Q. 100) who is six years of age. However, the most important difference is that the mental ability of the latter child develops at a considerably faster rate than that of the mentally retarded child. Mentally retarded children are therefore unable to keep un the seme pace as do normal children. The subject matter presented to mentally retarded children differs considerably in degree of difficulty and standard of complexity from that presented to normal children.

The Education Services Act (No. 41 of 1967) was used as a model in the drafting of the Pill under consideration. The provision made in the Bill for matters such as the establishment of training centres, the payment of subsidies to state-aided training centres, the employment of staff attached and the admission of children to such centres has been based, in general, on the provisions of Act 41 of 1967.

The Bill makes provision in clause 2 for the establishment of training centres at institutions for the mentally deficient under the control of the Department of Health. Training facilities will therefore be established at such institutions with a view to the training of the trainable children who are in them. The Department of National Education will only provide the training and the necessary equipment and staff for this purpose, whereas the children’s general care will remain the responsibility of the Department of Health.

It is with great appreciation that cognizance is taken of the good work being done by numerous voluntary organizations in private institutions for mentally retarded children. I also wish to express my high appreciation to the members of the boards and staffs of the existing day centres whose dedication has enabled them to make many sacrifices for this praiseworthy service to their fellowmen. Many of these institutions are suffering under heavy financial burdens and are for this reason having great trouble in maintaining existing services. Lack of funds has also had the effect that essential developments aimed at making provision for children waiting to be admitted to these institutions have had to be postponed in many cases. Apart from the fact that the control and expert guidance emanating from a central authority are of the utmost importance in giving a definite pattern to the training of these children, it is clear that financial assistance must also be given by the State in order that the training that has to be provided may be placed on a sound basis. Consequently provision is being made in clause 13 of the Bill for the recognition of private institutions as state-aided training centres, subsequent to which a subsidy may be paid to them on a fixed basis. Clause 14 grants the necessary juristic personality to state-aided training centres which have been declared to be such, whereas provision is being made in clause 15 for constituting the governing body in which the management and executive authority of a state-aided training centre shall be vested. To ensure that minimum standards of service are maintained by private institutions which, for some reason or other, are not declared to be state-aided training centres, provision is being made in terms of clause 34 for the registration of such institutions subject to such conditions as may be determined from time to time. The point of departure for the education and training of the mentally retarded child remains the fact that he is basically still a human being. The trainable child, in particular, is still an individual with a personality of his own. Although his mental development is limited and growing very slowly, and although he has to undergo a specialized programme of training and is probably not going to do well, he shares in the basic needs of the normal person. This child must also be afforded the opportunity of making the most of his one single talent. With his limitations he can be guided into also accepting responsibility, eventually, in the small circle in which he can render service to the community. By being helped to being only self-supporting, he can become an asset to the community instead of being a burden on it.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to remind the House that in December 1971 the United Nations accepted a declaration of general and special rights of the mentally retarded, the first two paragraphs of which read as follows—

1. (1) The mentally retarded person has to the maximum degree of his ability the same rights as other human beings.

1. (2) The mentally retarded person has a right to proper medical care and physical therapy and to such education, training, rehabilitation and guidance as will enable him to develop his ability and maximum potential.

It seems to me that with the introduction of this Bill South Africa can rightly claim that it is in fact implementing what has been insisted upon in this declaration as far as education and training are concerned. In many respects this Bill qualifies as a training as well as an educational Bill. We as legislators, the hon. the Minister and in particular his department, which will be responsible for the administration of this Bill, should be mindful of the fact that although we look upon this Bill purely as a training Bill, to those parents whose children will be sent to the training centres and the many dedicated people in South Africa who are already involved in this type of training, this Bill is clearly more than just a training Bill. To them it also involves education and I think we should respect this attitude. It is common knowledge that despite the high level of sophistication pertaining to our society as such, there is tremendous ignorance and confusion when it comes to the subject matter of this Bill, namely mental retardation.

It is valid to say that all mentally deficient people are in fact mentally retarded, but unfortunately there is a tendency in society at large also to regard all mentally retarded people as being mentally deficient. If this Bill can dispel this fallacy, it needs our enthusiastic support especially if regard is had to the fact that you can just as well confuse the mentally deficient with the mentally ill. I think that a number of us, from personal experience or knowledge, will know that there are many cases where children or adults have been locked away in homes or in institutions without ever having had an opportunity to be trained whatsoever in order to develop their potential.

Inadequate adaptation to one’s environment is, after all, a common denominator with mentally retarded persons. It is in this particular sphere where, in spite of an obvious lack of intelligence, training is possible at most levels and at most degrees of mental retardation. Through proper training many of these people can in fact adapt themselves to their environment reasonably well. I wish to draw attention to the words “their environment”. This should not be confused with what is regarded as a normal environment. Their environment could be a cultivated or an artificial environment, but can nevertheless be an environment to which the person concerned can in fact adapt himself satisfactorily. On the other hand, the term “their environment”—and this must be the attitude with which we approach this Bill and the application of it—does not necessarily exclude a normal environment. This, of course, remains the ultimate objective. It is therefore very encouraging to see that in clause 29 provision is made that the Secretary can, where a child in his opinion need no longer be at a training centre, permit such a child to be discharged. The ideal of being trained to such an extent that one can adapt to the outside world is not unrealistic even when you deal with mentally retarded people. In support of this statement I wish to draw attention to the evidence in the Van Wyk report where it is stated that—

This is what has been said of a particular group of imbeciles with an I.Q.—as far as I.Q. can be regarded as a yardstick—of between 25 and 49. The hon. the Minister quite clearly indicated that taking into consideration the unreliability of I.Q. tests and their variations, roughly roundabout 50 is what is regarded as the level where a person can be educated in the normal scholastic terms. We must conclude that the ultimate objective is not that these children should just be trained in a protective environment or in an artificial environment, but that they should be trained for society at large.

