There are numbers of matters that we should like to raise under this Vote, but I think the most important one in which the public is most interested at the moment is the question of third-party insurance on the road. During the past few days we have had Press reports which reveal a particularly difficult situation, and from which it appears that certain insurance companies no longer see their way clear to go on doing this sort of work. The insurance companies contend that their rates are the lowest in the world and the claims against them amongst the highest in the world. It is stated in the Press reports that conditional selling of third-party insurance is being suggested; that companies refuse to give motorists third-party insurance unless they take out a comprehensive policy at the same time, and that the motorist is required first to obtain some form of roadworthy certificate. There is unrest and uncertainty in the minds of the public. We have read in the newspapers that the Minister will perhaps be making a statement this morning with regard to this matter, and if that is the case I am going to resume my seat to make way for the Minister so that he can tell us what his attitude and his policy is in this connection.

What the hon. member has said is perfectly correct. I am very perturbed about the position. All the information at my disposal indicates that there is a large number of companies which are deliberately placing obstacles in the way of motorists who wish to insure against third-party risks. It is clear from the reports that by the end of this month there will be thousands of motorists who will not be insured, not because they did not want to insure but mainly as a result of the fact that certain companies are deliberately placing obstacles in their way. These obstacles, although they fall within the limits of the Act, are nevertheless being deliberately placed in the way of motorists with the object of withholding insurance from these motorists. The position is a very serious one. As far as the obstacles are concerned, I want to mention just a few of them. The first excuse is that there is suddenly a shortage of tokens. These tokens are provided by the Department of Transport and there ought to be no shortage. Every company can get as many tokens as it wants from the Department. It is no excuse therefore to say that there is a shortage of tokens because tokens are available. Then there are certain companies which are now suddenly demanding the production of roadworthy certificates. They have the right to do so in terms of the provisions of the Act, but it is perfectly clear that here again they are deliberately placing an obstacle in the way of motorists and that in the majority of cases it is not necessary to call for roadworthy certificates. When one examines the statistics in connection with road accidents one finds that only a small percentage of road accidents is due to mechanical defects. The main reason for road accidents is the human factor. Where companies are now suddenly demanding the production of roadworthy certificates in respect of all cars which are five years old or perhaps older, therefore, they are only doing so with the object of placing obstacles in the way of motorists. Moreover, my information is that certain companies close their offices at certain times; other companies have their agency offices on the fifth or sixth floors of buildings, which makes things awkward for people who wish to insure. Furthermore, my information is that in the main the companies which are guilty of this are mostly oversea companies. The vast majority of the insurance companies in South Africa, as hon. members are aware perhaps, are oversea companies.

Are there not South African companies which have withdrawn from this field entirely?

So far it has not come to my notice yet; there was some talk of it. But my information is that they are mainly oversea companies. Moreover, my information is that they are really placing these obstacles in the way of motorists by way of retaliation because I refused to increase the premiums by 20%. Hon. members will recall that some time ago a recommendation was made to me by the premium committee—it was not a unanimous recommendation; it was based on a majority of votes—that the premium should be increased by 20%. After the matter had been thoroughly considered by my Department, I then decided not to grant the proposed 20% increase because I felt that there was no sound reason at this stage why the premium should be increased by 20%. I have briefly set out the reasons as to why I refused to agree to a 20% increase; I have it here in English and I will read it out to the House—

According to all the information at my disposal, this group of insurance companies therefore made a profit of approximately R2 million on third-party insurance. Their main argument was the uncertainty which would allegedly arise in connection with claims once the Parity policyholders were insured with them. They were unable to put forward any facts; this was pure conjecture. In addition to that, inadequate statistics were placed before the Premium Committee. It was for those reasons that I refused to agree to the application for a 20% increase. In the nature of things the present position cannot be tolerated and I have therefore decided to act in terms of Section 24 of the Third Party Insurance Act. Section 24 (1) (b) provides—

I have already given instructions to my Department to get in touch immediately with one or more selected companies with the object of entering into such an agreement. That will mean that these companies will then be solely responsible for all third-party insurance, to the exclusion of all the other companies. That instruction has already been given. In case my Department does not succeed in doing this, although I have the fullest confidence that they will succeed, I shall then be obliged to act in terms of the provisions of Section 24 (1) (c) of the Insurance Act and proceed to establish a State corporation, a step which I am reluctant to take for the reason which I have already given on a previous occasion and that is that there is a serious manpower shortage in this country, and it would therefore be extremely difficult to staff a State corporation. But if I have to establish such a State corporation I will give very serious consideration also to the question of taking power under the Act to commandeer staff from the existing insurance companies for the purpose of staffing such a State corporation. This would be a very far-reaching step, but since the insurance companies themselves are responsible for the unfortunate position which prevails at the present time, there will be no alternative. That will only be done as a last resort, however, and I hope that it will not be necessary to do so because there are many reasons why the establishment of such a State corporation is not entirely desirable. The first step now, therefore, will be to enter into an agreement in terms of Section 24 of the Act—and this section can, of course, be amended if necessary—with particular companies in terms of which they will take over all third-party insurance to the exclusion of all other companies.

Even with one company only?

One or more companies.

But what is your policy?

One or more, but probably there will be more than one. Discussions in this regard will take place next week, and the indications are that there are companies which would be willing to undertake third-party insurance. As I said, this is a very unfortunate situation but at this stage we are left with no alternative.

Sir, may I have the privilege of the half hour? The statement we have just had from the Minister reveals the serious position, as it was clear to every one of us. which was developing in connection with third-party insurance. Nobody can deny that an extremely serious and regrettable position would have developed if a large number of motor vehicles would have had to appear on our roads towards the end of this month without third parties being protected against damage done by motorists who were not insured. I readily agree that it is natural for the Minister to act and that he must act drastically in order to prevent a chaotic position from developing in regard to third-party insurance We think there is something wrong because insurance companies compete with one another to get business. They will not refuse good business simply to spite the Minister. That is a far-reaching theory. That may be one of the reasons but had the business indeed been profitable they would not have dared to jeopardize that business. It would appear that, apart from the drastic action suggested by the Minister, the whole matter should be further examined very thoroughly. What we appreciate specially in the action taken by the Minister is the fact that he is not going to overlook private enterprise in this work and that he will rather not, if possible, resort to the establishment of a State corporation. The reason advanced by him would also have weighed very heavily with the Opposition had it become necessary to discuss the matter, namely, that in a time of manpower shortage, as we are experiencing at the moment, it would be very wrong if the State had to establish a mighty corporation in competition, with all the disadvantages to the State in such competition, with private institutions with experienced staff. Experienced staff is necessary for this type of work; the Minister will require experienced personnel to staff such a corporation.

Mr. Chairman, are we sure that the risk is equally divided amongst motorists? Is too heavy a burden not perhaps placed on the private citizen who uses his motor-car only now and then for special occasions? He constitutes a minor risk on the road whereas other motorists who use their vehicles daily to transport goods over long distances constitute a greater element of risk and should perhaps pay more. I am not sure to what extent I can discuss this matter which involves legislation but I want to ask the Minister whether he will not. for example, consider bringing the risk in proportion to the extent to which the motor vehicle is used. Will the Minister not perhaps consider having the premiums collected by means of, say, a levy on petrol rather than a fixed premium payable by every motorist? If that were done the cost of insurance would be brought in direct relation to the extent to which the motor vehicle is used, in relation to the number of hours it is on the road, the distance travelled and consequently also in relation to the risks it constitutes on the roads. We should very much like to know what the Minister thinks about such a suggestion and whether he does not think that offers a much better solution than the drastic step he suggested he would take, if necessary. We realize he is not anxious to take it. It would be a most unfortunate day if we had to establish a corporation and then force people to staff it. That would be un-South African. That would be reminiscent of the type of action resorted to in countries like communist Russia or Fascist Germany. That is something to which South Africa does not want to resort. I am sure the Minister himself does not want to resort to that. I want to ask, therefore, before he is forced to resort to something of that nature, whether a completely new direction cannot be followed in an attempt to find a solution to this very difficult problem.

Another question I want to put to the Minister is this: If he were to enter into an agreement with one or more—I was pleased to learn that it would be more than one—companies to do this business, what would happen if they learn from experience that they could not continue at the present premium rate. Let us assume that we retain the existing system. If they seek permission to increase their premiums will the Minister again allow other companies to come in? I think the public would like to know what attitude the Minister will adopt if it becomes necessary within a year or so to increase the premiums asked by the monopoly he is going to create and whether other companies will again be given the opportunity to undertake this type of business. I just want to say that, in general, we on this side of the House firmly believe that every owner of a motor vehicle should take out third-party insurance. When this measure was placed on our Statute Book a couple of years ago it was one of the major forward steps in our motor vehicle legislation. We are sorry that these problems have arisen. Perhaps they are unavoidable in view of the tremendous increase in the number of vehicles on our roads and in view of the fact that we live in a multi-racial country where people, in various stages of development, have to drive this very complicated machine, the motor vehicle. We have special problems and that is why I want to plead with the Minister to be careful that we do not land in a groove as far as this matter is concerned. We must be elastic in our approach to the problem and be willing to introduce new systems, for example, in connection with the financing of third-party insurance or perhaps extending third-party insurance because there are many aspects of third-party risks which are not covered by the existing system.

There are a few other matters I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. The first one I find interesting and in regard to which I should like to have some further information at this stage, is the amount asked for for the purchase of motor and other vehicles. The amount asked for is R4,011,000. It is a very big amount, and it is probably necessary. I do think, however, that the Committee would appreciate it if the Minister would inform us fully as to the vehicles purchased and the purpose for which they are purchased. When you look around you in Pretoria and Cape Town, Sir, you get the impression that motor vehicles are now made permanently available to a greater number of office bearers and Government officials than previously. We should like to learn from the Minister what change of policy there has been; which officials and office bearers who, say, five years ago did not enjoy the privilege of having a motor-car specially assigned to them, do indeed enjoy that privilege now? I think the Minister will agree that this is a matter which must be controlled, that it is a matter which must not be allowed to get out of hand. The Minister may perhaps be grateful to this Committee if we assisted him to keep the reins tight. We cannot do so unless the Minister takes us into his confidence and explains fully to us what changes have taken place in the allocation of individual motor-cars over the past five years.

I should also like the Minister to tell us something more about Item M, under which R610,000 is asked for the construction of national roads in the Transkei. Last year, at a fairly late stage in the session, we had a very interesting discussion on this subject and perhaps we could be further enlightened on it to-day. The national roads in the Transkei are financed differently from the national roads in the Republic of South Africa. We are very interested in this, of course. It is part of the policy of the Opposition that these Native reserves, the future Bantustans according to the Government, should be developed, that they should be developed not only from outside by means of border industries, that they should be developed not only from inside by their own savings or the money the taxpayer can invest there, but that they should be developed by means of encouraging private capital to go there. Nothing contributes more towards stimulating such development than a good communication system, particularly good roads and good means of transport. That is why we are sympathetically inclined to any special measure which will assist to develop these areas from the inside. The Minister will find that we do not want to cause any difficulty in this respect. We want to assist him, but we should like to know more about these roads. Is the Department, for instance, bearing in mind how these roads can assist in the internal industrial development of a Native reserve like the Transkei? Will the policy of specially financing these roads be extended to other Native reserves? Is the first consideration in the construction of these roads an economic consideration or are there other considerations like strategic considerations, for example? We shall be very grateful if the hon. the Minister would take us fully into his confidence and tell us what the position is in regard to these roads. They hold out great possibilities for the development of these areas provided the Minister can assure us that those possibilities are being placed fairly high in the planning of these roads.

For the first time in many years we notice that under Item N an amount of R650,000 is paid to the South African Railway Administration in terms of the Mozambique Convention. That can only mean that proportionately Durban is delivering more goods to the big markets on the Witwatersrand than in previous years. I think the share of Louren?o Marques has dropped to less than 48 per cent; R650,000 is a large amount to pay. That is why I think the Minister ought to tell us, firstly, whether the Mozambique Convention is being considered anew. We believe negotiations are being conducted afresh. What progress has been made? Has a new convention been signed? Are the terms more or less the same as previously? Will it place the same burdens on the Department of Transport? Perhaps the Minister could also, more or less, tell us what he thinks the consequences would be to his Department, as far as the costs are concerned, if a second harbour were developed in Natal, say, perhaps at a place like Richards Bay, as already announced.

You are discussing the wrong Vote.

No, the amount of R 10,000 appears here.

It has nothing to do with Richards Bay.

It deals with the proportion of traffic through Lourenço Marques, does it not? The Minister will not deny that. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if a new harbour were constructed at Richards Bay the proportion of traffic through Lourenço Marques must decrease even if Lourenço Marques handled more traffic, from an absolute point of view. If Richards Bay is, to be a success, Durban and Richards Bay together must handle more traffic than Durban alone. The Minister cannot tell me I am raising this matter under the wrong Vote. We want to guard against this amount getting out of hand and against our having to vote more than R610,000 every year. I should like to know what the Minister's attitude is in regard to this matter, what consequences will flow from the development of a new harbour as far as the Mozambique convention is concerned and in respect of which he carries financial responsibility.

We notice an item of R7,500,000—I think this is the most interesting item under this Vote—“Loss on operation of Railway Bantu Passenger Services to and from Bantu Townships”. This, of course, is a payment in terms of the guarantee given by the Government to the South African Railways in respect of the conveyance of Native workers around and near our cities from their separate residential areas to and from their places of employment.

Do you want them to live in backyards?

No, Mr. Chairman, I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister; I want to express our sincere appreciation for this amount. It is in this respect that the Minister of Transport is the chief agent in the Cabinet in applying United Party policy! How can I reply to a foolish interjection like that made by my hon. friend opposite? We say Native labour is integrated in the economy of White South Africa and that we must face up to that. We say these Natives who have to be conveyed at a cost of R7,500,000 are here permanently. You do not build thousands and thousands of houses; you do not subsidize their transport over railway lines which cost millions and millions of pounds—twice as many rand; you do not construct those railway lines and subsidize them to an amount of R7,500,000 per annum and then turn round and say: “Everything is temporary.” It is temporary; from 1978 everything will change!

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

I naturally bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but it is nevertheless a pity that one is limited in Committee in discussing these matters because they are interesting. Will the Minister tell us whether he thinks this amount will more or less remain the same? Will it decrease? If so, will it decrease round about, say, the year 1978? Or are other railway lines, lines guaranteed by the Consolidated Revenue Fund, under construction? If so, what does the Minister expect? What limits are there to the responsibility of the Department of Transport in respect of this integration fact—I cannot call it the integration policy of the Government—in South Africa? These are important matters; they affect the future of South Africa. They affect the underlying facts which determine policy in South Africa. The Minister has a responsibility to indicate what his Department will contribute towards the expansion of this undeniable fact in this country.

I notice that the Department of Transport pays grants-in-aid and subsidies to a large number of bodies. Other hon. members on this side of the House will discuss some of these subsidies in detail. I am sure the Minister will welcome the opportunity of taking the Committee and the country in his confidence in connection with the very important work—I think the most constructive work— the Department is doing my means of these agents. There is one which is of immediate importance to every South African and that is the amount paid to the Road Safety Council. I am reasonably new in this work I am doing and I shall be grateful to receive some guidance. I know I can discuss it because it appears in the Estimates. Can the hon. the Minister tell me what the position is? Does he pay these amounts over to the bodies concerned leaving it to them to decide how to spend it, what policy to follow and what to do with the money? Is he and his Department sufficiently interested to discuss matters with these organizations from time to time, to make suggestions and to see to it that the money of the taxpayers is spent as judiciously as possible? Naturally everything is covered by legislation but because the Minister provides the money he must have tremendous influence and we should like to know whether we can make suggestions, for example, to be passed on to those organizations if the Minister thinks there is any substance in them? I want to give one example and then we can form an opinion of what the position is in the light of the Minister’s reaction. Can’t the Minister suggest to the Road Safety Council that they should make representations to the authorities com cerned—in some instances it will be the State because the State has taken over many aspects of education; in other instances it will be the Provincial Councils—that road safety and the handling of motor vehicles be taught as a subject in our schools. …

Order! The hon. member is discussing this matter in far too great detail. What is under discussion is an amount of money and the decrease of that amount. The hon. member is discussing matters of policy.

Mr. Chairman, I very much want to bow to your ruling but I notice that there is an amount which also includes the Minister’s salary. Parliament has to vote the money to be paid to such organizations as the Road Safety Council. The Minister has to administer those amounts. All I want to know is whether he is willing, after we have made the money available, to use his influence and to make suggestions to those organizations. A great deal depends on the attitude of the Minister. That was why I said I just wanted to give one example to test his attitude. I am convinced that where Parliament votes these considerable amounts Parliament should at least have the right to ask the Minister to convey certain suggestions.

The hon. member must try not to go too far.

I really do not want to do that, Mr. Chairman. All I want to ask the Minister is to consider whether there is any merits in the suggestion that road safety and the handling of motor vehicles be taught as a subject in our primary schools and at a later stage in our secondary schools. It can be taught as a subject or as part of a subject. Hygiene is being taught in our schools to-day That is very good and very important but is a question like road safety, the handling of a motor vehicle and the use of our roads not nearly equally important? Will it not have a tremendous effect on the safety of our roads if every race is trained in his school how to use those roads? I think I have put enough questions to the hon. the Minister to give him an opportunity of taking this Committee in his confidence. I trust we shall have an interesting discussion, as a result of his reply, on the administration of his Department.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has just asked the hon. the Minister a few questions in connection with third party insurance after the hon. the Minister has made certain comprehensive statements in connection with third party insurance. Further to what the hon. the Minister has said in connection with insurance companies which ar eguilty of asking too high a premium I just want to ask him whether he would not even consider prohibiting those overseas companies which are trying to do such a thing unlawfully from doing other insurance work in South Africa.

Third party insurance actually flows from the danger which we find on our roads to-day. The danger which exists on our roads is the reason why there are so many third party insurance claims and I want to say a few words in regard to this aspect. The hon. the Minister tried last year to introduce legislation to bring about common road rules and regulations. The provinces then asked to be allowed to conduct investigations themselves to ascertain which would be the best. The Committee of Inquiry into road safety, road traffic and road traffic legislation submitted a little report in 1964 in which it made certain recommendations. I am very concerned about this entire inquiry conducted by them. If the provinces were serious about saving and protecting the lives of people on our roads they would long since have introduced legislation on their own initiative. Up to the present stage, however, they have only been consulting, gaining advice and doing certain things and that is not good enough for South Africa. Where this is a matter of national importance I think the Minister should consider taking this matter out of the hands of the provinces and that this Parliament should introduce legislation as early as possible to regulate the traffic on our roads. Our approach to road safety is entirely wrong, Sir. If a person parks where he is not allowed to park to-day he is heavily fined. The car is absolutely stationary; it cannot cause any loss of life but the owner gets fined R4 or R5 for having parked there. That is absurd.

I think road safety is the concern of everybody in South Africa to-day but apparently nobody’s responsibility. The provinces create the impression that they are more concerned about building up little empires for themselves and acquiring certain powers instead of looking after the lives of people. That is why it is necessary for us in this House to take the bull by the horns and to take drastic action. I can almost say we must adopt shock tactics so that people will realize that they have to observe road safety. If a person commits a parking offence impose a fine of 50c or R1 on him because he has not committed a serious offence but where vehicles use the road we must see to it that they are absolutely roadworthy. Exceedingly heavy fines should be imposed for defective lights, brakes etc. If a person has been found guilty more than three times for such an offence the vehicle should even be confiscated as far as I am concerned.

Then there is the further question of driving licences. There are very many motorcar drivers to-day, I think, who are not roadworthy themselves, to put it that way. I think a person should have his licence renewed at least every four years. That is done in other countries in the world and why not in South Africa? Let us say every Leap Year is licensing year. People will then know that they have to renew their licence every Leap Year.

Then there is the question of speed limits on our roads. It is often said that accidents are not caused by fast driving. If we want to do something let us do it properly and clamp down on everything; do not let us merely do a little patch-work here and there. Let us limit the speed on our dual roads to 75 miles per hour and to 70 miles per hour on the other roads. Nobody should travel at 90 miles per hour. If a person does travel at over 90 miles per hour and is found guilty he should loose his licence permanently and his vehicle confiscated. A governor should be fitted to all vehicles manufactured to reach a speed exceeding 80 miles per hour so that their speed is limited to 80 miles per hour. It should rather have such an instrument fitted than a safety belt. If If I am tied to my car with a rope and my car turns over I shall in any case be dead. I do not think the safety belt is a solution. Where anybody has a chauffeur and the car exceeds 80 miles per hour while the owner is in the car, not only the driver but the owner as well should be found guilty because it is often on his instructions that the car travels at such a high speed. Even a Minister who allows his chauffeur to exceed 80 miles per hour should be roped in.

The reckless drivers on our roads are responsible for the serious accidents. There are not enough traffic inspectors on the roads. We all know how a car sometimes weaves through the traffic, just misses other cars and it is entirely due to luck that he does not have an accident. It ought to be the duty and responsibility of every road user in South Africa to lay a written charge against any reckless driver. Where a person has had three such independent charges made against him his licence should be suspended for at least three months. If he continues to make himself guilty of the same offence and three further charges are made against him his licence should be suspended for six months. If a further three charges are made against him his licence should be taken away permanently. Mr. Chairman, that person should not be allowed on our roads. He is the death on our roads.