Whereas I have devoted some time in welcoming this Bill, because I have taken this opportunity to dispel some of the ignorance and confusion which surrounds this issue, I should also like to welcome this Bill on behalf of the many parents and on behalf of the many dedicated people who have been working with this type of child. I am talking about the people who are well-informed, people who know what it is all about and who are aware of the problems. They have been anxiously awaiting this Bill and I think South Africa is greatly indebted to them. As far as I can see, this Bill will be of great assistance to the training of mentally retarded people.

*I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister—in fact, he has said so here—that this legislation is naturally modelled on the Educational Services Act. There may be certain provisions in this legislation which we may feel are possibly not applicable to the treatment of the mentally retarded, and accordingly there are certain provisions which we should like to improve on in the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister may be aware of the fact that certain provisions of the legislation will not meet with our support in the Committee Stage unless the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept our amendments to them.

†I want to look at clause I of the Bill. I must say that I have been approached by a number of persons who are concerned about the fact that we refer here to a child as “a White person who has attained the age of six years”. I know that it is very difficult for the hon. the Minister to take out the word “White”, but we all know that this is something which falls under his department and there can be no doubt about it that it is applicable to White children. It has been pointed out to me that this type of Bill to provide for the training of the mentally retarded children, is the type of Bill which will be in demand in all overseas countries. There is a feeling that if it is at all possible the word “White” should not be included. On the other hand I believe that we should regard this as a Bill which can be followed also by other education departments, whether they are White, Coloured or Indian.

Then we have a problem about the term “uneducatability”. This is another matter about which I have had representations. The people who are concerned with this believe that one should rather say that the person has not been exempted from compulsory education on account of his uneducability but on account of his severely impaired intellectual and social development. I also want to say that, concerning the transfer and seconding of officers and employees at training centres, there are certain matters with which we cannot agree. For instance, we believe that it is entirely wrong, especially in respect of this type of training centre where there is a tremendous shortage of people, to provide for a person to be transferred without his approval to any service run by the provincial departments, the South African Railways or the South-West Africa Administration. This is something which, in principle, we are always against, but now we feel we have an additional reason why this provision should not be in this Bill.

Once again I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look at the position that, when a person is transferred from one post to another, he should not be entitled to that salary merely by virtue of the transfer. He should be because he is taking charge of far greater responsibilities in the higher post. In dealing with the misconduct of officers I must say to the hon. the Minister that it is unfortunate that in this particular Bill once again the provision is included that a person who is employed by the department may not publicly comment adversely on the administration of any department of State. We believe that this is something that is wrong in principle in the Educational Services Act and that it is something that could easily be amended here. The provision should rather be made to read that the person may not publicly comment adversely on the administration of the department, i.e. his own employer. The hon. the Minister has the opportunity to amend this. I think the hon. the Minister should approach this Bill with the attitude that we can always learn from past mistakes and that we can improve. In other words, although this measure is based on the Educational Services Act, this is an opportunity to improve upon that Act. As regards the clause dealing with the procedure to be followed in cases of misconduct, we do feel that sometimes investigations of such misconduct tend to be tremendously long and drawn-out to the detriment, perhaps, of the institution or training centre as well as to the person concerned. Therefore we would like clause 8 to be amended so that the person holding the inquiry can be assisted by assessors who can serve in an advisory capacity since this will speed up the investigations. We also feel that when a State-aided training centre is established, greater consultation should take place between the governing bodies. This is something that is not in the Bill but one would like to see that take place.

I have also received requests in connection with the possible introduction of pension schemes at State-aided training centres. I do not know whether this is possible but it would appear that where in clause 19(5) reference is made to the fact that State-aided training centres can be compelled to become and remain members of a medical aid society recognized by the Public Service Commission, there is an opportunity to include provincial pension schemes as well. It is the people who will be employed by the State-aided training centers who feel strongly about this matter. That it is difficult to superimpose the Educational Services Act on this particular field of activity becomes quite obvious if we look at clauses 21 and 22. In clause 21 there is again the insistence that officers as well as employees, i.e. including part-time employees, must place all their time at the disposal of the body, whether it is a State-aided training centre or just a training centre that is completely controlled by the State. As we all know, this, to a certain extent, excludes the use of part-time employment. This is a great problem for the people who are active in this field. They rely heavily on part-time employment.

Another factor which ties up with the nature of the type of institution we are dealing with, is the discharge of officers. Once again, we find that a female person can be discharged on account of her marriage. I do not know why everybody should be so anxious to be a misogynist. Let us see whether we cannot remedy the situation, because once again we find, in this particular field, that they have to rely heavily on these people.

Clause 27 provides for far-reaching powers to be granted to the Secretary. In terms of this clause, the Secretary may cause a child to be examined in order to determine whether he is mentally retarded. He may also instruct a parent of such a child to take the child for an examination. If, after such examination, it is found that the child is mentally retarded, he may also instruct the parent that the child should receive training. The parent may appeal to the Minister within 30 days of the date of the notification. The decision of the Minister on such appeal is final. If the parent still does not comply with this decision, the Secretary may cause the child to be taken to such a training centre. These are in fact far-reaching powers. However, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we do realize the problem the department is facing in this respect. Under these particular circumstances, we are prepared to support this Bill, although under normal circumstances we would have had another look at it. The fact remains that it is not mandatory; the Secretary “may” cause a child to be taken to such a centre.

As regards the registration of private training centres, I should like to hear the views of the Minister on the type of conditions he would regard as being satisfactory for the registration of a private training centre. In the Educational Services Act, I think, it is stated that no person shall provide education for reward unless he is registered. I may not be completely correct in saying this, but I know that in some of the Acts dealing with the education of non-Whites these conditions are related to a number. For example, it is stated that no person shall provide education to more than 14 pupils. In other words, there is some sort of definite guide-line. Here we find that the discretion is left entirely in the hands of the Minister. Possibly this is wise, because the question arises as to where the line is to be drawn. Should the number of pupils be restricted to eight, ten or 11, or should you insist on no more than 50 pupils being taught in such a centre? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that there are small centres, run by private people to teach these children. I want to put to him not a theoretical case, but an existing one. I know of such a case in Empangeni in Zululand. In this instance, a person, with the aid of a qualified nun, is providing training to nine pupils in a class-room provided to them by the Natal education authorities. Here you have someone who is qualified. However, if they cannot be registered as a training centre, would it still be possible for that institution to continue providing education? Four of the children are from the same family. When we deal with the penalties we find that any person who provides training for mentally retarded children otherwise than at a training centre, a State-aided training centre or a private training centre registered in terms of the relative clause in the Bill, will then be guilty of an offence. I believe that under certain conditions we should make it possible for parents who are capable of training their children to train their own children if for instance the Secretary is satisfied that this can be done.

*Mr. Speaker, with this I have tried to suggest certain improvements to the Act at the Second Reading. I believe these are all improvements we can make. As regards the principle of the legislation, we support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Durban Central for the positive way in which he approached this legislation. He raised quite a number of matters I believe we shall be able to discuss to good effect during the Committee Stage of the Bill. Surely he does not expect replies to it at this stage.

Since I am now following up on the hon. member for Durban Central, I cannot help thinking back to 12 August 1966 when I made my maiden speech in this House on the mentally retarded child. In that discussion of a private motion I also followed up on the hon. member for Durban Central, at the time Dr. Aubrey Radford. Basically we differed on this matter in this sense that Dr. Radford had at that stage already reached an advanced age and consequently adopted an exclusively reproachful attitude towards the slow progress that was in his opinion, being made in this field. At that stage I was still young and idealistic and saw wider horizons. I want to tell you that that idealism of 1966 has certainly been justified today. Although we differed, there was one aspect on which Dr. Radford and I were in full agreement at that time, and that was the interpretation of the norm “intelligence quotient”. We agreed that it was not an infallible norm, but because we have nothing better at this stage, it is the most acceptable norm according to which proper classification can be made. I will come back to this aspect if time allows.

The Opposition will probably permit me, without let or hindrance, to express my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Government for this legislation on behalf of the many hundreds of parents of mentally retarded children. In the same spirit I also want to pay tribute to those persons and bodies who have over the years and under very difficult circumstances walked this road and paved it to where we are today. Here I am thinking in particular of the various mental health societies, that have done a great deal in this field. I am thinking of the Sinodale Kommissie vir die Diens van Barmhartigheid of the D.R. Church; of people like Rev. Daan du Toit and various others; I am thinking of a former member for Kimberley South, Dr. Willie Venter and of the special contribution he made in this regard in this House, as well as in the Van Wyk Commission. For those who were not involved in this, who do not know of the long and tiring road we have travelled and have behind us, this Bill is merely another piece of legislation that has to be disposed of. But, Sir, then there are also the others for whom this Bill today is a particular milestone; in fact, it is much more than that; it is surely the answer to the sincere prayers of many years. Today we want to thank the many people who over the years worked so tirelessly in this regard; to those who are still exerting themselves tirelessly in this connection, and to those who did not live to see the attainment of this ideal.

We considered the argument of the past that these children could not be trained to produce anything, to be a short-sighted and selfish argument which stemmed from a cold and unsympathetic attitude on the part of the community, an attitude that was spiritually quite cruel. Sir, today the situation is completely different as far as this is concerned. There is a growing understanding on the part of society; there is an awareness; there is a zeal and there is a need to do more in this connection, and therefore I want to express the sincere hope this afternoon that that public sympathy is not going to cease now because the State accepts greater responsibility in this connection. This legislation is in fact a symbol to us of a Christian people’s realization of its duty towards the less privileged. It would, therefore, be a tragedy if society were now to withdraw from this matter because the State is going to assist to a greater extent in its financing.