We seldom read in the newspapers that a person who has been found guilty of having caused an accident has lost his licence. If a person is found guilty his licence should be suspended for a month or two. If he is found guilty of reckless driving a third time he should lose his licence permanently. Then, of course, if a person drives a car without a licence an exceedingly heavy penalty should be imposed, even imprisonment without the option of a fine as far as I am concerned. It should not be possible for persons who are found guilty of reckless and careless driving to avoid publicity. That is why publicity should deliberately be given to those cases so that society and the public will know that he has made himself guilty of that offence and that he is actually the death on the road. If we were to take these steps it would mean that many human lives would be saved. When we think of it that during the past Easter weekend 47 people were killed on our roads and 228 injured we get an idea of how disturbing the position is. Just think of the manpower that is lost in that way, Sir; think of the loss of income to their families; think of the grief and misery on the other hand! We should do everything in our power to avoid that. As far as the serious problem of third party insurance is concerned I want to point out that if we were to take the steps I have suggested we shall have no problem or, at least, a much smaller problem as far as third party insurance is concerned. We should remove the causes and not be concerned so much about the results of third party as such. If we take these drastic steps third party insurance would hardly be necessary. I trust the hon. the Minister will give considerations to the points raised by me.

I was quite surprised at the suggestion made by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Van Zyl) that the provinces should be deprived of the revenue of all licence fees, and that this should all go to the Central Government. I am all the more surprised because this is obviously an expression of no-confidence in the provincial administrations, and when we remember that 75 per cent of the provincial administrations today are controlled by the Government in power, I think it is a condemnation of the strongest order of the maladministration of Nationalist Party provincial administrations as expressed by one of their own members. But I would go further and recommend to the Minister that he should not give heed to the opinion of the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside), much as he has condemned his own provincial administrations for maladministration ineptitude and inefficiency, but that we should be jealous of the prerogative of provincial administrations, and not take away any further powers from them. The hon. member for Sunnyside has also expressed views in connection with the third-party insurance situation as we now find it. I agree with the hon. the Minister that a very damaging and serious situation has arisen in connection with third-party insurance and that something drastic has to be done by the hon. the Minister in this regard. But I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that whereas he has thrown the blame completely on the insurance industry in South Africa, he has not been altogether fair in his criticism in that regard. I believe that the hon. the Minister is equally as responsible for the unsatisfactory state of affairs that exists to-day in regard to third-party insurance. But have the insurance companies not been forced to resort to these tactics in view of the inactivity of the hon. the Minister, in spite of them pointing out to the hon. the Minister over the past three years that there was an impossible state of affairs developing in the insurance industry? They demanded, and expected. of the hon. the Minister during the past three years that he should take action. That is borne out by his appointment of a Select Committee in 1963. That Select Committee saw the urgency of the matter and realized the importance of bringing about a change in third-party insurance in this country. The Select Committee came forward with a unanimous report, which the hon. the Minister saw fit to decline, a unanimous report supported by members such as Dr. Luttig, now our Ambassador in Austria, who was chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. J. D. de Villiers), the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer), the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller), and the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter). They were all members of that Select Committee together with four members from this side of the House, and. Sir, if the hon. the Minister had acted on that unanimous report, we would not have been faced with the situation that we are confronted with to-day, and the fact that the Minister has to adopt drastic action at this late stage, just before third-party insurance payment is due.

The Minister’s excuse inter alia for not accepting the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee was that he did not have the necessary staff to do it. In our recommendation to the Minister for the acceptance of that report, we pointed out that we were able to avoid the establishment of another empire in the Central Government in carrying out the administration of third-party insurance. The “pool system” that was recommended was a compromise between private enterprise and government undertaking, and it would not have involved the hon. the Minister in having to look round for staff and to establish another big department. Sir, it would have brought safety into the insurance world, it would have made impossible the insolvencies such as we have witnessed during the past three years. Furthermore it would have introduced many other satisfactory features into motoring, and would also have avoided a large number of deaths that we have had on the roads. So, Sir, I say that while criticism can be levelled at the insurance companies, I think the hon. the Minister must bear the greater blame for not accepting that unanimous Select Committee’s report. I ask any of the hon. members opposite who sat on that Select Committee to stand up and prove to this House that the alternative suggestion now made by the Minister—an emergency suggestion—is better than this deliberately-thought out and carefully framed report of the Select Committee on Third-party Insurance. The hon. the Minister knows that the chairman of that committee, Dr. Luttig, told the hon. Minister that by refusing to accept the report of the Third-party Select Committee, he (Dr. Luttig) was not prepared to accept responsibility for what may eventually take place. The Minister knows that. It was said in the presence of members of that committee, and it was only on the assurance from the hon. the Minister that a certain state of affairs had improved—viz. the financial affairs of the Parity Insurance Company—that the Select Committee went back again as a whole, and gave reconsideration to that report. But we were all of the definite opinion, and expressed it to the Minister, that the Select Committee’s Report was in the best interests of the motorists of South Africa, and certainly would bring about an improved situation in regard to third-party insurance.

The hon. the Minister has now said that it is his contention to choose certain companies to carry out this insurance and he has levelled criticism at the so-called overseas insurance companies who are trading in South Africa. He may be perfectly justified in that criticism. I have not got information at my disposal to say that that criticism is not justified. But it is a fact that these insurance companies carry out business other than third-party insurance, and have built up a reputable business name for themselves in this country in other fields of insurance. I think it would only be correct for the Minister to state in public how, and which of, these companies have abused the system. Why is it that he has singled out those particular overseas companies for mention, and not mentioned that other companies are also involved? I think it would be a poor reflection on these overseas companies, unless the hon. the Minister does see fit to qualify his statement, because, as I said, they do not only deal with third-party insurance but they are active in other fields and I believe they have carried out their business in those other fields in a commendable manner. Sir, when commenting in that strain, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the position is going to be with those limited number of companies who are now to undertake this business at the request of the Minister and then find themselves involved in a loss at the end of the year? Is it the intention of the hon. Minister to make some form of subsidy available from general revenue to cover any such losses, or will he allow further increases in premium rates to take place? A definite answer is expected from the Minister! [Time limit.]

We are all very concerned about the slaughtering which is taking place on our roads these days. There is no doubt about it that the increasing number of accidents is due to the fact that there is an increase in the number of motor vehicles and that the roads, particularly the national roads, are over-loaded particularly on holidays. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for the hon. the Minister to consider doubling the national roads so that we will have autobahns instead of single lanes which have to carry the traffic in both directions. Head-on collisions are usually fatal to the occupants of the motor cars and I also think the roads are too narrow to carry the increasing traffic. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he considers, although it may cost a great deal of money, doubling the national roads because many lives will be saved in that way. I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) who has said he is not very happy about the heavy fines imposed for parking offences while the reckless driver on the road is allowed to carry on as he likes. I do not think the imposition of a fine is the correct type of punishment to inflict on the reckless driver. I personally think that when a person is found guilty of reckless driving he should be punished by having a speed-governor fitted to his motor-car for a month, two months, three months or even six months preventing him from exceeding a speed of 25 or 30 miles per hour. I am convinced that if such a person is unable to drive at a speed exceeding 25 or 30 miles per hour for a couple of months he will more or less be cured of the desire to drive like the devil. It may be a more effective penalty than a goal sentence and it is certainly a more fitting penalty than a fine in the case of such a person.

I want to bring a specific case which happened on the East Rand to the notice of the hon. the Minister. Two freeways have been planned there, a North Rand freeway and the South Rand freeway. The North Rand freeway goes from Witbank and the East Rand towns past the Jan Smuts airport to Johannesburg. It will be of great benefit to us when that road is constructed because it will bring us nearer to the airport. The department has accepted responsibility for this road and has declared it a special road. I understand it will shortly be built. But the South Rand road which will link Ermelo, Bethal, the Eastern Transvaal goldfields and the East Rand towns with Johannesburg and the West Rand is still regarded as a provincial road. The towns in the Eastern Transvaal have made representations to the hon. the Minister that this road should also be declared a special road. The hon. the Minister did not think it advisable at the time to declare it a special road and to treat it in the same way as the North Rand road but I nevertheless want to emphasize that this road is of national importance. When we think of it that the distance from the East Rand towns to Johannesburg will be shortened, that millions of rand will be saved in that motor vehicles will be subject to less wear and tear and that less petrol will be used, that manpower hours will be saved by being able to reach Johannesburg in a shorter space of time, it will be realised that it will be worth while declaring this a national road. It will be in the interests of the towns I have mentioned and it will also be of national importance because as a result of less wear and tear fewer vehicles will have to be imported and less fuel will be consumed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister please to declare this South Rand road a special road and see to it that its construction is expedited.

I listened with considerable interest to what the hon. the Minister had to say this morning about third-party insurance and the change that he proposed to introduce, and I want to raise a matter which I raised earlier in the Session in regard to the whole question of the need for reform in the system. I must say that the hon. the Minister’s proposed reform does not go nearly far enough to my mind. I raised the matter during the Part Appropriation debate, and I want to bring two specific factors to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I think all of us are agreed that third party insurance is a social measure, and therefore we should mainly be concerned with what we are trying to achieve, and as far as I am concerned, any way, what we should be trying to achieve is to give maximum protection to people using motor-cars as well as pedestrians who are injured by motor-vehicle traffic. I do not think the present system does that at all. I think the whole question of existing cover needs reconsideration, both as far as the law itself is concerned and also the method of raising funds to cover motorists and pedestrians injured by motorists. We are living in a modern age, Sir, and the hazards of motor traffic become daily more apparent to everybody. The rise in motor-car accidents is in itself sufficient indication of this. Therefore I think the need for reform should be obvious to everybody. I know perfectly well that there have been commissions of enquiry, such as the Corder Commission, the Du Plessis Commission, and this House has also had a Select Committee reporting on the subject of third party insurance, but I do not believe that we have reached any satisfactory conclusions. Indeed, the Du Plessis Commission itself recommended further enquiries with reference to some of the issues which I wish to raise.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that despite the changes which were introduced in the law last year, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport himself have both stated that an opportunity should be given for the new changes in the law to have their effect, I do not believe that with the full effect of those existing changes, we will achieve what we should attempt to achieve, which is maximum cover for the protection of the public under this social measure. The question of negligence is still a matter which obviates many people getting proper cover. I know that this aspect has been improved by the Apportionment of Damages Act, but the public is not completely covered yet. The question of providing culpability still enters into it. It is something that I raised earlier on, and I was interested to see that not long after the Chief Justice of Great Britain raised the same question in regard to third party insurance in England and suggested that the fact that innocent victims of road accidents may fail in claims for compensation, because the present law requires proof that somebody was to blame, was a matter for concern and required some changes in the law. I think this is an important aspect which requires proper investigation, and also the whole question of administering third party insurance. The hon. the Minister, if I understood him correctly this morning, is now going to institute a system whereby he is going to choose one or two companies that are going to be responsible for the running, controlling and administration of third party insurance. I do not know on what basis the hon. the Minister is going to make his choice. He may choose right, he may not choose right, but I can assure him that he cannot legislate, for instance, against dishonesty, he cannot legislate against fraud, and therefore the most unfortunate incidents of companies going insolvent during the last few years can possibly be repeated even under the new changes. The hon. Minister thought that the only alternative would be to introduce a state corporation. Now earlier in this Session I suggested that this was a matter for discussion in Nationalist quarters and I was greeted with what I can only call derisive laughter. It seems, however, that this matter has in fact been exercising the hon. the Minister’s mind, even though he said that this was something that he would only do as a last resort. But I think there is a third method he could use and that is not simply picking out one or two companies to handle third party, not taking over by means of State control, but a combination of factors, with a central board of control, administered however, through the insurance companies themselves. This will simply mean a central board of control with all the actual detailed work of assessing claims, deciding claims and so on, being done by the insurance companies. It would not necessitate the additional use of manpower which is obviously worrying the hon. the Minister. I have a memorandum which was submitted to me suggesting a scheme of this kind. The person who suggested the scheme does not wish his name to be disclosed, but I would be perfectly prepared to hand this memorandum with all the details to the Minister and his Department for consideration. Briefly, it suggests a central board of control, the insurance companies themselves to do the actual work of considering the claims, but all money to be paid into a central pool, rather I think on the lines suggested by the select committee to which the hon. member for Springs referred. Funds shall be supplied not by premiums, which always result in a large number of uninsured vehicles on the road, because people do of course avoid the law—I believe that something like ten per cent of all the vehicles on the roads are still uninsured in spite of the law—but by means of a fuel tax, which need not be an enormous amount, and would in fact, I think, be fairer because the people who use their cars more would use more petrol and would therefore pay the greater part of this tax. If not sufficient, this source could be augmented from general revenue and also by the payment of an initial licence fee when the motor car owner takes out his actual licence. This is also a possibility which I think the hon. the Minister’s Department could consider.

My main object is to try and see that in future we do not have accidents where people are not compensated, that the degree of negligence is no longer a consideration and that we have proper financial control of third-party insurance and enough money in the kitty to meet all these demands.

In retrospect, I think that something should be done by the hon. the Minister for past victims of insurance companies that have gone insolvent. This is a state responsibility, because by law third-party insurance is compulsory and I think the hon. the Minister must, in conjunction with the hon. Minister of Finance see to it that a special fund is set up to compensate people who have not been paid their claims for injuries which they have suffered as a result of road accidents. I believe there are thousands of persons who are going to suffer financially as a result of the insolvency not only of the one company, Parity, which is of course uppermost in everybody’s mind, but all the other companies which over the last few years have gone insolvent. I hope sincerely that the hon. the Minister will give consideration to all these matters and see if he cannot have an enquiry into, firstly, the methods of raising funds, and, secondly, the establishment of a central board of control, with a central fund to which all the insurance companies will contribute and from which claims will be met in proportion to the amount of insurance taken out by the public with the individual companies, thirdly, how to remove the factor of culpability or negligence and the requirement that another vehicle must be involved in a crash. Many crashes these days are caused not by negligence, but simply by bad judgment on the part of drivers, and I think it is a poor show indeed that the public is not protected in cases of this kind.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) pleads for reform but she has not even given the legislation passed last year a chance. The legislation passed last year was based on the work done by the commission of enquiry, both here and overseas, and that legislation it not even a year old. The Minister has made a statement this morning regarding the further steps he can take under that legislation and which he has not as yet taken.

I think the victim of the unidentified and unlicensed vehicle is fairly well protected under existing legislation by the organization to which insurance companies themselves contribute. I just want to correct the hon. member for Springs. He completely misunderstood the hon. member for Sunnyside, probably not deliberately, when he said the hon. member for Sunnyside had pleaded that the provinces should lose the revenue they derived from licence fees. I think he misunderstood him because I do not think anybody will plead for that because that is one of their main sources of income and they are responsible for road construction. The hon. member for Springs asked the Minister why he had not accepted the recommendations of the first Select Committee but this is not the appropriate time to ask that question. He should have put that question to the Minister when the Minister called us all together and asked us to re-investigate the whole matter, to put it in plain language, in the light of certain problems which confronted him and we all agreed. That would have been the opportune time for the hon. member to have said to the Minister: I am not prepared to co-operate any further.

I am pleased that both the hon. member for Springs and the hon. member for Yeoville have stated unequivocally that they on that side of the House are also not in favour of more drastic action being taken, particularly in view of the Minister’s statement that it may perhaps be necessary for him to establish a State corporation. As the Minister knows I just want to draw attention to the fact that there are about 70 companies who have either a trust company or an attorney as agent to do their insurance work in practically every town on the platteland where distances are great and where it is not easy for people to contact the established agencies of the companies. If the State has to do that work I foresee great difficulties and insurance perhaps becoming more expensive apart from the question of where the Minister will get the staff. Because such a person is there in a temporary capacity. He does other insurance work such as fire insurance, building insurance, life insurance and so forth for the company. The few weeks during which third party insurance has to be taken out he will be mainly occupied with that and for the rest of the year he will be doing his ordinary work. But if you employed a public servant in that capacity, somebody who knows this type of work, I think the costs would rise considerably and none of us want that to happen. We all agree that it is due to the accident figure that third-party insurance has become more expensive. Although not one of us would welcome it your own common sense tells you that if we continue at the tempo of one death for every 350 vehicles in comparison with a country like America, where they have only one death for over 2,000 vehicles, we shall have to pay for it in some way or other. Although none of us would welcome it we can expect premiums to rise if we continue at that tempo.

I want to bring a matter of a more parochial nature to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is the position which is developing on the national road between Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and East London. It so happens that practically all the motor assembling plants are situated along the coast. You have a number of assembling plants at Uitenhage, East London and Port Elizabeth in the eastern part of the Cape Province. They are Volkswagen. Auto Union, G.M. Ford etc. On the other hand you have Chrysler and the Rootes group in Cape Town and others at Elsies River. Blackheath and Paarden Eiland. I want to bring it pertinently to the notice of the Minister that a position is developing on National Road No. 2 which will make it necessary either to double that road through difficult terrain, at very high costs, or to find a formula to put a stop to those convoys of hundreds of new vehicles which daily move in both direction. Cars manufactured here travel east. They are not travelling in the direction in which they are going to be sold but to the distributors. You often have to travel 25 miles on the road between Caledon and Sir Lowry’s Pass before you can pass one of those convoys. Some days they travel a long distance behind one another but the trouble is that they travel so slowly. Had it been possible for them to travel faster the problem would not have been so serious. That is why I do not agree with the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) that speed is the only reason why there are accidents. Those slow-moving vehicles constitute a bigger danger than those which travel fast. If you get behind a convoy of bus and lorry chasses in mountainous country or on an obsolete single road obsolete both as far as the surface and the way it has been planned are concerned, it takes you a long time before you can pass it. It is when you cannot pass such a convoy that you are inclined to get nervous and it is when you are in a hurry to pass and take chances that accidents happen. I notice from the annual report of the Department of Transport that they are thinking about doubling the road between Cape Town and Sir Lowry’s Pass. I want to suggest to the Minister that they should go at least 25 miles further bceause you only get the really difficult stretch of road to Port Elizabeth from that point.

The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. de Villiers) has rightly pointed to the difficulty created on our roads from traffic consisting of news cars being delivered from the various plants to the dealers in the inland centres. It is true that these factories exist mostly in the Western Cape and the Eastern Province, and it is equally true that the largest market, as is the case with any other commodity, is the Witwatersrand complex, and it is true that the movement of an average of 400 cars per day—I think the plants are delivering 11,000 a month now— means that additional congestion is caused on some roads which have to accommodate that traffic. The only solution, obviously, is to take the plants to the market. I do not know whether the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland is asking the Minister to see what he can do to arrange for these plants in Cape Town and Port Elizabeth to be removed to the Rand, but that is the logical development because that is where more than half these cars are sold. Though I come from Johannesburg. I am not saying that I would like that to happen, and I have no axe to grind—but it is a good idea just the same!

Now I want to deal with third-party insurance. The Minister, since last December, has done certain things in connection with third-party insurance about which I think the public has been very well informed by the Press. One recalls that last December, when Parity collapsed, the Minister made a statement. and there were photographs of people with whom he had consulted; and under the heading of “Third Party Reorieve” the Rand Daily Mail on 16 December reported the Minister as saying that the concession by the 79 insurance companies to carry the persons insured with Parity for a period of six weeks was made “in a spirit of co-operation and indicates the seriousness and responsibility with which the matter was being viewed”, and he said a few other laudatory things about the insurance companies. But now that he has taken the stand, for which I for one do not blame him—and in fact I support him—that he is not prepared to agree to a 20 per cent increase in third-party insurance tariffs, one wonders how much co-operation he is going to get from the 79 or any of these insurance companies. I think the Minister will find out in the near future. Although he says he is hopeful that, as the result of his negotiations, one or more companies will agree in terms of the 1942 Act to carry this burden, I believe that he will find it extremely difficult, unless he nominates these companies and persuades them to take on this responsibility; and if they should succeed in making a profit out of their third-party insurance business, those two or three companies as well as the Minister will incur the wrath of the rest of ail the 79 companies. The Minister knows as well as I that there has been this ambivalence about third-party insurance in the insurance industry itself. They say, and they can show —as the Minister has quoted this morning— that the business is singularly unprofitable, but the moment it is suggested that they should give it up entirely, it becomes a completely different matter for all kinds of reasons not because of the profitability, but because of the fact that it forms part of their turnover and has a certain element of attraction for the person who needs other insurance. The fact is that the moment the insurance companies are confronted with the position that they will not be allowed to undertake third-party insurance, they may take a completely different attitude. There has been talk about a new system of insurance. I have pointed out before that there are five pages and ten sections on the setting up of an insurance corporation in the 1942 Act—there were difficulties then about compulsory third-party insurance, and greater difficulties were foreseen—and that is why the Minister can. virtually by pushing a button, set up his corporation, which even has a name in terms of the existing legislation. But before he does that, he says he will try to negotiate in terms of Section 24. Now I would like to put this to the Minister—he is in the difficulty that if he nominates companies in a way which will indicate to them that he will give them and them alone the business, he will then be accused of favouritism because he has chosen two or three out of the lot. and more so if, at the end of the financial year, those two or three companies have shown a profit, which apparently is possible in terms of the figures which the Minister gave in respect of the 1964 business. If the others find that these three companies are making a few million rand profit, it will be said that they were left out in the cold, and that will create a very invidious position. I would like to suggest, therefore, that just as the Minister of Finance calls for tenders for Treasury Bills, it should be possible for the Minister of Transport to call for tenders from insurance companies, duly registered, for all or any part of the total third-party insurance business. In other words, any tenderer would then place himself in the position in which he can say that he will take all the insurance and provide the necessary guarantees, or he will say he will take 10 per cent. In that way, between the 79 companies, the Minister will find out fairly quickly who is prepared to take up which proportion of the burden, if it is a burden, of third-party insurance; because in the nature of the tender system, the insurance companies will then have to decide for themselves what their true attitude is to third-party insurance. If it should turn out in the case of a particular company that what it has said in the past to the Minister and to the group, that this business is a dead loss and that it does not want any part of the business—if that should turn out to be the true attitude of that company. it will obviously be very glad not to tender at all. But it will be very significant— and this is the only way I can think of establishing it—if the Minister finds that he has more than enough tenders to cover the entire field; that he has, e.g., two companies who say they will take the lot. or a dozen companies which say they will do 20 per cent or 30 per cent each. Once and for all, and without any prejudice to the insurance companies, we will put them in the position where they will have to make up their minds as to whether or not they really want to undertake third-party insurance. I. for one, see no difficulty whatever in instituting such a system rather than the Section 24 (b) provision the Minister intends to employ. I know that the end of the road may be the setting up of the corporation, which the Minister apparently does not desire, and in which we on this side support him, and I do not think that the insurance companies would desire him to do so. But he may be compelled to do that if he finds that no company wishes to undertake this insurance. I believe that rather than to nominate certain companies, or choosing them as a result of negotiations with them, the Minister would be well advised to inquire into the methods of calling for tenders, which is a very simple and practical way of finding out who is interested in providing any service. I do not wish to pursue this matter further. There are certain matters arising from it which I should certainly like to amplify, but I shall wait for the Minister to deal with this suggestion in his reply.