I believe that we are entering a new era with this legislation, but that we are also venturing into a very unknown region area. That is why one appreciates it so much that in the drafting of this Bill an attempt was made to refrain from drawing final lines; from establishing water-tight compartments. I was listening very carefully to hear in the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech whether he would lay down a fixed I.Q. point as a dividing line in this connection, and therefore I am so particularly pleased that he too does not regard the I.Q. alone as the only reliable norm for classification. If I jotted down what he said correctly, he also said that the I.Q. was not a constant true reflection of the individual’s potential mental abilities, but that it nevertheless remains an important norm in the system of classification. In other words, we have here a wider premise which will make it infinitely easier for us in the initial organization at these centres, because no hard and fast rule is being laid down which is difficult to apply and which could then exclude certain children.

Sir, in the same way a very wide interpretation was given to the definition of the term “mentally retarded”, and I want to welcome that wide definition. As we gain experience in practice, these norms can surely be adjusted from time to time. One could demonstrate the dangers inherent in a narrow definition very easily. Mental retardation is an enormously complicated subject with branches in many professional directions; it is a multiple rather than a single problem. We usually use the term “mentally handicapped” to indicate the general intelligence which is insufficient for the requirements of subsisting without special assistance. Definitions of a “handicap” differ at different age levels because different requirements are put to people of different ages. Sir, a handicap as a description of the level of functioning has multiple causes and it has multiple related impediments.

Hon. members who have already visited our centres, would have noticed that specific impediments manifest themselves in some of our pupils. There are motor limitations; there are sensory impediments and speech problems; there are also emotional and personality disturbances which we do not yet understand fully, but which are closely related. We would have found ourselves in an endless maze if we were to have tried in this Bill to determine the type of handicap or the degree or the level of retardness we would have wanted to see as norms to admit children to these centres. The hon. the Minister made it very clear today that when there is doubt about a child’s chances of making progress, he will have the benefit of a trial period. Sir, as I have demonstrated to you the merits of this definition of a mentally retarded child to you, so we find it with other basic concepts in the Bill too, the definition of the word “child” and that of the word “training.” In fact, the whole Bill is phrased in such a way that it is workable and adjustable and I believe that most of the problems that might arise as a result of this Act, will be eliminated.

That fears concerning certain of these clauses might exist, one could probably understand. In this way the fear could arise in respect of clause 36(1)(a), if it were applied very narrowly, that work now being done by the universities as well as the research which is being done, could be hampered, and even that education by parents could be hampered. But I think we can get assurances concerning this during the Committee Stage. In the same way one could also for example be concerned about clause 34, a clause regulating the registration of training centres. We could ask that it should not be applied too strictly during the initial stages.

I mention these few ideas in passing if the hon. the Minister may find it necessary to reassure us in this regard even before we come to the Committee Stage. However, I want to immediately say that up to now we have experienced only the most cordial co-operation on the part of the department. There is a sincere endeavour by the department to find solutions to problems which were not foreseen before.

Last year, when the hon. the Minister’s Vote was under discussion, I asked that his department should in the meantime, until this Bill was passed, begin with research in connection with standards that would be required in respect of buildings. I also asked for the nature and extent of the training that would eventually be offered to be determined in the meantime. In this field enormous progress has already been made so that one does believe that this transitional stage will take place smoothly. However, what the department should be very careful about, is that problems could arise in the transitional stage from the existing system to the new system of subsidizing, because in the past we have already had the problem that when an announcement was made that the subsidy of mental health would be stopped, National Education was not yet in a position to take over the duties.

I do not want to prolong the discussion any further at this late hour. I want to conclude by saying that to me as a parent, the most important fact in this legislation is the fact that official status is now also being given to my own child. We as parents have never asked for the pity of other people. Our children have never looked for pity. We only asked a small place in the State set-up for those who are endowed with fewer mental powers. Nor did we ask for emotional or sentimental reasons. We have always believed steadfastly that they have an inalienable right to a place in the State set-up and with this legislation that faith and those prayers are today being rewarded and answered. We therefore, want to take the opportunity today to say thank you to the hon. the Minister in particular and to the Government in general for the legislation before us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is about to tackle afresh one of the most difficult aspects of education and training in the whole field of learning. We on this side of the House hope that his efforts will be crowned with success. This aspect of training and educating which up to now has appeared to be the training of those who cannot be trained and the educating of those who appear to be uneducable, is a terrific task. The difficulties are multiplied ten times over because here he is dealing with not only children and adults who are mentally retarded but who are very often physically disabled as well. When one has this combination, the trainer needs great diligence, great courage, great perseverance and great patience. The hon. the Minister will immediately find that he will be striking snags because, in order to train these people, we shall have to have many people who have already been trained to do this work. We are short of such teachers. There is no doubt in my mind that once the hon. the Minister starts on this road, he is going to find, that the number of those that can still be trained to do something will multiply very, very quickly. For that reason he will have to establish, at the earliest opportunity, more specialist training colleges for those people who are willing to undertake this particular task. Every single one of those people who undertake this type of education will have to be a specialist.