One sympathizes with big companies which undertake third-party insurance on a business-like basis but one also sympathizes with the great number of people who are not so well-to-do and who continually have to pay higher premiums. It appears that the premium is the same in the case of everybody. In a small number of cases the court decides to award very big amounts as compensation. It appears to me that in such cases it is perhaps proved in court that the life of the well-to-do man who has lost a limb is worth more and that a bigger amount should be awarded in his case than in the case of a less well-to-do person. I think the position is that in a small number of cases exceedingly big amounts are awarded and that those awards absorb the big amount paid in the form of premiums with the result that everybody’s premium has of necessity to be increased. It seems to me that the result of that is that the well-to-do person is actually better covered under the existing system than the less well-to-do person as a result of the fact that it lies in the discretion of the court to award compensation. It is usually the less well-to-do person who does not take out additional insurance to cover his life in the case of an accident. The question that arises in my mind is whether the solution does not lie in laying down in legislation the compensation a company should be called upon to pay in the case of the death of any person, rich or poor, and also where he loses a limb or suffers any other physical injury, so that a fixed amount will be paid in every case seeing that they all pay the same premium. If the position is that the court awards a bigger amount of compensation in the case of a person occupying a high position than to the poor man I think the time has arrived for this House to lay down a fixed tariff of compensation in every specific case because everybody pays the same premium. It is easy for well-to-do people to take out other life insurance if they think it necessary. But I do not think the premiums should unnecessarily be increased at the expense of the less well-to-do person.

It amazes me that only today is this House informed of the situation which has arisen in regard to third-party insurance. It has been common knowledge for some time that, with the removal from the scene of the insurance businesses of Auto-Protection and of Parity, there was going to be a tremendous problem on the part of existing insurance companies to take over the more than 500,000 policy-holders who previously had protection from the two companies I mentioned. Another problem which was known, was that a large proportion of the type of business handled by Auto-Protection and by Parity was the worst type of business. It was business offered at a lower premium, and obviously taken by those people whose position was such that they wanted a bargain and therefore they went to these two companies. They were to a large extent the people with old motor-cars and young and reckless youngsters who could not get cover from other companies. Certain other sections of the community were also insured with these two companies. Suddenly these two companies were no longer in existence and this whole mass of insurance cover had to flow to the other companies. These other companies knew for some time that there would be problems. and I am surprised that the Minister did not know it. They knew, for example, that in regard to some of the cars, they would require certificates of roadworthiness. Whether they are using that to frustrate the hon. Minister I do not know. He has more information than I have, but what I do know is that as early as four months ago certain companies sent policy-holders notices to the effect that they would require certificates from a garage that the motor-cars were roadworthy. They saw the situation that would arise, that in a very short period thousands of insurance policies were going to be funneled through a very narrow neck, and that there would be problems.

What is the position to-day? The Minister has eight days, to-day being 23 April, to ensure that every motorist is going to be covered by third-party insurance. He now suggests that this should be handled by one or two companies because the other companies are not co-operating with him. How is it going to be physically possible for one or two companies even to issue the discs required between now and 1 May? It is impossible. Then the Minister is going to stop the other companies from carrying on with third-party insurance. What is going to be the position of those of us—and there are tens of thousands—who already have the discs from established companies for the forthcoming year?

Another vital issue is that the Minister knows as well as I do that, throughout the investigations which have taken place into this whole question of third-party insurance, one of the great dangers which was pointed out is that a company would have an imbalance as between its third-party insurance and its other types of insurance. Now the Minister is suggesting that one or two companies should have all the third-party insurance, and you will create the biggest imbalances there has ever been in the insurance business.

But perhaps the most vital factor in the situation is the question of the cover that is given to people injured by an uninsured motorist, through the present 1942 group. The Minister knows that the position to-day is that, if anyone is injured by a motorist who does not have third-party insurance, he is automatically covered by those insurance companies which constitute the 1942 group. This was an obligation they undertook many years ago, and I think the Minister will agree that they have carried it out. Now, if the Minister says he is not dealing with these companies any more, but only with companies A and B, what is going to be the position of someone who is injured by an uninsured motorist? It seems to me that what the Minister has to tell the House and the country is, that if he is forced to do the things he suggested this morning, he will give an undertaking to all the people of this country that the Government will carry the hazard of insurance in regard to those persons who are injured by people who do not have third-party insurance. Otherwise there will be chaos. There will be tens of thousands of people who are not insured, and if they injure someone else, that poor unfortunate will have no recourse to anybody. If a change has got to take place, and the time is very short. I think the Minister must get up and say that the Government will take responsibility for anyone who is injured by a non-insured motorist.

One of the weaknesses in the Minister’s statement is that he did not tell us enough. There are many aspects of third-party insurance which will be completely disrupted as the result of any steps the Minister may have to take. He has left it terribly late already. I do not know how he will get out of this crisis which has arisen. I am not concerned with long-term issues now; we are concerned with what has to be done immediately, within the next eight days. I do not know whether the Minister can extend the periods of existing cover, but what we want the Minister to do as early as possible is to give a more full and comprehensive statement to the House telling us exactly what will happen, and how he is going to take care of all these problems which will arise. The things that flow from changes in this type of insurance are enormous.

I can only hope that he will be able to sort out this problem on a temporary basis immediately, so that everyone will know that they are covered, as that will be the vital factor in any arrangements he may make.

One last thing, Sir. I am sorry the Minister referred to some of those uncooperative companies as overseas companies. I do not think that has any material effect in this issue. I am not protecting the insurance companies, but I do believe that people who have invested their money in this country have the same standing as any local institution. Perhaps the Minister should be a little cautions, because these companies have enormous funds invested in this country and, if there is any de-investment, we may have problems far greater than the ones the Minister has to deal with to-day.

I want to deal with the matters hon. members have raised in regard, to third-party insurance, first of all. I fully agree with the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) in regard to the problems which will arise. I can only say that those problems will have to be ironed out during discussions with the particular companies which will be willing to undertake this insurance.

The time is very short.

That is true. I do not agree with the hon. member for Park town when he says it is amazing that the House was only informed of the position to-day. The fact is that motorists have an opportunity until the end of this month to insure. It was only during the past two weeks that it came to my notice that some companies were deliberately placing obstacles in the way of the motorists. But, apart from that, I had personal discussions with the group in December, and they gave me an undertaking that all the insurance companies would be willing to insure the Parity policy-holders. Since then the Secretary for Transport has had discussions with them and they reiterated their assurance that they would be prepared to insure these people. But in spite of those assurances we found that in the past weeks they were placing obstacles in the way of these motorists.

Is that not confined to a limited number of companies?

According to my information, it is the majority of them. So there is nothing amazing in the House only being informed of the position to-day. Hon. members ought to know that motorists usually wait until the very last moment before they apply for insurance. Although they have an opportunity of taking out insurance in February and March, they usually wait until the second half of April before they rush to the insurance companies. So there is nothing amazing in the House only being informed of it to-day. This is the appropriate time to inform the House, and that is why I have not been in a position to take any steps before to-day. I agree that it is very late now, but I hope that if these discussions with certain companies are successful, ways and means will still be found to insure those motorists who have not got insurance yet. In regard to the details the hon. member mentioned, e.g. the fund that was specially established to cover those injured by uninsured motorists, that is a very important problem and will have to be solved. But there has been no laxity or negligence on the part of my Department. It was merely the force of circumstances which caused this delay in taking action in an attempt to solve the problem.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) suggested that tenders should be called for. There is merit in that suggestion, but I do not think it will work in practice. The hon. member knows that in terms of Section 2 (2) of the Act any insurance company can notify the Minister that it is not prepared to undertake third-party insurance. When such notification has been received by the Minister, the name of that company must be published. In other words, if any of these companies who are placing the obstacles in the way of motorists are unable or unwilling to undertake third-party insurance, they could have notified the Minister, but they did not do that. Instead of that, they notified the Minister that they were prepared to undertake the business, but in spite of that undertaking they are placing obstacles in the way of motorists. The hon. member as a business man knows that the only way to make this particular arrangement effective will be to have a small number of companies who are prepared to undertake the insurance, because then it will be remunerative for them; it might pay them to do it.

Will companies who have played the game and are prepared bona fide to undertake this business get preference?

They will obviously be considered. It is quite natural that any company that has played the game will have an opportunity of coming into the scheme.

Is the Minister aware that he can still limit the number of companies involved under the tender system, on the basis that the highest or lowest tender is not necessarily accepted?

Rut you cannot ask for tenders on the basis of an insurance premium. Then I will have to amend the Act. At this particular stage I can only act in terms of the powers given to me by the Act. It is extremely difficult to call for tenders asking companies to tender for insurance on the basis of the amount of the premium they are going to charge. I do not think that would be acceptable to the companies at all.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) stated that the Minister was equally responsible for the position that exists to-day. I think that is a silly statement to make. The hon. member knows quite well that that is not the position. He bases his allegation on the fact that I refused to accept the report of the first Select Committee on this particular Act. But I discussed the matter with the hon. member and with other hon. members of that Select Committee and I gave them the reasons why I felt that the Rill should be referred back to the Select Committee. One of the most important reasons was that the insurance companies were not prepared to co-operate with the pool idea. They definitely stated that they were not prepared to co-operate, and the whole thing would have collapsed.

But they went into a system after Parity’s collapse.

No, they have not gone into a pool system. That has nothing to do with what the Select Committee suggested. The hon. member should not make statements of that kind. The insurance companies were not prepared to accept the idea; they did not co-operate and there were numbers of other difficulties which I explained to hon. members. But that Select Committee was not bound to accept my suggestion. If they wanted to do so they could have come forward with the same report again, but after further consideration they came forward with a different Bill which was then submitted to the House. The present Insurance Act is the product of both sides of the House, and hon. members opposite must always remember that. The amendments to the Insurance Act which were promulgated on 25 September and passed by this House last year are the responsibility of both sides of this House, because the report of the Select Committee was a unanimous report and that Bill was accepted unanimously by this House. It was not the Governments Bill or the Minister’s Bill; so, if the hon. member wants to find fault with the Act, he must find fault with all the members of this House and with the members of the Select Committee who were responsible for that Bill.

Is the hon. the Minister aware whether the insurance industry will accept the pool system if he recommends it to them?

There is no question of their accepting it to-day. I have no indication as to whether they will accept a pool system. All I know is that the insurance companies were not prepared to accept the Bill as drafted by the Select Committee originally, but I have received no information that they are now prepared to accept that principle.

It may pay you to approach them at this stage.

Then it will be too late to amend the Act this Session.

The hon. member wanted to know whether, if the companies which agreed to undertake all the insurance, suffered a loss, they will be compensated. I have given the companies the assurance that if the necessary statistics are placed before the premium committee to prove that they are running insurance at a loss and an increase of premiums is recommended, I will accept that recommendation. You cannot expect companies to do business at a loss. They must at least be able to balance their accounts. But the reason why I refused to agree to a 20 per cent increase, as I said in my earlier remarks, was because there was no proof that they were doing this business at a loss. On the contrary, my information is that they were doing it at a profit of R2,000,000 last year. There was no justification for a 20 per cent increase. I do not know whether hon. members realize what a 20 per cent increase in the premiums would mean. In the case of a company like Putco with 560 buses, a 20 per cent increase would probably amount to R20,000 to R25,000 a year, and that is a company which is being subsidized at the present time. Hon. members know what a 20 per cent increase would mean to the ordinary motorist, but if the necessary statistics were placed before the premium committee and proof was furnished that they were running this business at a loss, there would have been no question of refusing to grant an increase; it would have been done.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has suggested that since third-party insurance is a social measure, it should be extended to cover all injuries, whether negligence plays a part or not. I know that this aspect of motor vehicle insurance has been advocated by a large number of people and bodies over a long period, and on the face of it there seems to be some justification for the idea of compensation to all victims of motor vehicle accidents, but when one examines the problem one asks one’s self whether it is right to introduce a scheme of accident insurance which would benefit only those who suffer damages as a result of the use of motor vehicles. Members of the public suffer damage as a result of other accidents. Why should compensation only be confined to the victims of motor accidents?

But the State has accepted the principle of compulsory third-party insurance.

We have accepted that principle but that is no justification for paying people compensation where no negligence is involved. Why should the dependants of a man killed by a motor vehicle that got out of control be in a better position than the dependant of a man killed by a fall of earth or struck down by lightning? But apart from that as far as the cost factor is concerned I want to point out that a committee reported on this particular subject in New Zealand in 1963, and that committee found that to implement a scheme where compensation is paid irrespective of whose fault it is as far as motor vehicles are concerned, would cost five times the present premium. In the Republic it would mean a premium of R85 a year for a private motor car and R 1,300 a year for a public bus. That would be the cost of it.

Suoposing you did it by way of a fuel tax as well?

That was examined by the Du Plessis Committee and I think the Select Committee discussed the matter and found it impracticable. But the fact still remains that this is what it would cost the average motorist and I am quite convinced in my own mind that the motorist would certainly not be prepared to pay a premium of R85 a year. I think it is quite prohibitive. I just want to give the hon. member some further information. During 1963 45,000 accidents occurred, causing injuries in all cases and fatal injuries to 4,294 people. During the same period, however, only 6,519 claims for compensation were paid. If compensation was to be paid in all cases it may mean that the tariff may rise eight-fold, which would mean that the premium would be R134 a year for private cars and R2,080 a year per public bus. This, of course, is altogether too heavy a burden for motorists to bear.

*The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) also wanted to know—I have already replied to it—what the position would be if it appeared to be necessary to increase the premiums of the companies with whom I enter into an agreement. As I have already said, if it appears to be necessary, if it is clear that they are doing this business at a loss, then the premiums will have to be increased.

If they show large profits then the premiums will be reduced.

And what will the position be if other companies then wish to join again?

I am coming to that. Once an agreement has been entered into with a particular company or companies, they will want to have certainty at least that they will always be able to undertake third-party insurance in the future. I do not think that I would get the co-operation of a single company if I were to say to them at our discussions, “I will allow you as a group to bear all the risks, but as soon as third-party insurance proves profitable I am going to allow all the other companies to enter this field again.” I doubt whether they would agree to it.

I think I have now dealt with all the matters raised here in connection with third-party insurance. There are just a few other matters that I want to deal with. The hon. member for Yeoville wants to know whether the policy in connection with the allocation of motor-cars has been changed, and he referred to the amount provided for in the Estimates for the purchase of new cars. The only policy change which has taken place, as a result of a Cabinet decision, is that heads of Departments are now each allocated a motor car for their own use under certain specific conditions. This request was put forward by them some considerable time ago already and the Government felt that it was quite a reasonable request.

Does it also apply to the Auditor-General?

The Auditor-General and heads of Departments and members of the Public Service Commission. For the rest there has been no change of policy. I just want to inform hon. members that in this matter the Department of Transport acts more or less as an agent only; the requests for motor vehicles come from other Departments and the Department of Transport is merely the supply department. As far as possible the Department of Transport tries to determine whether the vehicle is essential. It is very difficult, however, to determine whether a vehicle is essential; the Department can only judge according to the reasons advanced by the Department concerned as to why a vehicle is required. These requests are submitted to my Department by all other Departments and it is up to my Department then to see to it that the necessary vehicles are made available. The hon. member also raised the question of the construction of roads in the Transkei. I dealt with this matter on a previous occasion when this amount appeared in the Estimates for the first time. I informed the House at the time that the Provincial Administration.

of course, was responsible for the maintenance and for the construction of roads; but instead of financing the maintenance and construction of these roads out of the National Roads Fund, the Government decided that the Treasury should accept the responsibility. The two roads concerned are the road from Queenstown-Umtata-Port St. Johns to Kokstad or Port Edward and the road from Kokstad via Matatiele-Maclear-Elliot-Indwe to Dordrecht. The Provincial Administration sends the account to my Department and the Provincial Administration then has to be compensated. The estimate is a very rough one. It is estimated that the rebuilding of these national roads will cost approximately R 19,000,000. That is all I can tell the hon. member in that connection.

What is the object of these roads?

They are for motor cars to ride on!

The hon. member also referred to the amount which appears in the Estimates and which is to be paid over to the Railways under the Mozambique Convention. A new convention has been entered into with the Portuguese. The convention provides that instead of 47½ per cent of the incoming traffic to the competitive area having to go through Lourenço Marques, it will now be 40 per cent under the new convention. Formerly, as hon. members know, the S.A. Railways were liable to pay compensation if the traffic which went through Lourenço Marques was less than 47 per cent. I succeed in persuading the Treasury to take over this responsibility, and this means that if the incoming traffic through Lourenço Marques for the competitive area is less than the fixed percentage, the Treasury has to pay the compensation. It is paid by the Railways to the Portuguese authorities but the Treasury guarantees the amount. Hon. members will agree that this represents a great advantage to the Railways.

But the Railways have not had to pay compensation for years.

Yes, there has been a reduction, mainly as a result of the establishment of the new refinery at Durban. The bulk of the traffic which came through Lourenço Marques was oil and petrol but there has been a tremendous drop in that traffic since the establishment of the Shell refinery in Durban. It does not relate to export traffic; it only relates to imports through Lourenço Marques.

With regard to the R7,500,000 which is being paid over for the loss on Bantu passenger services, I can only say to the hon. member that the amount will not become stable; I anticipate that the amount will rise further because additional lines are still being constructed. For example, a new railway line is being built from Durban to Umlazi to serve that Bantu area, and a railway line is being constructed from Durban to Chatsworth where the Indians reside. Those services will also be subsidized by the Central Government. I assume therefore that these amounts will increase still further in the future.

I do not want to deal at any great length with the hon. member’s story that I am now carrying out United Party policy. There have been so many different policies that I am entirely in the dark as to which United Party policy the hon. member has in mind. However, we will have many other opportunities to debate this matter; I do not think this is the appropriate time to do so.

As far as the road safety organization is concerned, as the hon. member knows that is a statutory body. They control their own funds but their annual budgets have to be approved by the Minister of Transport. For the rest they are responsible for the control and the spending of their own funds. Provision is made for that in the relevant Act. The hon. member suggested that road safety should be taught at school as a subject. It is already being taught at school as part of a subject. This was done on the recommendation of the Road Safety Council. It was done, of course, by the Provincial Administration because the Road Safety Council can only make recommendations and the Provincial Administration decides whether or not to accept the recommendations.

The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Van Zyl) pleaded for a National Traffic Act, but the Provincial Administrations, as he knows, were not prepared to support such a step and I was therefore obliged to abandon it, but it is likely that uniformity will now be achieved as a result of the recommendations of the Du Plessis Committee which was appointed last year. The other suggestion made by him was also a matter for the Provincial Administration; they are responsible for the administration of the Road Ordinances. These suggestions can be conveyed to them but it is their right and privilege or their duty, at any rate, to amend their Ordinances if they see fit to do so.

The hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) has asked that the construction of the special road, the North-Rand speedway, should be expedited. The Provincial Administrations, as he knows, is responsible for the actual construction of roads. The National Transport Commission is the financing organization. The question therefore of expediting the construction of a particular road is a matter which is entirely in the hands of the Provincial Administration. As far as the special road is concerned, the position is that the National Transport Commission makes a grant of 70% of the construction costs to the Provincial Administration concerned. In any event, I will ask my Department to go into this.

With regard to the question of proclaiming the South-Rand road as a special road, I just want to say that the ordinary procedure is that the Provincial Administration has to submit representations to the National Transport Commission; those representations are then considered, and if the necessary funds are available and it is felt that it is justified, then the road is proclaimed as a special road.

The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. de Villiers) referred to the position on the national road to and from Port Elizabeth with reference to the large convoys of new cars. Well, we can do nothing about it. I have no powers to prevent them from using the road. They find it more advantageous to send the cars by road. But I must point out that for some years past there has been a continual agitation that even more concessions should be made to private road hauliers. I have stated repeatedly that our roads are not suitable to carry a large volume of heavy traffic. One reason is that the roads are too narrow. I have pointed out that it will be necessary to rebuild the roads and to construct wider roads and dual roads. The policy of the National Transport Commission is not only to re-build old national roads to conform to present-day standards but also to dual roads as far as possible. For example, the road between Cape Town and Paarl is being doubled, but this is a very gradual process because the funds at the disposal of the National Transport Commission are very limited.

The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) has suggested that compensation under the Third Party Insurance Act should be fixed on the same basis as in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This matter was also investigated by the Du Plessis Committee and the Committee expressed the opinion that it would be entirely impractical, for this reason that workers who are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act are limited to those in receipt of a certain maximum salary whereas third-party insurance is applicable to everybody. It covers both the man who earns R20,000 a year and the man who earns R2,000. The courts decide what the compensation should be. The compensation is based on the loss of income and on the person’s status in the community. The Du Plessis Committee found that it would be entirely wrong to incorporate the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the Third Party Insurance Act.

As far as third party insurance is concerned we realize that the Minister is passing through an emergency at present and we wish to assist him as far as possible because we realize that private individuals are being prejudiced and handicapped in taking out new third party policies. But we hope that the Minister will always recognize two main principles, and that is that in negotiating with the companies private enterprise must be encouraged as much as possible and also that those insurance companies which have played the game in the past will be given an opportunity to continue to do this kind of work.