When I looked through the Bill and saw all the regulations and hinderances that could be placed in the way of people who are going to devote themselves to this particular type of work, I felt very sad. There is not a great deal of encouragement for people to undertake this work. I hope sincerely that as we get this Bill off the ground, as we get started with this field of education, some of the provisions which are now included in this Bill will be softened. I do not, for instance, like the word “officer” aplied to people who are going to do this work. This is not the sort of work that fits in with the duties one attaches to an “officer”. The person who is going to do this work will be a teacher, a devoted teacher. At the same time I hope that the hon. the Minister will take it upon himself to get rid entirely of such words in our vocabulary, as “idiot” and “imbecile” which I heard earlier on. I think we must delete them from all legislation of this nature. We must treat these people as unfortunates without having them known by unpleasant labels.

How are we going to do this? The hon. the Minister has started off on the right foot because already he has a vast group of people who have been doing work in this field for years. I associate myself with him and the last speaker who have thanked these people for their efforts. I hope the Minister will not forget what they have done and I hope that he will not brush aside their efforts to continue in this field. I am a disturbed when I see that in training centres which the Government will run there is no provision whatsoever for the voluntary worker to be elected to serve on such committees as they have been doing in the past in semi-private and private schools.

No, you are mistaken.

The hon. member says to me across the floor that I am mistaken, I am not mistaken. I want him to look at the Bill because he will see that the Minister himself has the right to appoint all the members to the councils which will run the training centres. I want him to bear in mind, when he makes these appointments, that there are people who are willing to serve on these councils. The hon. member for Tygervallei knows what I am talking about, since he has been associated with these matters most of his life. We must not brush these people aside. There may be a fear that this could take place. It is also specified in the Bill that those people working at training centres should be full-time workers. I can tell the hon. the Minister now that he is going to fail hopelessly if he thinks that he can get sufficient full-time people to work at these many centres that will have to be established. They will have to be established from one end of the country to the other. As far as I can see no provision is made here for part-time people to be employed. Where is the Minister going to get the fulltime psychiatrists, the psychologists the physiotherapists and the speech-therapists from if he is going to employ them fulltime? He will have to have these people at every clinic and training centre. Provision must be made for this and I hope that the Minister has done so.

I now want to come to the three categories of centres which are going to be established, namely State-run training centres, where all the facilities will be provided by the State, the State-aided centres where part of the financial implications will be met by the State, and the private centres. All three types of centres will be doing the same thing. Their object will be the same and they will be relieving the same burden. Surely then the private centres are entitled to get some recognition from the Government as well for the work they are doing. If they have to close up—some of them are wonderful institutions—because they cannot get a grant from the Government the burden will fall on either the State-aided centres or the State-run training centre?. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to treat all of these centres the same Let us get rid of all the designations and separations and give all of them the right to get a subsidy from the Government, because their work is the same in all cases. The only difference is that in one case you have more voluntary workers doing the work than at the others. Wat does the Minister have to lose? Nothing at all. I think it would be very much better for all of us in this country if we could make sure that all these organizations are treated as State-aided training centres. That is all we want, so that everybody can take part in helping these people.

The great problem as I see it after reading the Bill is for the Minister to be able to do what he sets out to do. The Minister said that these are special people that have to be trained individually. They cannot be trained as a group except in the very early stages, when they go to a school in the same way as young children who go to a nursery school. In this instance he can, perhaps, have all these people together at a training centre. But at that same training centre he is going to discover that the work that suits one person does not suit the next. He will have to treat each one of these people as an individual. Each one of these training centres will have to have different types of teachers to teach these people. If you are going to have printing done there, you will have to have printers coming in. You might even have to have a full-time printer. You might have to have a motor mechanic coming in. These services may only be needed for an hour or two, but no provision is made for this in the Pill. Such a person will have to be there in a full-time capacity. So it goes on, but I do not want to go into detail about this, because the hon. the Minister knows what I am talking about. He knows as well as I do that the only way to treat these people and to educate them is by means of individual tuition. It will be difficult to do this and it will cost a fortune. It is going to cost much more to train one of these people to use a paint brush properly to paint a door than it costs the department to keep a student at university for a three year course. That is how I estimate it. I do not say that we should take the cost of this into consideration at all, as long as we teach these people to do something.

The other noint—the hon. the Minister touched on this and we are pleased that he did so—is that we have to make sure when we train these people to do a job that there will be work for them. There will be work for some of them because they will be able to go to the sheltered employment institutions which have already been established. There will be work for the others who are in a slightly lower educational category as well; they can be kept at the clinics and the training centres where they can work. But what is going to happen to those who cannot reach some level of proficiency in their tasks? I beg the hon. the Minister not to let these people go out of the institutions. They must be kept there and persevered with until we find, that at some magic point they are able to absorb what their teachers want them to absorb. It may take five, six or ten years to educate some of these people to do a simple job, but it is worthwhile keeping them. The hon. the Minister must have patience, perseverance and the people to help him to do the job.