The Minister spoke at length about his refusal to increase the premiums, and we quite agree with him that unless the companies can substantiate their claim for an increase by producing figures to show that third-party insurance does not pay, the premiums should not be increased. But if the Minister might agree to an increase in the future, I think then we must insist that the contract should be given not just to one company but that more than one company should be allowed to contract to do this type of work, otherwise one company would have a monopoly and would be able more or less to dictate to the Minister. I mention this because the Minister in his reply to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) did not make it clear whether one company or more than one company …

It will be more than one company.

I want to deal now with the Transkeian roads to which the Minister referred. The Minister in reply to the hon. member for Yeoville said that the provinces did the work and that he merely paid the provinces. As far as that is concerned, he who pays the piper is entitled to call the tune. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us what programmes they have for the Transkei for the next financial year. I would also like to have some more details with regard to the national roads in that area. The Minister mentioned the road from Queenstown to Umtata and from Kokstad to Matatiele and Mount Fletcher. Sir, the Minister will remember that it became necessary to proclaim these roads national roads because the Transkeian Constitution provided for the handing over of all roads except national roads to the Transkeian Government. The proclaimed road is from Queenstown to Umtata and from Umtata to Port St. Johns and then there is a road from Port St. Johns to Port Edward. But the road from Port St. Johns to Port Edward, as far as I know, has not been located. A national road has merely been declared but the route has not been located and I would like the Minister to tell us when we can expect that route to be located; whether this matter is at present receiving the attention of the engineers and also if the road will go direct from Port St. Johns to Port Edward or if there will be a link from Bizana to Kokstad. I know there has been a request from different public bodies that the road from Kokstad should be linked up with Bizana, but as far as I know there hae been no proclamation to that effect. I should also like the hon. the Minister to tell us what his programme is for the road from Kokstad through to Matatiele. Sir, it is important that we should know what the programme is and that some steps should be taken in regard to these roads, especially the road to Port St. Johns. Port St. Johns is a White area isolated from the rest of the Republic, and it is essential that good communications be maintained. The only access to Port St. Johns is by road; there is no access by sea or by rail. The Minister, when asked by the hon. member for Yeoville what the purpose was in bringing the road to Port St. Johns, said: “Vir motorkarre om daarop te ry.” But I submit that this road will not be used only by motor cars but also by lorries …

And bicycles with Hansards.

This road will also be used by other vehicles, which can assist in developing the country. I would also point out that an important factor in setting aside a large sum for the roads in the Transkei was the question of defence, so the road is not just for motor cars but for many other types of vehicles. As far as Port St. Johns is concerned it is the duty of the Government to assist that area to develop. The Minister of Planning has already told the House that all other Departments have been requested to collaborate with his Department to investigate the position at Port St. Johns. At the moment they have to rely entirely on the tourist traffic. They have also put forward requests in the past to the planning department and other departments for assistance with establishing industries there. It is essential therefore that construction of the road to Port St. Johns, both from Umtata down to Port St. Johns and from Natal to Port St. Johns, should be proceeded with, and I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will give me whatever details he can with regard to the programme for the next year.

In my humble opinion it is possible to effect considerable savings in connection with the building and maintenance of national roads. I really cannot see any advantage or use in placing milestones at every one-tenth of a mile. In my opinion the money spent on those milestones can be used to much greater advantage for eliminating railway level crossings to make these places safer for travellers. It may be argued that the cost is very small in comparison with the total cost of the building of roads, but hon. members must realize that these blocks are made Of concrete. A considerable tonnage is used for making these concrete blocks, which then have to be transported to the various places and erected there. What is more, these blocks are painted and have to be repainted from time to time. The shoulders of the roads are also levelled from time to time, and then these milestones have to be removed and re-erected subsequently. As I have said, I see no advantage in these milestones, and in actual fact a great deal of labour and material is wasted in this regard. All the traveller is interested in is what the distance is to the next town, and in my view it would be perfectly adequate to erect a milestone every five or ten miles with a notice that the distance to the next town or the next place is so many miles. I think a considerable saving can also be effected in marking white lines on roads. The breadth of the white line can probably be reduced by half without making it less visible. Nor do I see the necessity of having three lines running next to one another, as we have at certain places. An unbroken line simply means that one is not allowed to overtake. Why must there be two unbroken lines plus a broken line in between on the ridges of hills? A great deal of labour and material can be saved in this respect. As I have said, the shoulders of the roads have to be levelled regularly. If they are bare and heavy rains fall they get eroded. I think it will be much more effective if grass is planted along those shoulders or if the grass is simply allowed to overgrow them. The grass can then be cut level by mowers from time to time. That will eliminate the possibility of water erosion and also the possibility of going off the road entirely if one turns off onto the shoulder.

Then there is the question of bypass roads at towns. I realize that it is essential to build bypass roads, but I do think that it is sometimes overdone to a certain extent. It is essential for travellers to stop at towns to have a cup of tea. It relaxes them, and it prevents tiredness, which is frequently the cause of road accidents. Although it is essential for bypass roads to be built. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to see to it that the planning of those roads is done timeously so that the expansion of towns is not hampered. In the case of Nelspruit the local authorities have been trying for many years to get a decision from the Road Transportation Board as to the exact route the main road will follow. The road was originally planned to run through the centre of the town. Buildings were bought out for the purpose, but then that plan was abandoned. Then it was planned to build a tunnel under the town, but that plan was also abandoned. The third plan is now to build a bypass road north of the Crocodile River. The planning of the town itself is being hampered. The town is expanding rapidly, but its development is being retarded by the failure of the National Transportation Board to decide precisely where the bypass road is to be built. It makes matters extremely difficult and has a retarding effect on the building of housing schemes and so forth.

I can sympathize with the hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie). He is not alone in having found difficulty in getting final decisions in regard to matters concerning national transport. However. I do not wish to follow the line he has developed, whether it be a white line, a double line or a treble line. I should like to raise a subject with the Minister this morning which I think is of tremendous importance to the future of South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not feel that the time has come for the development of a comprehensive national civil aviation policy. I believe that that time has come. We have been developing our civil aviation on a hit or miss basis. It has been left to private enterprise to take those risks which individual entrepreneurs are prepared to take but to take them without the advantage of an over-all plan or an over-all direction in regard to the general development of civil aviation in the country. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether he should not appoint either a separate commission or otherwise the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee to organize a full-scale and a proper investigation with the object of coordinating all those matters which fall within the scope of this problem. I think the time has arrived for civil aviation to cease to be the step-child of our transport system. That is what it is to-day. It is being left behind in State-thinking in regard to our transport needs. Civil aviation is regarded as a means of transport which is entirely the headache of the private owner. It is apparently not part of the over-all plan and thinking of the Government. Where we make provision through Parliament for a sub department, I believe that that sub-department should have, as the basis for its operations, an over-all scheme upon which to work. I suggest that the terms of reference should include matters like, firstly, the place of civil aviation generally in our transport system; the possibility of civil aviation providing feeder services to our established South African Airways airlines; the question of uniformity in licensing policy—a matter with which I hope to deal in greater detail if time permits me—the question of the use of civil aviation by the State both in regard to mail and transport of persons and goods which can be transported by small private craft; the use of helicopters—as is being experimented with in Natal, for instance—in regard to traffic control. That can be extended to a wide field of operations, both by the Department of Transport and by other Departments of State. Helicopters offer a very big advantage in regard to conveyance over short distances of both people and goods. Apart from the question of use by the State in regard to transport itself there is the question of the military use which could be made of private aircraft. That is being dealt with, to a certain extent, by Defence but it is a matter which will have to be carefully considered in any comprehensive State plan.

Another aspect which would have to be considered would be that of local airport facilities. The State should assist, as part of this plan, to develop proper and safe air strips at all our outlying towns. There is the question of navigational aids if our civil aviation is to develop as a feeder service to the outlying areas. There is also the question of the extent to which civil aviation is subjected to the interests of the Railways and Airways. That is a matter which could well be investigated by such a commission.

Finally there is the question of efficiency of the Department of Civil Aviation itself, namely, the work that it could and should be doing. In this regard I want to ask the Minister whether he has given consideration to the problems which have arisen in that Department through shortage of staff, through resignations of qualified specialists and through the gaps that are left in the Department due to those resignations. Throughout civil aviation there is a great deal of discontent to-day. It is felt that people who should be paying attention to other responsibilities are being tied to desks by red tape. Inspectors who should be out inspecting aircraft, inspectors who should be doing jobs outside their offices, are tied to their desks. There is such a shortage that those people who are specially qualified for special jobs are not able to give their attention to those jobs. There is great dissatisfaction about the delays in dealing with problems. I do not say it is solely the fault of those who are dealing with these matters. I do not believe sufficient staff is available to deal with all the problems. To get a decision on a matter from the Department to-day often takes weeks where it should take hours or days. That is a matter which the Minister himself will have to attend to personally rather than have it attended to by a commission of inquiry.

Then there is the question I have referred to of the licensing procedure. Here I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention once again the deep dissatisfaction which exists throughout civil aviation in regard to the operation of the National Transport Commission’s procedure in licensing of civil flying. There is a lack of confidence in the commission. I state it here as a fact. Civil aviation has lost confidence in the commission. It has lost confidence not so much because the commission has done anything specifically wrong but because the procedure is such as to create resentment and uncertainty.

I would like to make, if I have time, certain specific proposals to the Minister on procedure which could be adopted by simple amendment or by regulation where necessary. Firstly, when an application is heard by the N.T.C. today the applicant can make any sort of extravagant claims he likes. He can claim anything he likes. There is no machinery to verify the truth or otherwise of that claim.

Are you referring to applications for air certificates? When he speaks of the licensing procedure does the hon. member refer to the licensing of private pilots?

No, I mean the granting of certificates for services. I would suggest—this suggestion has already been made to the Department—that any statement by an applicant or by an objector should be made under oath so that the person who is making an application or objecting thereto, in making that statement, is bound to what he has said. If it can be proved that he has made a false statement then it should be possible for that person to be subject to the normal process of law. At the moment evidence is not given under oath; there is nothing to prevent a person from making a false statement.

Secondly there is no machinery available to the commission for investigating the truth or otherwise of claims. I would suggest that there should be an inspectorate and that before any application is heard for any service the application should be investigated by an inspector. The Commission should have before it facts and not merely claims by the applicant. Those inspectors should investigate the case before it is heard and in addition to that, the evidence both by the applicant and the objector should be given under oath. [Time limit.]

I just want to refer briefly to the national roads through the Transkei once again. I want to refer specifically to the northern one, that is to say, the one running from Dordrecht to Kokstad. When the hon. Minister made a statement in regard to those roads in this House last year, he said—

All I want to ask is whether a special effort cannot be made to get finality, as far as it is possible at this stage of the whole project, in respect of the outlining of this road and its declaration as a national road. The people in that area were very glad to hear about this road. They need it very much. We know that there is no continuous rail link between those parts and Natal. This road will be a very great blessing to them indeed. Since the road was announced, however, nothing has been done. Some people now fear that the whole idea may perhaps be shelved and will as a result either come to naught or be changed. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether it it not possible to give us finality within the next year, please, because I take it that before finality is reached it will not be possible to proclaim the road specifically as a national road outside the Bantu area.

It is a fact that work on a part of the road is already in progress. But the work is being done on a basis other than a national road basis. I do not want to ask now that work along the whole route should be undertaken on this other basis, but I do want to ask the Minister whether he will not once again arrange for a high-level discussion to be held with the Province during this year to see whether progress cannot be made or finality be reached. If the hon. the Minister does not have the time to reply to me in the House this afternoon—I do not know what the arrangements are—I shall be satisfied with a written reply.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When my time limit expired I had appealed to the hon. the Minister for a comprehensive national civil aviation plan. I was dealing with problems concerned with the N.T.C. and the proceedings at their hearings dealing with applications concerning civil aviation. I had suggested that evidence be given under oath and machinery be established for the checking of that evidence before it was taken into account. There are other suggestions which I believe would tend to create greater confidence amongst those concerned were they applied at the proceedings of the N.T.C. A third suggestion I should like to make would be that at the beginning of a hearing, before any particular application was heard, the full application be made available to those concerned. The procedure at present is that an objector can be called upon to give evidence stating his objection, without, in fact, knowing the full details of the case to which he is objecting. It seems simple logic that the full details of an application should be made known to a person concerned therein as an objector before he is called upon to give evidence.

Another factor which tends to give concern is the present procedure whereby reasons for a decision are supplied to the applicant but are not available to the objector. This is a hearing to grant a licence; the applicant is told why his application is rejected or accepted but others concerned are not given that information. Therefore, justice is not seen to be done in the finding which is given. I suggest further that there should be a right of appeal. This is a matter which concerns the livelihoods of people and it seems only logical that that where a person feels aggrieved there should be machinery for appeal.

Finally, I would suggest that a record be maintained at proceedings in the form of minutes which should be available for inspection. This is a body of tremendous importance to civil aviation. It is a body which determines the future of air companies and their operation. It is a body which plays a part in the participation of civil aviation in our national transport. Therefore, it is essential that there is full confidence in this body. Full confidence can only be obtained when there is a clear policy and when decisions are taken openly, publicly and made known, with the reasons, to those concerned. Unless there is a clear pattern people cannot plan for the future. If each application is decided in a hole-in-the-corner manner, without reasons or explanations given, a person cannot say: “That application succeeded and, therefore, if I apply for something exactly similar my application must also succeed.” The identical application by a second applicant could fail. There is no clear pattern. By giving reasons, by disclosing reasons, by giving full opportunity for investigating all evidence and establishing the facts before a decision is taken not only will confidence be created but people would be able to plan on a long-term basis when expanding their activities. They will know that this is the policy of the N.T.C. or this is not the policy. They will know that an application lodged in line with the policy is likely to succeed and that an application against it is likely to fail. At the moment that is not known and there is tremendous dissatisfaction and discontent, much of which is probably unfounded merely because of the secrecy surrounding the activities of the N.T.C.

The elimination of this discontent and lack of confidence is something which would greatly contribute towards the expansion of private civil aviation. People would then be able to participate in something which was part of the over-all scheme for which I have pleaded for an inquiry—an inquiry aimed at drawing up a national policy which could co-ordinate and deal with all the facets of the problems concerned.

I have here the report of the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee up to 30 November 1964. This body, the Minister may well say, is a body which could provide such a plan but in practice it is not. In practice this committee deals with detailed administration. I am not going to go through this report in detail, point by point; the Minister has this document. He will be aware that the broad policy planning is not one of the facets covered by the C A.A.C. Therefore either this body or another body would have to be given the specific task and directive of drawing up such a programme.

I have mentioned the problem of airports. The C.A.A.C. have dealt with the question of navigational aids and they were merely told that navigational aids would only be supported where the Government felt they were necessary. Surely civil aviation itself should give an indication of where these aids are required? They should be supplied not only where it suits the Government but where it suits private flying throughout the country and not only when it applies to South African Airways or their carriers. There is the question of the safety of our airports. I do not want to deal with that at great length, Sir, but the Minister is aware of the discussions and the proposals for co-ordination between the Rand airport, military flying and Jan Smuts. He is aware of the near-misses which still continue to-day. He is aware of the steps that have been taken to try to prevent them. He is aware of the fact that those steps have failed to provide a completely satisfactory solution. Unless there is proper co-ordination between the craft flying from those three airports—-military, Jan Smuts and the Rand airport, we are going to have a serious crash sometime in the future—a crash which could have been avoided had the necessary co-ordination and action been taken timeously.

These matters contribute towards a general feeling of frustration amongst those concerned with flying—frustration which is unnecessary because it can easily be eliminated. I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister to deal with the three major issues which I have raised with him, i.e. the question of a comprehensive national civil aviation plan, the question of the N.T.C. and its procedure and the question of the State giving support to civil aviation through using it as a carrier of mail, goods and persons. There is no reason why we should not have air-mail services to every small town throughout South Africa as part of a comprehensive plan, a service supplied by private enterprise and as an ancillary to the services supplied by South African Airways.

I know the hon. the Minister has always been obstinate about State-subsidization. This is a matter which goes beyond merely the responsibility of Transport. It is a matter where the Department of Posts and Telegraphs can co-operate with the Minister and where other Departments could do so. The time is past where we send letters in cleft sticks by runners. We have the companies who will be prepared to provide the services were the State prepared to give the backing which is necessary. None of this can happen, however, without a comprehensive plan for the whole future of our civil aviation. I hope the hon. the Minister will treat this, not just as a sub-department which is sometimes a bit of a nuisance, but as a serious aspect of the over-all planning of transport throughout South Africa.

I just want to point out one matter to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) in connection with what he raised here, and that is that, as regards navigational aids, to which he referred, there is a committee, the so-called Navigational Aid Committee, to which airmen, particularly of the South African Airways, by which these aids are mainly used, submit reports almost every day, or say weekly, in regard to the condition of our navigational aids, and to which they make recommendations from time to time, which are then considered by the Committee. As a result a few changes have already been made at airports on the recommendation of these airmen through this Committee.

I want to deal with a few other matters, however, and I want to come back to third-party insurance. I want to submit a plea to the hon. the Minister in connection with the group of people in South Africa who are holders of comprehensive policies for motor vehicles, a group of people who obviously take care to drive safely and who want to carry insurance and who pay considerable amounts per vehicle per annum to have comprehensive policies in respect of their motor vehicles. Now this same group of people is really being penalized in that they have to take out third-party insurance as well. I feel that a case can be made out for these people who take out comprehensive policies to have tokens issued to them by the insurance companies if they have fully paid-up policies in operation in respect of their vehicles. I feel that it is unfair that they are compelled by law also to take out third-party insurance in respect of a large part and, in some cases the whole, of the specific risk in respect of which they have already taken out insurance voluntarily and are paying considerable premiums.

I want to mention two other matters in regard to our airports to which the hon. the Minister may perhaps pay attention. A friend of mine returned from overseas recently and, when I asked him about his impressions, he said to me that that there was one thing which worried him when he arrived at Jan Smuts Airport and compared conditions there with those at the London Airport. What worried him were the health arrangements which apply when travellers from overseas arrive at Jan Smuts Airport. I am told that the procedure in Britain is that when one leaves the aeroplane there is a road leading one across the airport to a place where health certificates have to be produced and that the health inspector then allows one through the airport without any delay. At Jan Smuts, however, the position is different. When our South African Boeings land at Jan Smuts a person comes on board and first examines everybody’s certificates; he first sees whether everything is in order before any passengers are allowed to leave the aeroplane. The impression which is created by that is the most important aspect to me. Here one arrives at Jan Smuts early in the morning, tired as a result of 14 hours or perhaps slightly less in the air, and one wants to feel solid ground under one’s feet as soon as possible. Then one has to sit around for half an hour so that the inspector can first go through the necessary formalities.

They spray the aeroplane.

Apart from the fact that they spray the aeroplane, I understand that the procedure is that an official first goes on board and carries out an inspection before the passengers are allowed to get off. That may only be a minor irritation, but it does give a first impression of South Africa. If everything goes smoothly and one is made to feel welcome when arriving in a country, one gets a good first impression, but in South Africa the danger exists that a minor irritation may be created which may give a poor impression of our country.

Not even to mention the book you have to fill in.

I do not know what book the hon. member is talking about. There is one other matter, also in respect of our airports, which we can also perhaps streamline somewhat, and that is the handling of our luggage. Again I am told that at most Continental airports there are conveyor belts, which work very simply. The luggage is taken from the hold and placed on a conveyor belt, and then it is very easy for the passenger to collect his luggage from the conveyor belt, and he can leave the airport within the minimum of time. We sometimes have the problem, particularly at the Cape Town Airport, which is a terminal for overseas flights, that quite a number of aeroplanes arrive shortly after one another, with a considerable quantity of luggage, and that the staff are then inundated with luggage, and cannot handle it smoothly enough. There is a tremendous congestion. I have the greatest admiration for the persons dealing with that. They do their best to deal with the luggage as soon as possible, but in spite of their efforts, there is a congestion and delays are experienced. I am not suggesting this as a final solution, but will the Minister not have the possibility investigated of introducing conveyor belts or some similar scheme at the busier airports so that we can make it easier for the passengers to get their luggage?

If I may, I would like to bring the hon. Minister back from the air down to land, or should I rather say water. I want to deal for a moment with the marine section of the hon. Minister’s portfolio, the portion which deals very largely with the activities of the Transport Department in regard to the inspection of ships and vessels. There I know the hon. Minister has experience in his dual capacity as a Minister, because a very large section of the work comes under his other portfolio of “Railways”. But I want to refer in particular to the ocean-going type of fishing craft, the bigger craft. During this Session we passed in this House the Amended Shipping Bill which extended the authority and the volume of work which falls to the hon. Minister’s Department to carry out in connection with new surveys largely with a view to ensure the safety and security of the vessels themselves and their crews. At that stage mention was made of one of the difficulties of the department, namely, the shortage of qualified staff which had to cope with a growing volume of work. I know that one cannot argue anything here that would result in increased expenditure, so I will have to leave that side of it, but I want to make the point that not only has the scope of control been somewhat widened by the Merchant Shipping Bill that we passed, so that a bigger volume of work is expected from the hon. Minister’s survey staff, but also there has been a tremendous expansion with regard to the craft themselves, both in numbers, in the area of coast that they operate from, in the size of the vessels concerned and the fact that to-day many of your bigger fishing craft are ranging much further to sea than they did even two years ago when they operated mainly along the coastal belt, 40 or 50 miles off coast. Today we have craft which have to proceed in the case of some of the newer fishing ground discoveries as much as between 500 and 600 miles to sea, and the result is that they encounter, or can encounter much more severe weather, and they are more exposed to damage and risk. Therefore they require perhaps more intensive inspection and more intensive treatment than what was satisfactory even a few years ago. I want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the fact that even in the last few months (one in the last few weeks) we have had several instances again of valuable craft, sea-going craft, sinking. Mainly the reason given was that they developed a leak and that the pumps did not operate efficiently, with the result that the craft filled up quickly and sank. Only because, one might almost say by an act of God, other vessels were within reasonable proximity, there was no serious loss of life. Other vessels were able to take off the crew, but valuable craft have been lost with all equipment, running into thousands of rand, and in some cases the whole of the catch, a most valuable food catch, was lost, and we constantly hear that it was due to an unexplained leak that suddenly developed and that the pumps of the vessel were not able to keep the water under control. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if through his Department he would endeavour to see whether there is not an inherent structural weakness in some of our fishing craft, under the conditions under which they now operate. A weakness in the forepart of the vessel near the forefoot, as it is termed, of the vessel, where they take a very heavy hammering when they are running into a sea. I have watched these craft myself. They are usually driven at a fairly high speed; the skipper is in a hurry to get home with his catch or out to make his catch. He drives the vessel perhaps a bit faster than safety warrants under these sea-going conditions, and you see these craft— they make a most spectacular sight from the shore—when they are thrown high in the air and then come down with a terrific splash on the water, and you see the spray going right over the boat. But little cognizance is taken of the fact that the vessels gets terrific bumps each time it strikes the water. Now in marine engineering the bow structure of all ships is especially strengthened to help to carry that blow and special precautions are taken for that additional strength to protect the vessel. It does seem to me that it is a point that may be well examined in regard to some of our fishing craft, to see that provision is made to withstand that hammering. Because in many of the cases that I have discussed with the people concerned afterwards the leak apparently developed in the fore-end of the vessel. When a leak develops, the next question is whether the pumps are adequate. As I said in the House before the pumps to a very large extent are apt to be, when there is a good cargo of fish on board, buried under a load of fish and while they may be able to get at the actual foot of the pump, there is no chance of getting at it properly to clear any obstruction mainly in the shape of pulverised fish which chokes the pump and renders it inadequate. I would also suggest that examination might be made there into the question as to whether it is not time to give serious consideration to the desirability of having a reserve pump. Some of these craft have got so large to-day and, as I have said, they go so far away from the coast, that I think that amongst the conditions laid down by the hon. Minister and his survey staff for certifying a vessel as seaworthy and fit for sea, a reserve pump in another position which could adequately deal with the water, or a larger type of pump, and better provision against chokage, might be fitted into some of these vessels. I am quite satisfied from my own experience that had adequate pumping arrangements been available in some of the craft that have been lost, it would probably have been possible to save a valuable boat. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether some action cannot be taken to endeavour to check and make necessary improvements to provide the security. There is a further factor. Where light wood construction is used, it is very often fastened by nailing it into the timbers or frames of the vessel. For the sake of speed and cheapness nails are driven in and not clenched was the sound method. Nails being riveted over so that they don’t draw out under strain. One thing that really happens with nails applied to the bottom of the boat, and you get it in some of our faster models of the sporting fishing craft, the gamefishing craft, is that the nails draw either out or through the planking under this hammering of the sea, which is a terrific force really. That again may be one of the reasons for these sprung seams and sprung butts which set up the leaks in the vessel.

Then in regard to tourism and the attraction of tourists to this country. …

That does not fall under my Vote now. It falls under the Minister of Tourism.

Very well, then I leave the Minister in peace as far as that is concerned.

But coming back to the other matter I discussed, we cannot afford to lose these valuable craft and we cannot afford to jeopardize the lives of these fishermen. There again I am not sure whether this particular feature falls altogether under his Department, but it does certainly do so with regard to security at sea and because security covers lives of crews as well as the vessels. I want to ask whether it has been possible to make any advance with regard to securing some form of insurance by way of workmen’s compensation or owners liability for the permanent members of the crews. I am not talking now of the floating population of day by day fishermen. Practically all these craft have a permanent “driver”, as he is called and they have a permanent skipper and some of them have three or four more or less permanent crew on board. If one could only make a start in regard to the insurance of that particular section of the crew, it would be some progress while a wider solution is hammered out for the rest of them. I know the hon. Minister takes an interest in this and I am sure that he will do something about it if it is feasible.

As the hon. Minister is concerned with the National Transport Commission I want to draw his attention to the whole question of congestion on the roads, particularly on the roads entering our big cities. The hon. Minister has a commission sitting at present and the last term of reference provides that the Minister can refer any other matter to the commission which the Minister of Transport desires to refer to the commission. I am not certain whether this matter could be referred to the commission or whether it should be a subject for a special commission.

What is happening to-day is the provision by the National Transport Commission of national roads and their assisting some of our main cities with the provision of freeways. The result is that we are getting increased traffic into the cities, because the hon. Minister knows that the history of freeways in big cities is that they temporarily solve traffic problems, but as the freeways become more and more used, they become more and more congested and then the problem becomes more difficult of solution and has to be solved by some other method later on. With the provision of freeways, there is of course an additional load thrown on the cities with the additional traffic that they have to handle and additional parking space and parking facilities are required. That I appreciate is not a matter of concern to the Minister, but with the addition of these modern motor roads we are having increased bus traffic and increased road motor traffic and there is an increase of lorries and so on, and I suggest that the time has come when the hon. Minister should give consideration to an overall investigation of the whole problem of the concentration of traffic on the perimeters of our large urban areas. There are other ways in which this traffic density can be solved and that is with improved electric rail facilities, which of course falls under the Minister of Railways, and underground railways and the mono-rails which are expensive. But the main problem is the movement of population at peak periods, and so far, Mr. Chairman, our present methods are not solving that difficulty, particularly when we provide for satellite towns outside our own cities—the provisions of towns for Bantu and towns for Indians and towns for Coloureds. We are packing the roads with additional buses and in many cases the roads cannot adequately handle existing traffic; what the position is going to be in five or six years time, I don’t know. But it is obvious to anyone that a further traffic problem is developing. It is very easy for the Minister to refer it to the local authorities and the local authorities to throw it back to the Minister, and eventually when the problem becomes too great, there is an argument between the various authorities as to who is going to take the responsibility. I suggest that particularly on the Rand, at Cape Town and Durban, our three principal metropolitan areas, and Pretoria as well, the whole question of the co-ordination of the planning of transport and the planning of the facilities for moving people at peak hours is of paramount importance. The hon. Minister knows from his experience when he was Minister of Labour that the question of productivity is very important in industry to-day, and in order to maintain productivity at maximum it is essential that we reduce as far as possible the fatigue of the workers. When workers have to leave early in the morning at 5 or 6 o’clock in order to get to their work at 7 or 8, leaving work at 5 or 6 in the afternoon to get home at 7 or 8 o’clock at night, it is quite obvious that they cannot give of their best. Fatigue sets in, apart from deterioration in health, and we are building up a problem of industrial fatigue and lack of efficiency which cannot be faced in the years to come. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in order to deal with the problem of industrial fatigue and the problem of reducing the time factor for travelling to and from work, the provision of additional bus services and the provision of additional freeways is not the answer. It is a short-term remedy, and it is essential that we should have a long-term remedy. For that reason I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not include in the terms of reference of this commission that problem, or if it outside the scope of the commission that he has appointed, would he then see to it that this matter is given special attention, because it affects every single workman in the country. More and more are we finding the concentration of people in our main cities and we have a choice of either going up or going sideways. I don’t think it is desirable that we should encourage the concentration of people in this country in large blocks of flats going up 20 or 30 or 40 storeys as in some of our great metropolitan areas in the States and in some of the cities of Europe. Having regard to our climate. I think it is desirable that we should spread our people out. but if we are going to do that it is essential that this question of congestion of transport in our urban areas should receive top priority. It is beyond the capacity of the local authorities. Many of them have neither the technical staff, nor have they the facilities to tackle this problem, and I suggest that if the Minister can refer this to the commission, or alternatively refer it to a separate commission to deal with the whole question of the congestion of our cities, to reduce the time factor when travelling to and from work and the handling of suburban traffic at peak periods in consultation with the Railway officials and all the authorities, the Minister will be doing the country a service and will be facing up to a problem which is going to increase as the years go on. It is a problem which can be solved, which can possibly be solved in the near future, but if we leave our cities to grow to the size of some of the big European cities, the problem will become almost insoluble, and so long as the Minister provides freeways as he is doing to-day and so long as the local authorities are not facing up to this difficulty, the problem will become more and more acute as the years go on. For that reason I suggest that the Minister might give special attention to this matter, because the problem is obvious to anybody who visits our large cities at peak traffic periods, and I suggest that it is a matter of priority.

It is a very important and interesting matter that the hon. member raised, but he will realize that my powers and my jurisdiction are strictly limited. As a result of the constitutional set-up in this country there is a division of powers. I am mainly concerned with the construction of roads and rendering financial assistance to municipalities. I have no jurisdiction over the traffic conditions in the cities, I have no jurisdiction over any road ordinances. Consequently, I must confine myself to those matters over which I have jurisdiction, and that is the building of national roads. I fully agree with the hon. member that there is considerable congestion in our larger cities, and the municipalities are endeavouring to meet the problem as far as it is in their power to do so. In regard to congestion on the perimeters of our cities, the Cape Town City Council has done a very good job of work and I think they deserve to be congratulated and we must pay a tribute to them. The system of freeways out of Cape Town, I think, is the best we have in South Africa. Other cities are far behind, especially Johannesburg and Durban, in spite of the financial assistance that they can obtain from the National Road Fund. But, as I say, that is an internal matter. It is the question of providing transport within municipal boundaries and it is for the municipalities to decide whether they are going to do it by way of underground railways, by ordinary bus services, or even by a mono-rail system. The Minister of Transport not only has no jurisdiction over that, but it is also no concern of his. I have to confine myself to financial assistance to municipalities and to help by building of freeways. That is being done. Cape Town has almost completed its programme, Johannesburg is still busy and it will take a number of years to complete its programme, while Durban, I think has not yet started. I do not think that I can appoint a commission of enquiry in regard to that matter; I think it would be more opportune for the provincial administrations to do so, because municipalities are directly subject to the control of the provincial administrations and they in turn again control their own ordinances.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) wanted to know what the programme is in regard to the construction of the roads which have been declared as national toads within the borders of the Transkei. The programme for the next financial year is as follows: The construction and maintenance of the new declared national road within the Transkei. As hon. members know it is not financed out of the Road Fund, but out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. At the request of the Cape Administration the financial provision has been made for 1965-6 as it appears in the Estimates: The section of road between Engcobo and Baziya is at present being constructed departmentally. The National Transport Commission has already approved the appointment of consulting engineers for the planning, design and the preparation of contract documents in respect of the section of road from Baziya to Umtata and Libode of which will be built by contract.

I said “departmentally”, but it is of course built by the Provindal Administration. In regard to location of the road from Port St. John’s to Port Edward: No indication can be given at this stage when the location of this section of road will be finalized. The terrain is difficult and will entail extensive investigation to determine the possible route. In view of the acute shortage of professional staff at present being experienced by the department and the provincial administration, there is very little likelihood that the matter could be expedited. As far the section Kokstad-Matatiele is concerned, the N.T.C. has already agreed to the construction as soon as possible of this section of road on present alignment and to provincial standards. Approval has also been given for the appointment of consulting engineers for the planning, design and supervision of the contract to be entered into for the construction of approximately 30 miles of national road between Kokstad en Matatiele. As far as the remainder of the roads in and around the Transkei are concerned: In view of serious staff shortages very little can be done to expedite the route planning of these roads and no indication can be given at this stage when location will be finalized.

This is also my reply to the hon. member for Queenstown.

*The hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) made a few suggestions in regard to effecting financial savings on the building of national roads. He spoke about the placing of milestones and about the white lines, for example, and he wanted to know why there had to be three white lines at certain places; he suggested that the shoulders of the roads should be planted with grass. All these suggestions will be conveyed to the National Transport Commission for investigation. The hon. member also spoke about bypass roads at towns. He said that Nelspruit had been trying for years to obtain a decision from the National Transport Commission as to where the bypass road is to be situated. The hon. member alleges that they have neglected their duty. I shall go into that.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) wanted to know whether the time has not come for a comprehensive civil aviation policy. I have heard about this on quite a number of occasions and my reply to the hon. member and to those other bodies and organizations and persons who have made similar suggestions is that one of the purposes of appointing the Commission of Inquiry into the co-ordination of transport was with this object, not only a comprehensive air policy, but the co-ordination of all forms of transport. I want to read the terms of reference to the hon. member—

I think this will meet the case of the hon. member because this Commission covers the whole field. It must determine what role in the national economy each form of transport must play. I have always been very sympathetic to civil air transport, and I have endeavoured as far as possible to give civil private air transport every encouragement. As a matter of fact, I approached my colleague the Minister of Finance to make certain concessions in regard to income tax to private aircraft owners, and I have also made representations in regard to the fuel tax, that they should receive some consideration. I have gone further and have offered to withdraw some of the intermediate services of S.A. Airways and to hand them over to private enterprise. In fact, certain discussions are taking place at the moment between certain private interests and S.A. Airways. So I am fully aware of the necessity for extending and encouraging private air services, but I think that this Commission will meet the point. This Commission must decide what role each of the different forms of transport must play for the benefit of our economy. I think that if we await the outcome of the report and the recommendations of this Commission, it might be that all the hon. member’s suggestions in regard to this matter might be met.

The hon. member also suggested that more assistance should be given in regard to the provision of air strips. I can only say that provision is made in the Estimates for financial assistance to municipalities who wish to construct air strips and the necessary encouragement is given. The hon. member also spoke about navigational aids. The hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg has already explained that there is a special navigational aids committee which deals with these matters. Navigational aids are supplied wherever possible, but obviously there is great expense attached to it, and personnel is also required. Consequently navigational aids, with the personnel required to man the stations, can only be supplied where it is absolutely essential. But the sympathy is there and the C.A.A. deals with these matters and where it is essential that navigational aids should be supplied they are established.

The hon. member spoke about the shortage of staff in civil aviation. Well, that is a general complaint, unfortunately. There is a shortage of staff, but I can assure him that the inspectors are not tied to their desks. The outside staff do their work and they are not tied to their desks in the offices. With regard to the work of the National Transport Commission, the hon. member made several suggestions. I can only say that the majority of these suggestions are already being carried out by the N.T.C. When an application is made it is published, and when the applicant appears before the Commission the objector appears there too, and the case is discussed in public, and if the applicant or the objector wants the reason for the decision they are given by the Commission.

They are not.

I have of course never attended a meeting because this is a statutory body, but I am informed by the chairman of the N.T.C. that the Act provides for the taking of evidence under oath. Whenever a party requests that evidence should be taken under oath, the N.T.C. complies with the request. The N.T.C. does not, however, consider it necessary to place all witnesses under oath.

In regard to the other suggestion that all claims should be investigated and the evidence given under oath so that the facts are available, and not ex parte statements. I may say that the N.T.C. can and does use its inspectors and staff to investigate claims and statements made by the witnesses or parties when it deems necessary. In many cases the N.T.C., subsequent to the hearing of such cases, calls on parties to produce proof that the claims made are genuine and justified. If the matter is disputed the other party in such a case is also afforded an opportunity to reply. It is for that reason that the N.T.C.’s decisions in many cases are deferred. Then there are the delays in considering licences for air services. I am informed that there may on occasion be delays caused by quorum difficulties or the illness of a member after a case was heard and the decision was deferred. There was the case of a Mr. Norval, who was ill for some weeks and then had a relapse and was again not available for weeks. This occasioned delay as in his absence there was no quorum to decide some applications which had been heard before he became ill, including one South West African Air Transport application. As of to-day there is no application which has been heard and which has not been decided on. Delays may also be caused by further investigations by inspectors. Then in regard to what the hon. member said about inspectors being tied to their desks instead of going out to inspect aircraft and claims. I am informed that neither inspectors nor surveyors of aircraft are tied to desks and that every opportunity is given to them to move around. That is the position in regard to the work of the N.T.C.

*The hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rail) asked that motorists who take out comprehensive policies should not be compelled to take out third-party insurance. That is a matter for legislation. Hitherto there has never been any suggestion that these motorists should be excluded. As far as I know a comprehensive policy does not always include third-party cover. It is of no use having the comprehensive policy if one is not covered by third-party insurance. That is the reason why third-party insurance is compulsory, even though a person has a comprehensive policy.

As far as the health arrangements at our airports are concerned, that is a matter for the Minister of Health. I have no say in the matter. The hon. member can of course raise it under the Vote of the Minister of Health. As far as the handling of luggage is concerned, a departmental committee is investigating this matter at present to see whether it is practicable, for instance, to introduce a system of conveyor belts at our larger airports. The matter is receiving attention.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) dealt with certain inherent weaknesses in the fore sections of ocean-going fishing boats. I can assure him that the Marine Division is aware of the latent deficiencies he mentioned and are making every endeavour to effect improvements. The construction regulations are being amended and all factors mentioned by the hon. member will be taken into consideration. In regard to insurance, I think the crew members of South African-based ships are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. That is a matter which is not within my jurisdiction but I will make inquiries to see whether they are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

I want to revert to the point raised by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell), and that is the congestion we have in and around our large cities, but I want to be more specific and I want to deal with the problem as far as Durban is concerned. The Minister will remember that as far back as 1948 there was congestion caused through the four-way bridge, the Umbilo Bridge, leading to the South Coast. The Minister will remember that after lengthy negotiations eventually a subway was built to give relief as far as this bridge was concerned. The next step was that the subway was completed and then the Umbilo Road Bridge was removed, so that we were back to where we were when we started, in respect of the subway which only provided for four-way traffic. It was at this time that the agitation grew for the development of freeways, and the Durban City Council entered into negotiations with the Minister in respect of a subsidy to assist in the financing of these freeways. There has been considerable delay in reaching agreement in respect of the amount of the subsidy, but in the meantime the congestion on the South Coast road is getting worse and worse. I think it is the most congested road in South Africa to-day. I can tell the Minister that during the last Easter recess I had occasion to go to the airport, and it took over an hour to get there, a distance of less than five miles; and this was not as the result of any extraordinary event such as racing at Clairwood. It was just normal. It is the same at peak hours every day of the week, in the morning and at night. The congestion is considerable. What I am trying to rind out is what is causing this further delay. Initially the plan that the Durban City Council put forward to the Minister in respect of a request for a subsidy, involved certain freeways being built, and there was a certain delay when the Minister said the scheme was too elaborate and that they should come forward with a cheaper scheme. That was done, and following upon that the Durban City Council discovered that there could be a better outlet to the south for the construction of a freeway and further negotiations are now under way in respect of a subsidy being paid over a shorter period than the initial one of ten years. I think a period of four or five years is now being mentioned. But the problem is that while all these delays and negotiations are going on, this South Coast Road carries increasingly more traffic because of the development taking place of the Bantu areas to the south. The Minister will know that some 50,000 Bantu have been moved from Cato Manor and housed in Umlazi. The development of Chatsworth has made it imperative for buses to be used on the same South Coast Road to take these Natives and Asiatics to and from their places of employment. The cumulative result is that the South Coast Road presents the biggest problem the Durban City Council has in regard to the congestion on the roads. But when one tries to discover who is holding up the development of the freeway, the position becomes difficult. The Council say they cannot get the money they want over a short period and the Minister claims, as he did again to-day, that there have been these delays in spite of the financial assistance they can get from him to expedite the building of these freeways. I am concerned, and so is everybody who lives to the south of Durban. When one realizes that there is the whole of the South Coast and the whole of the Bluff and the main line suburbs, in all constituting some four to five constituencies representing well over 100,000 Whites, together with the tremendous Bantu population and the Asiatic population to the south of Durban, the position becomes difficult. The point I want to make is that if the Minister is in a position to give relief by way of a subsidy to the Durban City Council for the construction of freeways, my plea to him is to see that priority is given to the development of a freeway to the south of Durban. The Council has from time to time said that they would give priority to this freeway, and yet we see development taking place to the north and we are told that it is for strategic reasons. It is hard to follow, but in the meantime this congestion on the South Coast Road is assuming alarming proportions, even from the defence angle. I would plead with the Minister to get the Department to go into this aspect and see whether money can be made available to the council as a priority for relief as far as the South Coast Road is concerned, to construct a freeway. I do not wish to apportion blame to the Minister or to the council. My concern is that this road is getting almost impossible. It is creating all sorts of problems and we would like to see some positive move which will give relief in the foreseeable future. The Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Railways, is going ahead with the construction of railway spurs into Umlazi and Chatsworth, and that will take a lot of the load off the South Coast Road. These places fall under the jurisdiction of the Durban City Council, and the people living there are workers employed in the Durban area. I ask the Minister to use his persuasive powers, or even authority, to see that priority is given to the construction of a road which will relieve the congestion on the South Coast Road.

The other matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice is tied up with what the hon. member for Simonstown had to say in respect of small sea-going craft. I have been told that the small craft, the fishing craft and other craft around our coast, are by law compelled to have radio transmitting facilities on the craft. They have to be able to get into communication with land-based stations in case of difficulty. We have had two cases recently, but the one I have in mind is the loss of the Allison. My information is that when the Allison, with the facilities it had on board, attempted to get in touch by radio with Hermanus, they were unable to do so. It was subsequently discovered that at Hermanus a radio officer is not continuously on duty. When they eventually did get a message through to Hermanus and asked that a pump be sent out to assist them to keep the vessel afloat, they eventually got the pump but it was found to be defective. Furthermore, it has subsequently been discovered that the port authority there did have a suitable and more powerful pump but just did not consider it advisable to send it out. Now if this pump had arrived in time, the vessel would have been saved. Fortunately there was no loss of life in this case, but what I want to ask the Minister is that if the fishing craft are compelled to have radio transmitters, surely there should be the same compulsion in regard to the attendance at land stations for receiving these messages. [Time limit.]