In the short time I have available, I want to join with the hon. member for Durban Central who pointed out that the word “White” in the first clause of this Bill is not the best word we could use. I ask the hon. the Minister to take it out because I think it is unnecessary. We are dealing with legislation for White children in any case, so why put it in? I ask the hon. the Minister to promise that he will get busy with the hon. Ministers of other race groups and make sure that the objectives in this Bill will be in the others, and will be done for other races as well. I do not think that the Government has the statistics of how many retarded Coloured children there are and I do not think they know how many retarded Black or Indian children there are, but I am sure that there are more than in the case of White children.

We do not even have the statistics for the Whites.

Well, what a task we have, we can start off by finding out how many we have.

That was totally unnecessary.

What? Hon. members must not be insensitive about this. We want to avoid this sort of thing. I know that the hon. member for Fauresmith does not like this sort of thing but I feel sensitive about it.

Oh, come on!

If I am sensitive about it, I am entitled to say so. This is a place where we want to avoid friction. If we want to avoid friction, let us be big enough to point out the faults which are in the Bill. However, I want to leave that subject.

Lastly I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he must go out of his way to ensure that those people who will be providing the services are not left on the bench looking on and criticizing what officials will be doing in the future. That is going to be very unpleasant.

Finally, I want to repeat that we on this side of the House most sincerely wish this Bill to be a success. If the hon. the Minister finds any amendments coming from this side of the House he will know that it is aimed at improving the Bill and not at hindering its progress.

Mr. Speaker, I realize there is very little time left for the business of this House today, but I should like to spend a few minutes trying to make a contribution to this Second Reading debate, although my contribution will perhaps be of a more personal nature than the contributions on a more general level of the previous speakers, including the hon. member for Tyger Valley who is able to discuss these matters with special knowledge. At the outset I should only like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether the correct wording should not perhaps be “mentally handicapped child” instead of “mentally retarded child”. I hope the hon. the Minister will find the time to reply briefly to me on that point because I was asked to suggest it in my speech.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing sincere thanks to the bodies—the Government and the Minister—and everybody who had anything to do with it, for the legislation before the House today. At the same time I want to express my thanks to all private persons and bodies who were involved in it, for example, the National Council for Mental Health, the Department of Health, the provincial education departments—all of which have up till today been involved in this matter and have helped to bring us to this point where we are today.

In particular I want to express my appreciation for this legislation on behalf of a place in my constituency. The place to which I am referring, is a little school I am very fond of. The little school is known as the E. S. le Grange School. It is named after my mother who in her unassuming way made a contribution to the establishment of this school. As I say, on behalf of this school and all the persons who were involved in this matter. I want to express my thanks for this legislation. There are people in my constituency who are very grateful today for, and who have looked forward for years in great expectation to, this legislation, ever since the day centre was established and gradually developed into a school. This little school is under the extremely competent control of the headmistress and first teacher at the school, Mrs. Albie Bischoff who started the small day centre at Potchefstroom on 10 June 1963 with seven pupils, and who built up a school with the scanty subsidy of those days, a school that today has seven teachers, well qualified persons, and 74 pupils. This is a school of which we can all be proud because of the excellent work being done there and because of everything that is being accomplished at that school. There is even a work centre as well, the Amelia Work Centre, for children between the ages of 14 and 18. At the moment children older than 18 years are also being accommodated there.

One is also particularly grateful for the provisions of the legislation before the House, especially clause 13 and the other clauses that will apply to these private institutions in particular. There is no time to go into it in detail, but these provisions create great expectations among the bodies dealing with this matter. When one considers these provisions, there are certain questions one asks oneself. Among other things one asks oneself whether it is necessary for instruction to be given to these children and whether it is necessary for subsidies to be granted on this basis. There are specific problems one would like to examine. Unfortunately there is not enough time to do so in detail. One also asks oneself whether it is worthwhile spending more money on this basis. There is only one answer to all these various questions and that is to say “yes” to them with great thankfulness. There are one or two aspects I should like to mention. It is surely these children’s democratic right to have their potential developed to the maximum. It is surely in the interests of the parents and of all of us that this should be done. The most important aspect is that this instruction will entail that the mentally handicapped need not be a total burden on society. I leave that aspect at that.

I want to refer to the clauses which make provision for buildings and facilities. It is now possible to make provision in future for the replacement of inadequate buildings with which people are having to make do today. I want to bring one important matter in this connection to the attention of the hon. the Minister, namely, the need for the services of social workers which exists at these centres and/or schools. If a contribution could be made by the department for better care by social workers, a great need would certainly be filled. In addition, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Rosettenville had to say about the provision of residential facilities. We had the opportunity of listening to the fine maiden speech made by the hon. member for Kimberley North in connection with an institution in Kimberley at which provision had been made for residential facilities. This is a particular need to which the hon. the Minister and his department will certainly be able to give their attention by means of this legislation. I wonder how many of us have ever had the opportunity of visiting these schools and seeing how these children are taught, inter alia, to sing “The Call of South Africa”, to sing psalms and hymns, to read, to work with money, to tell the time, to read a calendar, to use a telephone, etc. This is truly wonderful work which is being done there. Therefore one is grateful that through this legislation it is possible for even more doors to be opened to those people as far as this fine work which is being done among these children of ours is concerned.