I want to return to what, I think, must now be regarded as my hardy annual in this Minister’s Vote, and that is again to draw his attention to the antiquated airport buildings at East London. I have no doubt I will be told that the Minister has recommended to the Public Works Department that the buildings be constructed, but I want to ask him to use his influence to get priority for these buildings from the Public Works Department. The position is that the buildings had already been planned and tenders have been called for but have been rejected on the ground that these tenders were too high. The public in that area feels that in view of the substantial profits now being made by South African Airways, the question of the cost of those buildings should not be regarded as something to hold up the construction of the new buildings. It is not only a matter of granting benefits to East London, but all the through traffic from Durban to Cape Town passes through East London, and all the passengers have to disembark and make use of these antiquated buildings. It is very bad publicity for our tourism. One feels that it is hardly necessary to impress this on the Minister, because he knows the facts very well. But in the meantime we are getting this bad publicity, and not only that, but the construction of the new buildings will lead to a substantial saving in the transport costs from the airport to East London because the new buildings will be three miles nearer. One feels that on those grounds it is now time that we got those buildings at East London, not only in the local interest but in the national interest. I therefore hope that the Minister will use his influence with the Public Works Department to expedite the matter.

The hon. the Minister said a moment ago that his responsibility in regard to roads was merely for their construction and the provision of funds. I want to make a plea to the Minister and ask him whether he does not think the time has arrived for a new approach and a new plan for national roads. It is almost thirty years since the original idea of national roads was mooted, and speaking from long and occasionally bitter experience I discovered that it was extremely difficult to get national roads constructed because there were all sorts of priorities. If one studies the report of the Transport Commission, especially the map. it must be obvious to those interested in the provision of roads, that the time has arrived when some new planning should be embarked upon and that another look should be taken at our national roads network. I notice that the practice seems to be to-day to deal with roads on the basis that the road from A to B is a special road, I take it on application by the Provincial Administration concerned, and then the job is either proceeded with or it is delayed, or it is not done at all. I want to deal particularly with the East-West roads in this country. The original plan for national roads was on the basis North to South, i.e. from Johannesburg to the main ports. One cannot quarrel with that, Since then, there have been a few minor inter-connections between those roads. I feel that the Minister could well look into the proposition. I want to put to him. and it is that on our West coast—I saw in the paper the other day that the Minister was looking at the port facilities on the East coast, and that is very commendable, but I was wondering whether the time had not come when we should, in terms of roads, see what is available on our West coast, particularly in the area from Port Nolloth to Springbok, Keimoes. Olifantshoek, Postmasburg and Vryburg. If you look at the map you will find that the greater portion of the Cape Province has no national roads at all. It can be said that because of the paucity of the population that might be sound practice, but in recent years discoveries in the Northern Cape and in the North-West indicate to me that a little vision is required in the provision of roads, and that the Minister of Transport would do the country a service if he would apply his mind to the proposition I am now expounding. That is, that, instead of joining roads together between one town and another, as is being done now—I can quote as an example the beautiful tar road from Keimoes to Marydale. and under construction from Marydale to Prieska, something is also being done from Britstown to Omdraaivlei. and from Ludlow to Hanover, and from Hanover to De Aar. One long road should be constructed. That is a road the construction of which I think should be accelerated. It may fall within the jurisdiction of the province, but I believe that bad planning is at the root of the delays that are going on. If I go further north, I want to say that from Kimberley right down to Worcester there is no road whatsoever of modern standards whereby anybody on Route 13 can get to Route No. 1, which was originally from George up to Johannesburg, and No. 7. which leads to Port Elizabeth. I think the Minister might well apply his mind to the preparation of a plan, even if it is a longterm one, so that we can have a second phase for the construction of national roads. I am convinced that trade follows the tar. If tarred roads to a good standard were laid, there is no question about it. that the prosperity we have in this country, and which affects only certain classes or groups would spread itself over the entire community. I travel the roads in the Cape to a considerable extent and I believe the time is long past that they should be constructed as they have been done on the piecemeal basis. I believe in this instance that there is a waste of money because there are cases where roads are built from one town to the border of the next magisterial division and there it stops. I think there should be some co-ordination, and I think that is the function and duty of the Minister of Transport to do that coordinating. The position is that in the North-West a road has been under construction for donkey’s years, going up through Namaqualand, and we get piecemeal reports in the Annual Report of the Transport Commission. I believe that in view of the fact that the Government has decided to throw those areas open for prospecting for diamonds, and it is believed that there are rich deposits there, that the time is not far distant when we shall see development there on a scale which we do not anticipate. The same applies to the area west of Kimberley, between Kimberley and the South-West Border. For many years the economy of this country has been hinged upon the production of gold, and the scintillating brilliance of diamonds has blinded us all to the value of other materials and minerals which no doubt abound, and will be discovered or are in the process of being discovered in this country. The Minister may not, of course, have the power; this matter may fall under the Department of Planning; I do not know exactly what the arrangements are to-day, but I would say that it is the function of the Minister of Transport to examine and to look into the possibility of producing a new plan, a new second phase, for the construction of roads on a national basis right throughout the Republic, particularly in those areas which do not enjoy the privilege and facility of having access to other towns and cities by way of a decent road. One sees money spent in millions and one does not complain at the tremendous amount of money which is obviously being spent by cities like Cape Town, for example, but one must realize that there are other people in the country, apart from the people who live in the big cities like Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban, whom I think they are also entitled to ride in reasonable comfort and to go about their business on a road which does not wreck their motor cars. Sir, I leave it at that, I ask the hon. the Minister to do me the favour of giving this matter some consideration. I can assure him that if he comes to this House and asks for the power to enable him to undertake some planning in his own Department I will happily support him.

I would like to deal with the departmental report which has just been issued. One is disappointed to find that the report came out so late this year: we only received it about three davs ago and it has therefore been difficult to digest the full contents of the report. I hope that in future the report will be given to us in time. I will admit that the report is for 1964 so from that point of view it is up to date, but I feel that the report should be given to us earlier in the Session so that we can give it closer study than we have been able to do.

The first part of the report that I would like to deal with is the question of shipping casualties. A lot of the trouble with our fishing boats along our coasts is the divided control over our harbours. We have our main harbours controlled by the Railways and we have our fishing harbours controlled by the Department of Commerce, and we have the Minister of Transport looking after the safety of the ships in those harbours. The superintendents in charge of these small commercial harbours really have very little authority and many boats using these harbours exceed the loadlines for shipping and create a danger. Sir, I leave the matter there.

The next item that I would like to deal with is the weather bureau, and here I would like to pay a tribute to this particular section of the Department for the very fine work that they are doing, and to congratulate them on having world-wide contacts. It is one of the few Departments in the country which still seems to have world-wide contacts. Most of us have come to accept weather reports as routine matters in our daily lives. Great forward strides have been made in the forecasting of weather conditions. We have individuals stationed to-day on islands miles away from Cape Town. We owe those people a debt of gratitude for taking up those appointments because there is an element of risk in the Antarctic and on those various islands, and I think we in this House should realize that. Then, Sir, there was this important flight of the 2 C.130 aircraft from Cape Town to the McMurdo Sound. This was indeed a historical flight and there is no doubt about it that our weather bureau played a very significant part in that particular flight. This was the first flight from this Continent of ours to the Antarctic and I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister consider the question of putting up a suitable plaque at D. F. Malan Airport to commemorate this flight. As I say, it was the first flight from the African Continent to the Antarctic and the flight did begin from that particular airport.

Then I would like to go on to the division of motor transport and refer to the Government Garages. I put a question on the Order Paper to find out what the position was and I was told that there were some thirteen Government Garages, ten major ones and three minor ones. This particular Report refers to the work done in these garages. It also says that they are still using the flat-rate manual, which has been discarded by the motor trade. That particular manual which was produced by the motor trade is out of date, but the manufacturers of the various vehicles do, of course, produce their own flat-rate manuals, and most franchise-holders have them and I take it the Government Garage could get them as well. It is amazing to find that they have even been able to bring panelbeating down to a flat-rate schedule. I say it is amazing because no two jobs are the same where cars are damaged in accidents. In this particular question I asked how many mechanics the Department had in these garages and the reply was that they had 122 motor mechanics and panelbeaters. The strange thing is that they have these panelbeaters but they have no spray painters, and no trimmers and no electricians. There is also reference here to the salaries offered by outside firms who attract away mechanics employed in the Government Garages. When one looks at this report one finds that a considerable amount of money is spent in private garages by the Government. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the wages paid to mechanics in Government Garages should be brought into line with the wages paid by private concerns. In that way he may save some of the money that he is to-day spending outside. If you are going to run the garages, you must either have proper repair shops or do away with them altogether; you cannot go into it halfheartedly. We in this country have always clamoured for the training of apprentices. There is a remark here that the apprentices are trained so well in the Government Garages that the commercial side of the trade grabs every apprentice who qualifies. Although there are 122 mechanics employed in these garages, they are only training 35 apprentices, and they are only training them in the trades of motor mechanic and panelbeater. They are not training any auto-electricians, they are not training any spray painters and they are not training any motor trimmers. One wonders what is really happening there as far as those particular lines of the trade are concerned. With the shortage of labour and trained artisans one would think that the Government would take advantage of the situation and step up the number of apprentices in these particular workshops. I make these suggestions to the hon. the Minister and I hope he will look into these matters.

As far as roads are concerned, the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) has put forward his views on national roads and on road safety, but there is one matter that does worry a lot of people using these particular roads and that is the absence of lay-byes on these roads. I recently had the experience of having to follow three buses on the road to Hermanus. I was held up quite a while because these three buses were not able to pull off the road. Overseas, when freeways are constructed, one finds that lay-byes are constructed as well at regular intervals where vehicles can pull off the road and thus allow the traffic to go through. As a matter of fact, it has been made an offence to stop on the road unless you have a break-down; you have to pull into a lay-bye. I suggest that even on the roads which have already been constructed and completed these lay-byes should be constructed at the earliest possible date.

Finally I would like to deal with the question of road congestion and the provision of taxi licences. This is a matter which falls under the local Road Transportation Boards. I would like to suggest to the Minister that in this regard we should follow the example of other countries and that we should try to reduce the terrific traffic congestion by an improvement of public transport, by encouraging the public to use public transport and by encouraging the use of taxis. Sir, when you go overseas you are struck at once by the value of a taxi, and when you come back to South Africa you find that you are lucky to get a taxi at times. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that consideration should be given to the introduction of the cruising taxi in this country. This would cut down the unnecessary use of cars in and around the cities. I would also like to suggest that we adopt the principle of having taxis painted in standard colours. I am not referring now to taxis for Coloureds or Whites. [Time limit.]

The suggestion made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) that taxis should be of different colours, is quite an interesting one. You would probably have white taxis for Whites, yellow taxis for yellow people and black taxis for Blacks. We will have no difficulty then in applying apartheid! The hon. member suggests that I should consider the introduction of cruising taxis. I do not know why he wants me to consider it. Surely that is up to private enterprise.

No, it is restricted by the Board.

No, if people apply for licences they will probably be able to get them, unless there are already sufficient taxis. You cannot have over-competition.

Applications have been made in the past for licences for cruising taxis, but you do not see them in South Africa.

Well, that is a matter for the local Road Transportation Board and for the National Transport Commission. I do not think there should be any difficulty because they have to act in the interests of the public.

In regard to the provision of lay-byes on National Roads, I think that is a good suggestion. They have them overseas but they also have them on the new roads in Rhodesia. They have them on the road from Beit Bridge to Salisbury. I will bring this matter to the attention of the National Transport Commission.

The hon. member suggested that a plaque be erected at the D. F. Malan Airport in commemoration of the first flight to the Antarctic. If we were responsible for that flight the setting up of a plaque would have been justified, but it was actually an American flight and I do not think we can commemorate an American flight even if it was the first from South Africa to Antarctica.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) suggested that new planning should be embarked upon. I can assure him that planning in regard to national roads is not static, it is continually taking place. As a matter of fact it was only two years ago that the new ten-year plan was evolved, but the limiting factor is not planning but money. We have the plans and we know which roads should receive priority; we know which roads it is essential to construct; we know which roads are necessary but not immediately essential, but the limiting factor is the amount of funds available to the National Transport Commission. Finally, in consultation with the Provinces, they have to decide upon the order of priority as far as the construction of national roads is concerned. In addition to that provision must be made for subsidizing the Provinces in respect of special roads. Provision must also be made to subsidize our larger cities in regard to the construction of freeways. But, as I say, the limiting factor is finance, not planning.

In regard to the airport building at East London, I can assure the hon. member that I am just as anxious as he is to have that airport building constructed speedily. I have been making representations to the Public Works Department not once but continually to expedite the matter. I understand that they have called for tenders and that tenders have been received, and I share the hon. member’s hope that they will soon get on with the construction of the building.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) spoke about the delay that has occurred in reaching finality in connection with the subsidies to be paid to the Durban Municipality for the construction of freeways. I have already approved of a subsidy of R10,000,000 to the Durban Corporation, which will be paid over a period of ten years. The Transport Commission has also suggested that priority should be given to the South Coast road.

Has there been a request for a shorter period?

Four and a half years, but they cannot construct the road in four and a half years. It is quite obvious that they will not be able to complete the construction of their freeways in four and a half years. The National Transport Commission, of course, has so many commitments that they could not agree to a shorter period. They have come to an agreement with the Durban Corporation that the money will be paid over a period of ten years.

*I promised the hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) that I would find out what the reason was for the delay in connection with the building of the bypass road at Nelspruit. I am told that it was decided some years ago that the road would pass through the town. That has now appeared to be impracticable, and consequently the National Transport Commission has decided to have the question of a bypass road investigated. In the meantime the existing road through the town is being improved so that it will be able to carry the traffic for the time being. The question of proclaiming the bypass road is receiving the necessary attention.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote L.—“Transport”, R880,000, put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 14.—“Social Welfare and Pensions,” R90,530,000,

Sir, this Vote is a vitally important Vote in that not only a large sum of money has to be voted, but there are large numbers of persons whose very lives are affected by the voting of this particular amount of money. The hon. the Minister knows that we on this side of the House have raised the question of the adequacy of pensions and the question of the means test on numerous occasions in the past. The social welfare aspect of this Vote has also been dealt with during past Sessions of Parliament, and there is a Bill before the House, the National Welfare Bill, which is to be debated later in the course of the Session and which covers a vast field in regard to welfare policy, the setting up of commissions, etc. In those circumstances I do not intend dealing at any great length with the Minister’s policy with regard to welfare: there will be a later opportunity to do so. However, I would like to deal with the Minister’s policy concerning the care of the aged and the question of social pensions. Sir, during the course of the Budget debate certain questions were put to the Government concerning the financial plight of social pensioners. It was noticeable that the hon. the Minister of Finance, in replying to that debate, did not reply to any of the points raised by this side and that the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions did not see his way clear to participate in that debate and to answer these questions.

Firstly, as far as the question of the relaxation of the means test is concerned, we on this side have on numerous occasions advocated the relaxation of the means test, particularly the means plus pension limitation, the celling figure in connection with income permitted and the ceiling figure of assets permitted and also the amount of free assets and free income permitted. We on this side of the House were therefore pleased to see that the Minister was following the policy of bringing about a degree of relaxation as far as the means test is concerned. Undoubtedly amending legislation will be introduced later on this Session when we shall have an opportunity to further examine the proposals concerning the relaxation of the means test. As far as the overall policy is concerned we on this side of the House still believe that the ultimate long-term solution in caring for our aged lies in the introduction of a contributory pension scheme.

I would like at the outset to deal with the Minister’s policy concerning the present rate of pensions and the adequacy of those pensions. I believe that every member of this House was disappointed to hear that social pensioners were expected to live and exist on R28 per month. It was announced in the Budget Speech that there would be an increase of only R1 per month to the White social pensioners. I feel that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions should have made a greater effort to persuade the Minister of Finance to be far more realistic and far more generous towards the present financial plight of these social pensioners. It appears that a large percentage of social pensioners are completely dependent upon their pensions. I believe that something like 80 per cent of the White social pensioners are drawing the maximum pension at the present time. Their assets are at a very low level; their incomes from other sources are at a very low level and they can virtually be classified as being dependent upon their social pensions. When the Special allowance system was introduced in 1963 it was found that one-third of the White social pensioners qualified for the special allowance which was only paid to the neediest of the needy and to those pensioners who had virtually no assets and no other income. The position is that we still have a vast number of social pensioners who have to try to exist on very meagre pensions indeed. I believe that this is a matter in which the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions must accept his share of the responsibility since he is here to look after the interests of this vast number of people. The Minister’s policy affects something like a quarter of a million people, including 122,000 White pensioners. Any increase granted to the White pensioners is also granted on a pro rata basis to Coloured and Indian pensioners. Then, of course, the Minister’s policy with regard to civil pensioners may also affect the Railway pensioners. The Minister’s policy is therefore a very important matter and I hope the Minister will give this Committee some indication as to whether he is satisfied that the present pension is adequate to enable a pensioner to survive, taking into account the increase in the cost of living over the past 24 months in particular. Sir, the pity of all this is that in South Africa at the present time there is a certain degree of prosperity but unfortunately that degree of prosperity is only being shared by a small section of our people. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is responsible for the poorest section of the community and that section of the community is not sharing to any degree in the present prosperity. Many of these people are being adversely affected by the prosperity due to the fact that it tends to cause inflation. It means that people who are dependent on their social pensions have to be content with a lower standard of living so as to off-set the increase in the cost of living. Sir. I believe that the hon. the Minister could quite easily have used his powers of persuasion to obtain an increase of something like R3 per month for our White social pensioners, which, of course, would mean an increase of R1.50 per month for the Coloured and Indian pensioners, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech that there was a surplus of R 110,000,000 and the Minister of Finance now agrees that that surplus is more likely to be in the region of R 140,000,000. The whole question of the adequacy of pensions is highlighted when members of this House have to deal almost daily with problems of poverty which are facing a section of the community who I believe are entitled to further relief from the State. Only this morning I discussed this matter with a social pensioner whose case is typical of that of many thousands of pensioners who are entirely dependent upon their social pensions. Here we have a case of a widow living in a room for which she is paying R16 per month; she has to spend approximately R10 per month on food, which is only 30 cents a day. In other words, she has to spend R26 of her pension just on accommodation and food. She has managed to struggle along with the assistance of a certain welfare organization which has assisted her to a certain extent with clothing. I cannot help feeling, Sir, that the increase granted to social pensioners in the Budget was very meagre. It was certainly not generous by any stretch of the imagination. In a young country like ours, a country which claims to be a rich young country, we should be able yo care more adequately for persons who have been unable to make adequate provision for themselves to enable them to live in reasonable comfort in the latter part of life. The welfare organizations are doing magnificent work in alleviating the lot of these people. I feel that a person who is dependent entirely on his social pension in order to be able to exist is not really living at all: he is merely existing. But for the part played by these welfare organizations, many of these people would not even be able to exist. My point is that the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions should as a matter of urgency do everything in his power to try to persuade the Cabinet and the Minister of Finance to see whether it is not possible to grant further financial relief to this deserving group of people.

The other particular aspect that I wish to deal with concerns the manpower position and the Minister’s policy in connection with civil pensioners. There is an amount of over R 5,000,000 on the Estimates under sub-head H dealing with civil pensioners. Here I believe that we are dealing with an important matter of policy to which the Minister should give his immediate attention and that is the encouragement of these people to accent gainful employment when they are still able and willing to do so. The present means test limit for civil pensioners discourages many of these people from taking employment. I do not wish to labour this point but I do hope that the Minister will indicate what his policy is concerning the means limit for civil pensioners. We find that people who qualify for a temporary allowance receive that allowance provided their total remuneration, their pension plus their income, does not exceed R150 per month in the case of a married person and R75 per month in the case of a single person. If these persons take employment and their total remuneration exceeds that figure, the temporary allowance is immediately withdrawn. The result is that in considering whether they should take up temporary employment, these people take into account the fact that they will lose these temporary allowances. They are therefore loath to accept employment because it is not to their financial advantage, and if it is to their financial advantage, the advantage is so small that it is not worth while taking employment. [Time limit.]

I do not think there is any person in this House who is not sympathetically disposed towards our aged and our pensioners. Those people have the sympathy of everybody in this House and of the Government. In every Budget introduced by this Government old-age pensions and other social pensions have been increased. It therefore surprises me to find that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) now makes an attack upon the Minister’s policy and tries to create the impression that the Government is not doing much for social pensioners. He maintains that there is a general boom in this country, which is true, and for which this Government is responsible, and he says that only a small section of the inhabitants of our country are deriving any benefit from it—that the aged are deriving no benefit from it whatsoever. That is the assertion which has been made by the hon. member for Umbilo. That is not quite correct, Mr. Chairman. I want to refer to the Report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Before going on to deal with it, I think it will be very appropriate if I congratulate the Department sincerely on the exceptional report that has been laid upon the Table this year. It is the first time in the history of the Department that a report such as this has seen the light of day. I appreciate this resume of what the Department is doing. There is an index which makes it very easy to look up things. It is just a pity that only 600 copies have been printed. A far greater number should have been printed so that copies could have been issued to the public to let them see what the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is doing. I think I am speaking for all of us, certainly for the hon. member for Umbilo as well, if I thank the Department for this very fine report.

I want to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo, and that is that not much has been done for the old-age pensioners, particularly in view of the economic boom in the country. I want to refer the hon. member to Table 31 of this report. There he will find a summary of how the per capita amount has increased over the past nine years. In 1955, for example, the amount was R207 per person. Nine years later it had increased to R288, and this year we have seen to it that an additional amount has been added. Due regard has been had to the rise in the cost of living, so that these pensioners have in fact shared in this prosperity. According to the report by the Minister of Finance the additional amount being paid this year totals R5,000,000. That has been calculated on the basis of a half-yearly payment only, because it is coming into effect as from 1 October. On an annual basis it is therefore R 10,000,000. Since this amount is being paid I feel that we can be grateful to the Government and the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, we do not want to deprive the charitable societies of their right to do charitable work amongst the aged. It is not only the duty of the State to care for the aged. We have our churches and our charitable societies. They are all registered with the Department; there are more than 2,000 of them. They all care for these people. I think it is the duty of every inhabitant of the country to do something by way of charity. What would happen if we paid everybody a pension on which he could live and charity could no longer be given to the aged? I think we would become such a hard-hearted nation, so materialistic, that we might just as well cease to exist. It surprises me that we have had no thanks from the Opposition in connection with what has been done for the aged so far.

The hon. member for Umbilo referred to a pensioner who came to see him this morning because she could not make ends meet on the sum of R28 which is paid to her. Apart from the churches and charitable societies which have to perform charitable work, I think children are also under an obligation to look after their parents. There is a mutual obligation as between parents and children. Just as the parent cares for the child, so the child has to care for the parent in his old age. If we granted everybody a pension on which he or she could live it would lead to loveless ness in this country. We would become a welfare state, and I should be sorry if that day ever dawned.

I notice that the number of war veterans is decreasing by approximately 1,000 per annum. You will notice from Table 43, Sir, that there were 30,000 war veterans in 1957. In 1963 there were 24,000. That is to say, the number decreased by 6,000 over those few years. They will die out more and more, and it is only a limited number of people who are entitled to that pension. It is already 65 years ago that the Anglo-Boer War was fought and the number of war veterans is becoming smaller and smaller. I have wondered, Sir, whether it will not perhaps be possible to grant an additional amount to these persons in their old age. They are persons who fought in the Anglo-Boer War without any remuneration. They fought because of the love they felt for this country, this country in which we are living and which is so prosperous to-day. Since they are decreasing in number every year, is it not possible for us to give them something extra in their old age, because they were never paid for fighting?

Order! The hon. member cannot plead for increased expenditure.

Then I shall leave it at that, Mr. Chairman; I think the hon. the Minister probably knows now what I mean. There were other things I still wanted to plead for, but I shall leave it at that.

I should like to say to the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) that we on this side of the House welcomed the relaxation of the means test announced in the Budget speech. We also complimented the Department of Social Welfare on a most comprehensive and excellent report. I should also like to ask the hon. member whether he is satisfied that the increase of R1 per month is a fair and sufficient increase for our social pensioners. Is he quite happy that R1 per month is the maximum that this Government can afford as an increase to our pensioners? The hon. member must also take into account the fact that the neediest of the needy, i.e. those who qualified for a special allowance in 1963, received no increase whatsoever in 1964. Their last increase was in 1963. As far as this particular group is concerned the claim hon. members opposite make that there has been an increase every year does not hold good. This group received no increase in 1964 and for 1965 they have received an increase of R1 per month. I feel the hon. member for Prinshof should take that into account when he looks at the increases which have occurred over the years. Naturally everyone welcomes any increases granted but at the same time. Sir, one cannot help but feel that in the circumstances, and in view of the rising cost of living, particularly over the past two years, there should have been a far more generous increase as far as social pensioners are concerned.

The Minister’s policy in regard to civil pensioners and the temporary allowances paid is an important matter. It is a matter which I believe could alleviate the manpower shortage to a certain extent. Greater use can be made of experienced workers, workers who are still able and willing to be productively employed in the labour market. The hon. the Minister should, by his policy, encourage rather than discourage these people to take up employment in that labour market.

There are other aspects I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. One is in regard to the staff position in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. On a number of occasions applications, particularly for disability grants, have taken many months. I know of some cases where it has taken over six months before the applications were dealt with. It is interesting, therefore, to note from the Estimates that provision has been made for an increase in the establishment. Provision is made for an increased number of posts under the heading Senior Professional Offices of Welfare and under the heading Welfare and Probation Services. It will be interesting to learn from the hon. the Minister whether he is confident that he will be able to fill these posts with suitably qualified persons and whether he is confident that he will be able to recruit additional staff to his Department to cope with the ever-increasing volume of work which must come to the Department. That work will certainly come to his Department after 1 October of this year when the new form of means test comes into operation. People who have failed in the past will reapply for pension. In addition, the cases of those who are not receiving the maximum pension at the moment will all have to be reviewed by the Department.

Dealing with the question of the civil pensioner there is another item under sub-head H. It allows for R200,000 as a supplementary allowance to certain railway pensioners. We know that with the adjustment in the allowances paid to railway pensioners a number of war veteran pensioners lost their war veteran pensions because of the increase in the allowance under the railway pensions. It is pleasing to know that the Minister has agreed that those pensioners should not be at a financial disadvantage because there were many cases in respect of which the new railway pension did not reach the figure which the pensioner previously enjoyed when he received a railway pension and a war veteran pension. The important point, Sir, is that in terms of our taxation laws those people who receive a war veteran pension are not taxable. Now that they have lost that pension I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the supplementary allowance to be paid to these railway pensioners will in fact be taxable. If it is it would mean that, although they are drawing the same amount of money, it it is subject to taxation, they would be showing a loss.

In discussing the Vote of Social Welfare and Pensions it also gives us an opportunity to put forward certain points of view and to criticize, in a constructive manner if we can, the administration of the Department concerning certain aspects. We know the hon. the Minister shares our view that the lives of the older folk should be made as happy as possible. I believe that one of the most important aspects in improving the position of our social pensioners, as far as their spiritual and moral life is concerned, is the formation of clubs for the aged. These clubs can play a very important role indeed in alleviating their position. Under sub-head P a new amount of R15,000 appears as a subsidy to clubs for the aged. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister would give us some indication as to the basis of such subsidy so that these clubs can be encouraged wherever possible. Not only do these clubs which are run by social welfare organizations provide social facilities but I know of other clubs for the aged which render invaluable service to them in the form of weekly distributions of food and also clothing from time to time to the neediest of the needy.

Another problem which I think is one of the most crucial problems in regard to the care of the aged is the problem of housing. With the boom in the building industry many of these people have been adversely affected in that accommodation, often in old buildings at low rentals, is practically impossible. Many of these old buildings are being demolished and new buildings are erected. These old people cannot afford to pay the high rentals which must naturally be asked due to the high building costs. Therefore, the question of providing additional assistance to welfare organizations to establish homes for the aged is a very vital matter indeed. We know that an amount of R750,000 was allocated last year for the purpose of assisting organizations for the erection and furnishing of homes for the aged and the acquisition of land in certain instances. Under sub-head P we find that special grants to welfare organizations in connection with the provision of homes for the aged and infirm are shown as R300,000. In reply to a question earlier in the Session the hon. the Minister replied that none of the R750,000 had been spent so far during the financial year. I would therefore like to know from the hon. the Minister whether any of the R750,000 which was allocated last year for this purpose was in fact spent up to the end of 31 March and why the amount has been reduced to R300,000 for the coming financial year. I think this is perhaps one of the most important matters affecting the lives of the aged people. They find, due to circumstances often beyond their control, that they have to seek accommodation. Many of them who are dependent on their social pensions have no alternative but to try to find accommodation in one of the homes provided by welfare organizations. I believe this is a very important matter and these organizations should be given every encouragement possible to erect further homes for the aged. There is another aspect I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In the modern trend it has been found not desirable to establish large homes for the aged but, in the interests of the aged themselves, to see that they remain part of the community rather than to be isolated in some large home for the aged. I should therefore like to know whether the hon. the Minister has taken any steps … [Time limit.]

I do not want to enter deeply into what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). We have repeatedly had opportunities this year to discuss pensions and the question of the care of the aged. We wholeheartedly agree that we must do everything in our power to help these people as much as possible. If we look back at the record of this Government and see what has been done from 1948 up to the present, we find that there has been not only a systematic increase in pensions but also a gradual relaxation of the means test, so that, after due allowance has been made for the decreasing value of money, the pensioner is still better off financially to-day than he was before.

The hon. member pleaded that much more should be done. I expected him to plead for a very large increase, but he mentioned R3. I just want to say that the position of the widow whose case he mentioned would not be greatly improved by R2 (she is already getting R1 extra). He should really have asked for much more to remedy that position. Hon. members on this side will probably go into this matter further, and in the short time at my disposal I want to refer to a few very important matters. In the first place I want to associate myself with what has been said in regard to this outstanding report which has been published by the Department. I think the Minister and his Department deserve our thanks and praise for this report. As far as social welfare is concerned, the Department’s object, as formulated in this report, is to prevent social maladjustment and indigence in the family or community, and to co-ordinate measures in this connection. That is the main object. As a result the activities of this Department are much more intimately human in nature than those of any other Department. They affect the very souls of human beings. These activities of the Department affect human beings deeply, particularly when we bear in mind that more than 300,000 persons and families in need are cared for by this Department by means of allowances and pensions. This report, which always had such a colourless appearance in the past, this year appeared for the first time in a cover which stirs the imagination. The cover itself reflects the scope of this work, which encompasses both the youth and the aged. Delving deeper into the report we find a collection of statistics and data which are presented in such a systematic way that they are illuminating to everybody who looks at the report. I also say that it is a pity—and the National Welfare Board discussed the matter at their last meeting; they said that this report really ought to be a textbook in the hand of every social science student—that only the small number of 600 copies has been printed. We very definitely want to ask the Minister whether he will not issue instructions for more copies to be printed in future. There is an increasing demand for this report from the training institutions and universities.

I want to mention another matter, and that is the question of staff. I notice in the Estimates that R25,000 is being provided for the salaries of institutional staff. We want to express our thanks and appreciation for this. You know. Mr. Chairman, the most important aspect of the work in an institution is not so much feeding and clothing the child, but re-educating and rehabilitating the child. For that reason the most important factor is the staff of the institution. We deplore the fact that there is generally a very large shortage of trained staff in the institutions. There is hardly any children’s institution which can say that it has a team of psychologists or even one psychologist in its service on a full-time basis. They cannot afford it. With this contribution of R25,000 we can at least make a start in that direction. I want to express the hope that institutions will make good use of this money, and that it will not merely be a figure on the Estimates, but will be eagerly utilized by the institutions. I hope the Minister will make an appeal to the institutions to be quick to utilize this money and that these funds will be a stimulus for the standard of our institutional care to be raised substantially. Much has been done in the past by means of increasing per capita grants. In the last ten years these grants have increased from R96 to more than R200 per annum. That is per child. That is a large increase, but the matter of institutional staff is of the utmost importance.

I want to mention another matter to which the hon. member for Umbilo referred in passing, and that is the amount of R 15,000 appearing on the Estimates for the subsidization of clubs for the aged. This is a progressive step of the utmost importance. A research list was sent out by the Department and the information obtained in this way has been processed, and it shows that there are 76 such clubs in South Africa. While there are many such clubs abroad, where they are a general phenomenon, this is a relatively new field in South Africa. Only 32 of these 76 clubs in South Africa are older than five years, and 16 have been in existence for less than two years. These clubs have a total membership of more than 6,000. If we look at this Report and see what the activities of these clubs are, then we realize that they are doing everything in their power to stimulate the aged spiritually by educational means, film shows, the dissemination of reading matter, and so forth, so that they will take a more active part in community life. These clubs are of the utmost importance. As a result of the increased life expectancy of our aged we find that whereas in 1904 persons above the age of 65 years represented only 1.87 per cent of the total population, this figure had increased to 6.68 per cent by 1961. Where do these people live? It appears from an investigation made by the National Bureau for Educational and Social Research that 5.4 per cent of the aged live in old people’s homes, 21.6 per cent with their children and 73 per cent on their own in houses or rooms or boarding-houses. What do these people do? Old people tend to become more and more retiring, to withdraw into themselves, until they reach a point of spiritual stagnation. We must prevent their reaching that point. It is no use keeping these people alive and then offering them nothing to live for. Therefore we say that we are grateful for this progressive step taken by the Minister and his Department to see to it that R15,000 is provided on the Estimates for clubs for the aged. These clubs will still become one of the most important means in our country of stimulating the aged to lead a more active community life. These clubs are already a general phenomenon abroad. It is only a pity that these clubs are not distributed according to the population. For example, one finds a large number in Johannesburg, but only one in Pretoria. We should like to see that more use is made of this subsidy wherever the need arises, whether it be in the cities or in the rural areas, and that clubs for the aged be established to a progressively larger extent. It is of the greatest importance, Mr. Chairman, that we should do something to prevent our old people departing from this life with the feeling that they did not count at all.

It seems to be my fate to have to follow the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter). Whether it is good fortune to him or misfortune to me, I am not sure. I must say that his constant paean of praise for the Minister is a little exhausting because none of us are perfect and none of us can really deserve the praise that is so constantly given in this House. However, there was one point in his speech in respect of which he seemed to fall from grace and that was when he criticized the Minister for not doing everything he should perhaps have done. The hon. member drew attention, after speaking about clubs for the aged, to the unfortunate fact that there was no club for the aged in Pretoria. I think there can be only two reasons for this. One is that there are no poor aged in Pretoria. That I can well believe under the circumstances that exist generally in Pretoria. Alternatively, the hon. the Minister, in looking over the broad horizons for which he is responsible, has unfortunately failed to see the small mote that was in front of his eyes. I am sure that by the time we discuss this Vote again next year we will find that there is an excellent centre, well-equipped, in Pretoria. It would not be right on the part of the Minister not to do this, particularly as Pretoria is the show-piece of the Republic.

I want to draw attention to what I think is a very serious and grave deficiency in the hon. the Minister’s Department and that is the shortage of permanent staff. In every section he shows a shortage of staff and in some instances a shortage which is appalling. The Minister spends a large sum of money in every section of his Department on temporary helpers. In other words, he has not a full complement of permanent staff in any section. In one particular case he spent R64,020 on temporary assistance, in another he spent nearly R48,000, in another R65,000 and in yet another R46,000, a total of R347,177 in temporary assistance, and his total Budget for salaries is R2,256,000. In other words, 14 per cent of his staff was temporary, 14 per cent of the money spent on salaries and wages was in respect of temporary workers. In some Departments of State, like the Railways and the Post Office where temporary staff is employed and where that staff is inefficient, and where it affects the working of the Department, the public is aware of it. Of necessity the service must be inefficient when you have such a shortage of permanent staff. The public begin to grumble. It is obvious to the public that there is a shortage in the Railway Department and the Post Office Department, or in any other Department which comes into direct contact with the public as a whole and the public is vociferous and complains. The hon. the Minister’s Department is almost a voiceless department and it therefore becomes most important that we here should draw attention to this fact, that we should point out that these silent sufferers cannot seek help. Individuals among them will perhaps write to the Department, other individuals will write to their public representatives, but do not forget that even the cent or two cent stamp that has to be put on the letter is an item of great importance to these pensioners. The R1 rise which they have had and which they will receive this year will have a great inroad made on it if the pensioner has to pay even one-tenth of that in buying stamps. It means a meal. These people have to think of every cent.

Now, Sir, the permanent organization of this Department must spend a lot of its time in an attempt to train new temporary workers and to supervise them. But we have complaints of pensioners who are not receiving their pension in time, such as teachers who retire, and instead of receiving a fairly prompt supply of their pension, which they depend on to live, they have to wait for a month or two. That is a most important matter for them. I can well understand that even the senior men and even the good workers in the Minister’s Department (and I know there are many good and hard workers) cannot themselves be efficient because there is such a shortage of staff.

I want to touch on one other matter and that is the item of the subscription to the International Conference on Social Work. It is some four years ago since we sent a representative to this conference, and it is most important that this country should keep in touch with what is happening in the international field. I know the hon. Minister went overseas, and I think he learned a great deal, and it is beginning to show in his work that he has appreciated what he has seen—it becomes clear from the Bills which he has introduced. But we cannot afford not to keep in touch and to attend these conferences, and when you compare his Department with some of the other Departments, as appears from replies to questions put by the hon. member for Duban (Berea) (Mr. Wood), it is obvious that some of the other Departments spent R 100,000 to send people overseas to study and to learn. This is a most important Department because it represents the Department whose clients are voiceless and yet are the most deserving because on the whole they are people who have worked for the country, have served the country and who now, when they can no longer work, or can only do a limited amount of work, should receive prompt attention. But that is not the case. They deserve prompt attention, but due largely to this great shortage of manpower in the Minister’s Department, they are failing to get this attention. I feel that one portion of the Department which certainly should be working overtime and not part-time is the conscience of the hon. the Minister. [Time limit.]

I should like to discuss a few aspects of the care of indigent aged persons. We have long since reached the ideal position in the sphere of welfare work and charitable work in that over the years a sound understanding has developed between the State and private welfare organizations, so much so that we can speak almost of a partnership between the Department and these organizations. I think particularly of the large numbers of old people in the large cities. The personal and social care of this group does of course require particular attention not only in our country but in all countries of the world. The age figure varies from country to country and I should like to mention that as far as the White population in France is concerned, the group of over 60 years of age makes up 16 per cent, while in our country this figure is 9.74 per cent. There is a large percentage of these old people in our country who require financial support from the State and in my opinion there are good reasons for the position which we have here. If, for example, in the first place, we consider that after the depression years and the industrialization of our country which took place during that same period, there was a large group of people who moved from the platteland to the cities, we find that these people were not skilled and they had to be satisfied with inferior positions, positions to which no pension benefits were attached. But the matter goes further back than this. After the Anglo-Boer War a large section of our people was completely uprooted and impoverished and they were compelled to move to the cities. These people were not trained to fill positions in the city and could not practise skilled trades. They found it difficult in many cases to give their children the necessary education to enable them to adapt themselves to city life. My experience in the city as far as these people are concerned, is that one finds that it is that generation particularly, in the cities, who need the assistance of the State because they have no other income. There is a third reason which we must not lose sight of and that is that we as a young nation have only recently begun to improve our economic and social position. Let me mention an example in this regard. In 1962 we already had 3,832 registered pension funds. This of course will result in a reduction in the number of the old-age pensions which the State will have to pay in the future because with those private schemes which will cover increasing numbers of people as time goes on, it is going to mean that many of the people in the next generation will be better provided for. This process has already started. It showed an increase up to 1959. In 1958-9 there were 87,000 White old people receiving pensions and the figure remained fairly constant for the next five years. There were 86,500 as at 1 April 1964. This figure therefore shows a slight decline and under the same circumstances it will probably continue to fall in the future.

Welfare services for the aged have always been based on the principle that old people should remain independent as long as possible, that they should be able to live on their own and look after themselves. If this is not possible, their children and other relatives ought to do their share in looking after these old people. The responsibility of the child towards its parent is something which we want to emphasize very strongly. The following figures I want to mention indicate to what extent children and relatives are already caring for these old people. The figures show that 25 per cent of our old people live with their children or relatives while only 2 per cent live with strangers and 5.4 per cent live in old-age homes. If these figures are correct it means that 67 per cent maintain their own households. I am aware of the fact that when his policy motion was being discussed the hon. the Minister mentioned that special provision will be made, in co-operation with the Department of Housing, for old people to be accommodated under the new community development plans. I want to express my gratitude in this regard but it is this 67 per cent of the mothers and fathers of our nation, and particularly the group in the cities, about whom I am deeply concerned. It is this cream of our parents who find themselves in poor residential areas, in backyard rooms under difficult circumstances, and, because accommodation is so scarce they are sometimes cruelly exploited. I am concerned because I feel that these people are struggling but, what is more, it is very difficult for them to maintain their honour and self-respect under these circumstances. That is why I welcome the intention of the hon. the Minister and I hope that he will do everything in his power to accelerate the scheme. But I want to go further and ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence with and give guidance to, and, if necessary, even coerce, the city councils to make provision for accommodation for the old people. When I speak of coercion I feel that it may perhaps be exercised in this respect—that with the cooperation of the Department of Community Development the economic and sub-economic housing schemes which the city councils build should to some extent also make provision for accommodation for these old people. But I do not simply want to make this request and advocate this action. I also want to make use of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister and the Government very heartily indeed for the practical way in which they have assisted our old people over the past years. I do not want to mention statistics because I think that everyone in this House knows what the figures are, but I do want to mention a few facts in order to explain my gratitude, and, I think, that of the public. In 1948, the maximum pension was RIO. The new legislation proposes making it R28. This is an increase of 180 per cent. For the 1947-8 financial year an amount of R16,931,000 was made available for pension expenditure for all races while by 1964-5 this figure had risen to R70,088,000 an increase over that period of about R3,000,000 per annum. I think this is fantastic! Another example is the means test as far as pensions are concerned. In 1951 it was R240 while in the proposed legislation it is R528. If these figures which I have just mentioned do not give every section of the population reason to be grateful then I do not think that they will ever have reason to be grateful. [Time limit.]

It is indeed a special pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Mayfair who has just sat down. I think all hon. members feel with me that he has made a very constructive speech. I find myself in great sympathy with him in regard to the question of housing which he dealt with. May I say further that I feel that in the selection of the subject with which he took part in this debate, he showed that and I think we may expect to have in him a member who will devote a lot of time to this very important subject of welfare and pensions.

As I said. I find myself in sympathy with him in particular in regard to the question of housing, and it is on this subject that I would like to address the Minister. In doing so, I might say that I feel absolutely at home in putting forward any matter that I might feel is worthy of interest to those we realize are our old folks, those who have been before us and who have made a big contribution towards the development of our land, but who at this stage in their lives find themselves living on pittances. We all agree that these people cannot live on sympathy alone, and I have no doubt that the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) was correct when he said that it is basic that we are all sympathetic in regard to this subject. I believe the hon. Minister too feels like most of us do, but nevertheless he will allow us, I know, to criticize him if we feel that we are justified in doing so.