I do not want to take up any more of the time of this House, but I should just like to convey my personal appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his department. It is with great expectation that one looks forward to the work that is going to be done in the future by a department the officials and the Minister of which are competent, dedicated people who have personal knowledge of, and who will ensure that justice is done to, this matter.

Mr. Speaker, in the little time I have at my disposal, I merely wish to identify myself with the previous speakers who have expressed their support for the principle of this Bill. We of the Progressive Party also support it, and I think it is a good thing that provision is now being made for mentally retarded children within the Department of National Education. We feel in particular that this is a form of instruction which is extremely taxing, which takes up an enormous amount of time and which, to a great extent, relies on people who not only have to be technically skilled, but who also have to have a certain attitude towards the children they have to instruct. It is in that spirit that we also welcome this legislation. The objections or possible problems to which we want to refer, are consequently being raised in that spirit, viz. for the very purpose of being of assistance in this field. Most of these points have already been mentioned and therefore, I shall not go into them in detail.

†I just want to mention that the practice hitherto has been or appears to have been for the Department of Health to look after the care of these people and that they subsidized or gave grants to institutions at the rate of R2 per day per child or R35 per month for a residential grant. I think that problems might arise in the transitional stage. In terms of clause 13 the hon. the Minister has the right to lay down certain regulations which certain institutions would have to comply with. In doing so, they may feel threatened as far as these grants are concerned. I think that a generous period of time should be allowed for these institutions to comply with the regulations which the hon. the Minister lays down and that the subsidies or grants should not be affected as a result since many of these institutions depend for their existence on such grants. In terms of clause 37(d), the hon. the Minister can also lay down qualifications necessary for the training of people who look after mentally retarded children. Again, many of these institutions depend to a large extent on people who are not specifically trained in this field. Such people would not be allowed to go on with their work if the qualifications demanded were too rigorous in this respect. In fact, I think that 30% of the people at present providing training for handicapped children of this type do not have any particular qualifications. I think the hon. the Minister should consult with the division for the mentally retarded in the National Council for Mental Health.

Clause 36 has been referred to but we will come back to it in the Committee Stage. Clause 17 contemplates loans to be made to institutions. This will entail ultimate repayment and a burden of interest. It is noted that in respect of special schools, for example, they can have grants. I just want to raise the question why the same institutions should not also receive grants in terms of this Bill rather than be dependent on loans. Then, of course, I want to refer to clause 2(1)(g) which discriminates against women in that they can be discharged when they marry. I think that in most divisions in the Civil Service this kind of discrimination has been done away with. Why cannot it be done here as well?

In general, however, I want to associate myself with the principle of this Bill. I am sure that when we discuss the matter in the Committee Stage, it will be from the point of view of the best interests of the mentally retarded child.

Mr. Speaker, I heard it said in the past that the standard of civilization of a people could be measured against, inter alia, the extent to which it was making provision for the handicapped and less privileged in its midst. This is perhaps too much of a generalization since it is not possible to brush aside such a difficult matter by a single statement of this nature. However, I want to say that I am convinced that we in South Africa may be proud of the education set-up which we have. Both as regards its comprehensiveness and as regards the results we achieve, we have every reason to be grateful for what we have achieved up to now. It goes without saying that we shall not be able to sit back complacently, for there is still a great deal that has to be done. It is also true that, especially as far as special education is concerned, new demands are continually arising as medical science makes advances. This legislation also bears, inter alia, the stamp of that progress. I am very grateful that all the parties represented in this hon. House have seen their way clear to supporting this Bill. The hon. member for Rosettenville even expressed his sympathy with me, and I appreciate it, coming from a man with a medical background. It is true indeed that we are tackling an extremely difficult task and that it is likely that in time to come we shall have to make quite a number of adjustments in an attempt to remove the difficulties being experienced by us. However, if I know that I have the goodwill of this House, my task is made infinitely easier for me.

I understand that it has been agreed that we shall adjourn just after 6 o’clock. It will therefore not be possible for me to reply categorically to every point that was raised here. However, I want to say that I approach this whole matter with a very open mind. Irrespective of whether amendments are moved at the Committee Stage by this side or by that side of the House, I shall be quite prepared to look at them. As I have said, we modelled the Bill on the lines of the Educational Services Act, and we did that for obvious reasons. There must be some uniformity in regard to these matters. However, in cases where it may be necessary to depart from it, I want to be the last person to be obsessed by what is stated in other laws. I shall therefore be quite prepared to consider amendments.

From various quarters mention was made of opposition to the word “White” in the definition of “child”. Of course, it is a fact that the Department of National Education is responsible for the education of White children. I take it that it is for this reason that it is put that way in the Bill. I do not know whether the law advisers will be able to find a way out with regard to the definition of this provision. However, it will have to be clear that this department cannot accept responsibility for other population groups as well. I am prepared, however, to have the matter investigated and then to discuss it further at the Committee Stage. In other words, the attitude I want to adopt in respect of the specific points that were raised is that I should like to come back to them at the Committee Stage. Time does not permit me to react to them now. Nevertheless, I want to single out a number of points in the few minutes I still have at my disposal.

The first is that we should not forget or push aside or completely leave out in the cold those people who have been helping us up to now. I say this with the greatest emphasis I have at my command, namely that my department cannot perform this task if we have to do so without the assistance of those people, for they are the people who have the experience of this work. Their workers are the people who have been doing this work up to now, and I have already paid tribute to them. It was my privilege to visit several of these centres, and I can honestly say that I really have great appreciation for the work done by them in many of these centres, sometimes in extremely difficult circumstances and with very limited means at their disposal. That is why I am so emphatic in saying that we shall not be able to do this work without the assistance of those people who have been rendering this great service to their fellowmen up to now. In other words, we shall look after them.

Another facet of the problem, which was raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville, is the question of whether we shall find these people. He said that we were doing so little, that there was so little in the legislation to encourage the people to do the work. I want to tell him—and perhaps he does not know this because he is not in his practice—that all the people working in these centres are motivated people. What is more, this statement also holds true for all the people involved in special education, namely that they are motivated people. No matter how incredible this may sound, it is true that while there are shortages of trained teachers in certain branches of general education, there is no shortage of people for this kind of work, special education, for the training of these children whom we are discussing today. They are motivated people, who come forward to perform this task and do not ask one what they are going to get by way of remuneration. By way of this very piece of legislation it will now be possible to pay these people better salaries and to create benefits for them which they never had before. I hope this will, to a certain extent, be a reward to them for the work they perform. But let me say this: Any teacher’s true reward does not lie in the salary he receives; it lies in the satisfaction he enjoys when progress is shown by the person with whom he is dealing and when that person becomes productive and plays a role in society to a lesser or grater extent. His true reward lies in that, and this also holds good for the people who are engaged in this work. I should also like to identify myself with the appeal made by the hon. member for Tygervallei, namely that the general public that have up to now shown great interest in the work of these centres and have readily made contributions in respect of the activities of these centres should kindly not withdraw their support to these centres. In our section for special education our point of departure is in all cases that we do not want to turn institutions of this kind into exclusively public institutions because we want to retain the interest of the general public in those institutions. That is why I identify myself so heartily with what was said by the hon. member for Tygervallei.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also referred to the part-time workers. I want to tell him that our schools for special education are making use of the services of part-time workers on a large scale, and not only of part-time workers, but also of professional people, and we find that some of our acknowledged medical specialists in the country are only too ready to do that work for a very trifling fee. We believe that we shall go on building on this practice which has already become established. The hon. member also said “we must get rid of all these designations” when he referred to public institutions, state-aided institutions and private institutions. I assume that the hon. member is aware that we now have to create order in conditions which have up to now existed on a loose basis, and that we shall not try to steal a march on one another at this stage. However, we must have certain public institutions. The hon. member for Rosettenville knows what I am referring to, because there are certain institutions of the Department of Health in which there are many potential pupils for these training centres. At such centres we shall simply have to establish a public centre. We shall probably not be able to establish private or state-aided institutions everywhere. This legislation therefore seeks to create order in the present conditions. As I have already said, as far as we are concerned new ground is being broken in this respect as well. And we shall therefore approach the matter with an open mind and make adjustments if and when required.

The hon. member for Durban Central made the plea that the emphasis should not fall on the training aspect but also on the educational aspect. I agree with him wholeheartedly. As a matter of fact, I have little fault to find with the general purport of the hon. member’s argument. What he has said is quite correct, but in my Second Reading speech I placed the emphasis on the trainability because I wanted to emphasize that in this respect we would have to follow different educational programme from the one being followed in an ordinary school. What I really wanted to do was to bring that distinction home clearly, but I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that the training programme envisaged by us is at the same time an attempt to educate as well. It goes without saying that we shall try to carry the programme though to its logical conclusion.

There is another point which was raised by the hon. member for Potchefstroom and to which I should like to refer. He advocated the use of the Afrikaans term “geestesgestremde kind” (mentally handicapped child) instead of “geestelik vertraagde kind” (mentally retarded child). This aspect was considered thoroughly by the A. J. van Wyk Committee of Inquiry. We have found that certain distinctions can only be drawn with difficulty if we do not choose the term they used in their report and if it is not retained in this legislation as well. In English one is faced with the problem of distinguishing between “mentally deficient” and “mentally retarded”. One is concerned here with differences in degree, shades of meaning, and for that reason the Van Wyk committee retained this term, and that is also the reason why we are retaining it in this legislation.

The hon. member also pleaded for facilities for children who are inmates of institutions. He will notice that the legislation makes provision for governing bodies of such centres to be assisted by way of loan authorizations and also in other ways so that they may establish such institutions. There is just one other point which I wish to make very clear, and that is that although my department is now taking over this service, it should not be expected—I know this is an expectation which has most probably sprung up in the minds of many of the hon. members of this House—that it will be possible for us to take over these services immediately and to establish proper facilities and provide properly trained persons wherever centres are already in existence. However, I want to assure hon. members that we shall do everything possible with the means and with the manpower at our disposal. Having said these things, I take pleasure in thanking all hon. members of this House for the wonderful way in which they have lent their support to this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.