Living in a big city, as I do, that is to say Port Elizabeth, I come into contact with these old people, these pensioners, poor people who are suffering and who find it very hard to come out on their small income, be it a pension only or a pension with an additional little income. They are entitled to our sympathy. They are in dire circumstances. Your old-age homes prove that. There are long lists of applicants who try to get into these homes so as to be able to exist. In other words, instead of having to pay R10 or R12 or R14 for accommodation, they can get in at a reasonable figure and then they are able to live, feed themselves and have a little over for clothing. Now in regard to that issue I feel that somehow we are falling down. Our accommodation planning is not in step. We are out of step and we will continue to be out of step unless the hon. the Minister can bring about a very definite big scheme to meet the position and enable us to get up to date. We must realize that from year to year our aged group is getting wider and greater. All countries have that experience. The hon. member for Mayfair mentioned that 16 per cent of the people in France are over 60, and in our country it is just about 10 per cent. But this figure will increase constantly and we must get into step with the position. It is no use coming forward as we do every year to plead the same cause. The hon. Minister is willing, but the position remains the same. These old people who should have just that comfort are still suffering. We remain behind. I think that is where it is so essential that we should arrive at a position where the Minister can say: “Ek is nou voor.” “I am now ahead of things.” Instead of which I think everybody will admit with any knowledge of city life, any knowledge of the poor and of welfare work that the same position exists in every city: We are behind. Now if it were a question of younger folks, one would say “Let them sweat a bit”, but these people at their stage of life should be properly accommodated. I do not want to be dramatic in my sympathy, but that is the honest position. The position is that we must tackle this matter now. We cannot wait for years and years and say “Well perhaps so many will die”. Let us get ahead of this problem and then keep ahead. In that connection I was wondering whether the hon. Minister would give some consideration to a suggestion that we call a conference of all the welfare organizations, those people who at present are giving him a lot of assistance, together with representatives of his own Department and with representatives of the National Housing Commission, and let them examine this whole position to see whether they cannot evolve some scheme, so that in all these big housing schemes that are tackled, the Minister will have a say and would be able to lay down that he wants X houses or X clubs established for the poor in that particular area. Then we would have something concrete. The hon. Minister may have his own ideas, but it is a suggestion that I put forward in all sincerity. It seems to me that we could then get ahead of this question. We know how the numbers of our old people increase. In 1904 it was estimated that the old people formed 4 per cent of our White population, at present it is practically 300,000. Mr. Chairman, I know and everybody knows that a large number of these people are suffering through lack of reasonable accommodation. We improve pensions, but I think it is somewhat shocking when you start comparing what you were giving in such-and-such a year and then say that in percentage you have increased the pensions so much. We are slipping all the time because those hon. members do not examine the position as to what the £ could buy in those days and what the rand can buy now. The hon. Minister knows it. The hon. Minister has said that his door is always open and he has invited us to bring our problems to him. The hon. Minister’s door might be open, but I wish he could open the Minister of Finance’s door a bit. We have to face the position that our old people are growing in numbers, and we must also realize that they are growing poorer in spite of the fact that you are giving them increases. They are eating out all their little savings and this idea of giving them a little at a time in my opinion is not sufficient. I would much rather see that you give them an increase of R3 or R4 or R5, and then you would know that you have stopped the position now and that you can leave it static for quite a number of years. The cost-of-living is constantly rising. So I say again that with all the prosperity that we have in this country, our old people are growing in numbers and they are growing poorer. I think the hon. Minister should press the case of those whom he has got to look after with the Minister of Finance. We expect approximately R145,000,000 as a surplus and surely the Minister of Finance should be able to put more available to the Minister of Social Welfare in order to relieve the position of these people. I do not want to take away any credit from what the Minister has done. We know what he has done, but we have to bring to his notice what we see and I say in all sincerity that we have not done enough. We are far behind and we have got to get ahead. Unless you get ahead in the case of old people, you will always be behind. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down concentrated on two main arguments, as did the other two speakers. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) criticized the hon. the Minister because there are so few permanent staff in his Department. Well, one could discuss this question for hours but I do not think doing so would get us very much further because we all know what the position is under which we are compelled to live. It is not only this Department which has a shortage of staff; one finds this to be the case in almost every sphere in the private sector. There is a shortage of skilled workers everywhere. This is unfortunately true, but I do not see how the hon. the Minister can manufacture the staff he needs and so I do not think it worthwhile to devote much time to this point.

It is also said that the hon. the Minister is not doing sufficient for our old people. I feel that we must see this matter in its correct perspective. It is very easy for hon. members to stand up and tell us that insufficient is being done. We should all like to see more being done but the question is actually, what is “enough”? With what will people be satisfied? Somebody said once that “enough” is always a little more than one has. Will we ever be able to satisfy people? The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) criticized this increase of R1 on a previous occasion and asked why it could not be R2. He said that an increase to R2 would not result in inflation. To-day he is asking for R3 and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds) spoke of R4 or R5. The question is, where is it going to end? What can we afford? My contention is that the hon. the Minister is doing as much as possible within the present limitations. The State has done more and more for our old people at various times. I do not think that the hon. the Minister can be accused of being indifferent in respect of or of not doing as much as possible for our old people. I should like to do away with the impression that has been created that the State is only making a total amount of R2,000,000, or R1 individually per month, available for pensions for our old people, because this is not so. They are not only receiving an additional R1 per month. A great deal more than this amount of R2,000,000 is being made available for them in these Estimates. I should like to point out that the means test has been raised to R528 per annum and that the minimum basic pension, this R1 per month, is already costing the State R2,000,000. I want to point out further that the large gap which exists between the income of a person who qualifies for the minimum pension and that of the person whose income places him just beyond the qualifying limit is now being bridged. A person with an income of R314 per annum can still draw a pension of R17 per month and a person with an income of R408 per annum can still draw an additional R10 per month, which means that he can enjoy the maximum income of R528. This means that a person can have an income of R16 per month and can still draw the maximum pension of R28, a very great improvement on the position as it was. There is also a very much more generous concession in regard to the assets which a person may hold. When the new system comes into operation a person who has a house or other assets amounting to R5,600 can still qualify for the maximum pension. This means that a large number of persons who have not been able to qualify for a pension under the present set-up will now be able to draw that pension. This will be of particular assistance to those people who own their own homes. All of us are very pleased that this will be the case. The people who have saved and who now have their own homes but who have not been able to draw a pension because the value of their homes placed them beyond the pale will now also be able to derive benefit in that the amount has now been increased to R5,600. What will happen is that where a person has assets to-day amounting to R5,600 he will still be able to qualify for the maximum pension of R28 per month. It means therefore that the raising of the means test, the increasing of the assets allowed and the extension of the free income limit is going to cost the State an additional R5,000,000, not simply R2,000,000. In other words, all these concessions are already costing the State R7,000,000. If we add to this the fact that the pensions of war veterans have been increased by R8 per month, and the introduction of a minimum civil pension which will cost the State an additional R1,000,000, it is clear to us that the State is doing a great deal more for pensioners than simply making available this amount of R2,000,000 about which so much is being said. If we add to this the privileges of the old people in the old-age homes which are subsidized by the State, and the free medical services which they receive, then we cannot say that the Government has only made an amount of R2,000,000 available for these old people. That is a wrong approach. I do not say that it is deliberate misrepresentation but it is not fair to leave it at that and to create the impression that all that the Government is doing is to make available an additional Rl per month while the fact remains that some millions are being spent in order to assist these old people.

Hon. members have again spoken about our old people and the pensions they receive. I think that our old people are grateful for what the hon. the Minister and the Department have done for them up to the present and so I am not as concerned about them as I am about our present generation, cur young people who marry and have small families—the low birth rate among the Whites in the Republic. We are making use of immigration. I am not opposed to immigration. For my part we could have twice as many immigrants coming into the country as at present. I have never heard anyone on this side objecting to the expense connected with immigration. Every hon. member sitting here has a large number of lowly-paid people in his constituency, people who work for from R50 to R100 per month. When one asks these people why it is that they have only one child or two children, they say that they would like to have more children but that the cost of living is too high and they cannot afford it. I say that the time has come for the State to give attention to these people and to subsidize them if they want children. When one asks city people why they have no children they say that they cannot have children in a flat because it is too cramped. I say that no block of flats which does not have sufficient playing space for children should be erected. But it is not only the flats which get the blame. There is ample space in the platteland; the houses are large and life there is no longer as primitive as it was years ago when we had large families. The State ought to advocate it, every hon. member ought to advocate it from every available platform and tell his voters how necessary it is to have larger families. Even our ministers should make a point of this; they ought every six months to preach on larger families. The State ought to publish pamphlets for the benefit of all our young people pointing out how necessary it is to have larger families. We are fond of boasting about this rich country in which we live and about its gold, diamonds and coal, but if anyone were to ask me which I prefer, rich gold mines or large families, then I would say that I prefer large families. A low birth rate was the ruin of large nations in earlier times.

I have the Burger here in front of me and I see that the number of Coloureds in the Cape at the moment is about 1,500,000. Their birth rate is far higher than ours. I met a magistrate of a small district in my constituency recently who told me that of the births which he had recorded last year, 83 were to Coloureds and only three to Whites. This gave me quite a fright. This is not only the position in my constituency but in the whole of the Cape. We shall be caught napping. It is our sacred duty to give attention to the question of promoting an increased White birth rate in the Republic. A year ago I visited certain people in my constituency and when I asked them how many children they had, the wife told me that they had two. I told them that they should have more children and a year later when I visited them again, the wife called me into the bedroom and showed me a baby in a cradle. I told a neighbour of hers the same thing and when I visited her again she also took me to the bedroom and showed me two cradles in each of which was a baby. So I am not talking nonsense. We must advocate larger families and that is what I am doing to the best of my ability.

I do not want to follow the hon. member in what he had to say except to point out that there was a debate on this question of larger families a week before the recess in this House. I do not know whether the hon. member was here but many of the arguments which he had advanced to-day have already been advanced with particular emphasis of the fact that our national character can undergo a complete change as a result of the fact that while in earlier years we were used to a great deal of space, we now find ourselves restricted more and more to flats. I think that I said at the time that I wondered whether the Government and ourselves were giving sufficient attention to how the children who were hemmed in by four walls and who did not have the space to which we had been used, would develop.

I could not exactly follow the speech of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) although I listened carefully to it. He simply re-read what had been said in the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to the concessions which would be made. There was also the information in the White Paper. He said that we must see the care of our old people in its correct perspective. He asked what “enough” was, and his reply was that enough is just a little more than one has. He asked where it was going to end. I want to associate this with what was said by the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse). He asked what would become of the country if all our old people were to receive a pension on which they could live. He asked whether we would not become a hard nation. He asked what would become of our nation if the churches and other social organizations no longer made assistance available, and he contended that the old people should always receive so much less so that so much more assistance could be given to them by the churches and other bodies. I do not know whether this is the correct attitude to adopt. I have great praise for all the assistance that is being given to our old people but I do not think we can say that it is not the duty of the Government and of this House to ensure that those people are not indigent. I do not want to give them only a little more than they need; I want to give them almost as much as they need. That is the difference.

The difficulty is that they receive so little to-day that they cannot make ends meet. Half of what these people receive is spent on rental and the remaining half is insufficient to enable them to buy food, not to speak of medicines and clothes and the hundred and one things which an old person needs and which are made available by charitable organizations. While we are still experiencing a position in South Africa which I think we will seldom experience, a time of unheard of prosperity, the hon. the Minister should give a little more attention to the question of the aged. I have looked at the figures given in the Estimates and I notice that the number of old-age pensioners increased this year from 27,717 to 27,785, and that there has also been a very small increase in the number of disability allowances.

I also notice that there is a larger sum than last year in respect of subsidies for old-age homes and homes for indigent people. I was disturbed by the fact that the amount involved in this regard in 1963 was R714,000 and that it had dropped to R623,000 in 1964, but I see that this year it has been increased to R875,000. I want to express my appreciation in this regard because in my view this is one of the greatest difficulties which our old people experience. I noticed that almost every hon. member who spoke, on both sides of the House, emphasized the fact that housing is the greatest problem of our old people. Here I want to speak again with appreciation of the old-age homes which have been built in many of our small towns and in the larger cities by means of money loaned by the Government at a low rate of interest. Old people can stay at these places for R15 per month. If their income is R24 per month they then have R9 over for medicines, clothing and so forth and, of course, they receive sufficient food and care in those homes. This is an excellent system and that is why I am so pleased to see that there has been such an increase in this subsidy for old-age homes this year. I hone that the hon. the Minister will continue along these lines.

There is another matter which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is that so many of these old people are only admitted to these homes if they can still look after themselves, if they can dress themselves and move about and clean up their rooms. But most of these people, as they become older, reach the stage where they can no longer stay in these homes and have to be admitted to other places as chronically ill persons or debilitated persons. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to ask his Department to give attention to this matter and to ensure that when homes are built in the future by means of Government assistance, it will be compulsory for a certain number of beds to be made available for these chronically ill old people so that they can be cared for there. This will mean that one or two nurses will have to be employed but it will also mean that where a person has, for example, grown up in Vryheid and is admitted to an old-age home there and can live there among his own people and his old friends, where his children can visit him, he will not lose his circle of friends, because one of the biggest difficulties when one grows older is loneliness. When such a person has to be moved from Vryheid to Pietermaritzburg to a hospital for the chronically ill, he loses his friends. Provision is often not made for cases of this nature in our existing homes but I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister ask his Department, where possible, to make provision for 10 or 15 beds per 100 inmates of a home, even at the existing homes, where these chronically ill people can be nursed and cared for in the environment which they know. The provincial hospital have admitted some of them in the past. [Time limit.]

I want to agree with a good deal of what the hon. member for Drakensberg has said, particularly in regard to the fact that one of the great problems of old age is loneliness and the fact that people are left without anybody to care for them or any friends and face the difficulty of finding themselves in old age homes far from their original place of residence. This brings up the whose question of our attitude towards the aged. One thing is certain, and that is that until we stop regarding assistance to these people as a privilege and not a right, South Africa has not yet adopted the correct attitude towards the problems of the aged. At the moment we consider social pensions to be a privilege. We say that we are not a welfare state, as if that is necessarily something to be proud of, and we say that the care of the aged is firstly a charge on the children and secondly on charitable organizations, and only thirdly and lastly is it a charge on the State. This may be very well, but it does not help the old people who do not have children to look after them, or who have children who are not prepared to take on the burden, and these people are then left almost destitute.

Until we get around to the attitude that there are people in this country who are simply not able to find anybody to look after them, and who cannot come out on the existing pensions, we will have these continuous cases of hardship cropping up, with old people living in back rooms and starving themselves to death, uncared for and living unspeakably hard lives. Now there is no doubt that social pensions have increased and that more is being given to these people financially, but if one looks at the rising cost of living and the poverty that exists in the towns, and the minimum that is necessary for rents, fuel, etc., I think it should be obvious to everybody that the existing pensions are not enough. Although this does not come under the Minister’s Vote, whatever I say about Whites applies ten fold to the non-Whites because their pensions are very much less and as far as Africans are concerned their pensions are very low indeed. It seems to me that we must re-assess the whole question and try to evolve a contributory scheme so that people will be able to claim pensions as of right and not as a privilege. Apart from anything else, the whole aspect of human dignity comes into this question, because people do not like to be looked upon as a charitable burden. Apart from this one aspect, I am worried particularly about the lack of planning for the future. One hon. member on this side has mentioned it, and I too want to stress the fact that we do not plan ahead as far as the aged are concerned. I think all of us realize that with the advances in medical science and that geriatrics, the care of the aged, is becoming one of the major modern sciences, we are getting an ageing population; in other words, the percentage of people who live to a higher age is getting greater all the time. I believe the estimates for South Africa are that whereas there were something like 256,000 people over the age of 60 in 1951, by the year 2,000 one can expect a 25 per cent increase on that figure. The State should be planning now what it proposes to do about old people in future. [Interjection.] I am not trying to say that this is something which should be blamed on the Nationalist Government, but it is one of the trends to-day and communities are living to an older age. I might say that more women are living longer than men, and the Minister should pay attention to the number of elderly widows who will have to be looked after in future. Already there are proportionately more old women than men. To come back to the issue, I want to know whether the Minister has considered some scheme whereby, for instance, he can encourage local authorities to build homes for their aged. Some sort of encouragement should be given to local authorities to build homes for the aged, and I am particularly worried about the lack of accommodation for the sick aged in South Africa. This is a very serious problem. There are very few places where the chronic sick aged can be looked after in South Africa. In Johannesburg I know only of the Otto Beit, which I think takes about 40 old people who are chronically sick, and I believe there is also some accommodation at the Edenvale Hospital, but other than that, the position is that our general hospitals are full of chronically sick old people. The wards are filled with people occupying beds month after month and year after year, for the simple reason that there is nowhere else to send them. They are sick; they are not dying; there are no chronically sick aged homes to which they can be sent; most of them have no relatives who are prepared to take them in, and this is a burning problem in our hospitals. In Johannesburg one of the reasons why we have a shortage of beds is the fact that these beds are occupied month after month by people who are not going to get better but who are not going to die in the immediate future. The doctors in charge of those wards just do not know what to do with these cases. I might say too that this is an expensive way of looking after these people because to keep them in expensive wards in hospitals means, of course, that the time of highly trained people is taken up in looking after people who do not require such trained attention. These are people who could be looked after equally well by semi-trained nurses, by nursing aides, who can feed them, who can bath them and give them the necessary attention. They are not people who need really skilled nursing or medical attention. One could do with a resident doctor, one trained sister, and the other people in charge of such wards could in fact be nursing aides or semi-trained people. But there are no such places, or rather, there are some but there are by no means enough in South Africa. Sir, this is a charge on the Minister’s Department; it is not a case of Provincial responsibility. The care of the aged sits squarely on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister and his Department, and I believe that far too little attention has been paid to this question of looking after the chronic sick aged. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to reassure us in this regard as to future policy.

When we look at this Vote we realize that it is the Vote under which most money is spent, and when we look at the White Paper, we see that no less than 39.1 per cent of the Budget is devoted to social services. Over the past ten years the amount of money which we have spent on social services has increased by more than 70 per cent. This gives us an idea of the tremendous amount of money which is being spent on social services. The amount spent last year was no less than R392,000,000. Sir, I mention this because it is sometimes said that we could do far more for our old people and for other social pensioners who are experiencing difficulty. But over the past 17 years there have been a number of increases. Last year I made a summary of the various increases granted in preceding years. There are some hon. members opposite who say that the Government does not give sufficient attention to our old people and to other social pensioners, particularly with a view to the fact that we are living in prosperous times. They go further and say that the increases to pensioners have not kept pace with the rising cost of living. According to statistics, over the past 16 years the cost of living has risen by 65 per cent, while old age pensions have increased by 180 per cent. In the case of civil and railway pensioners the increase has in some cases been as high as 200 per cent.

Are you satisfied with the increase?

We are doing what we can. In 1947, the maximum old-age pension payable was RIO, and it has gradually been increased to R28. This is a considerable increase, but it is not all. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) itemized very efficiently the additional concessions which have been given to pensioners. I want, inter alia, to mention the concessions in regard to the relaxation of the means test and in regard to free assets. The raising of the means test ceiling from R212 per annum to R528 will mean that many border-line cases will now qualify for a pension. I also want to mention the relief which has been given in connection with the assets which a pensioner may have without his pension being affected. This figure has now been raised to R5,600 and a pensioner with assets to the value of R5,600 will now receive the full pension of R28 per month. The pension is reduced accordingly where the assets exceed R5,600. I also want to refer to the special grants to welfare organizations for the housing of aged and debilitated persons. The welfare organizations contribute their share but the State on its part is doing everything in its power to enable these people to live decently in their old age. I just want to state in passing that the argument has been advanced by some hon. members that old people are worse off to-day than they were previously because of the increase in the cost of living. Sir, any person who makes an allegation of this nature does not know the facts. I do not think it behoves hon. members to make statements of this nature across the floor of the House.

I also want to point out that war veterans over the age of 70 years will now receive an additional R8 per month. This is also a great concession. There is also a supplementary pension for persons of an advanced age and this pension will come into operation next year. I also want to mention the pension which will now be paid to persons who participated in the armed protest in 1914. I really want to express my heartfelt thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet for having made provision for this small group of people who sacrificed everything for love of their country.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the position of civil pensioners receiving cost-of-living allowances, people who are still physically and mentally sound and who are still able to perform useful work. Those people can do very useful work for the State but at the moment they cannot do it because as soon as they work they lose their allowance. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is necessary for these people to forfeit their allowance if they return temporarily to their old employment. No extra allowances will be paid to them and they will be able to make a useful contribution, particularly with a view to the labour shortage. These people have been trained in this particular work over the years and they can render good service. Of course, on re-employment they will be paid lower salaries or wages. Their employment will not keep other people from employment either because they will be appointed on a temporary basis. As soon as an applicant is available to fill the vacancy, they will be removed from that employment. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to plead this case for us with the Cabinet. If it can be agreed to, all civil and railway pensioners receiving cost-of-living allowances can be re-employed and can perform very valuable work. Lam convinced that this will not involve the State in any additional expense at all, nor will it mean that other people will be put out of work. We can make very good use of the services of these people during this period of a labour shortage.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. J. A. Schlebusch) and many other hon. members on that side during the course of this debate have given figures which I will disprove. They are in general completely satisfied with the position of the social welfare pensioner. I intend to show that the Minister’s perpetual claim that he has been very generous to pensioners within the limits of the country’s finances, is not correct. Sir, there must always be a relationship between the gross national products which is a favourite expression of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the amount paid out in social welfare pensions. I want to give the Committee the figures: In 1959 the amount provided for war veterans, blind persons, old-age pensions and disability grants, for all persons amounted to approximately R47,000,000. In 1965 it was approximately R62,000,000, an increase of approximately 31 per cent. In 1959 our gross national product was R5,026,000,000 and in 1965 R7,417,000,000, an increase of approximately 50 per cent. I say therefore that in no way can it be contended that the amount provided under this particular head has kept pace with the country’s ability to pay. I hope that the hon. the Minister will inwardly digest these facts and not fall for the nonsense of the hon. the Minister of Finance that an extra rand or two per month to the old-age pensioners will lead to inflation.

I want to move from there to a matter on which I have crossed swords with the Minister year after year and that is the question of the so-called time limits in the War Pensions Act. Year after year my pleas are rejected, and I now return to the attack with more ammunition and I hope that after the Minister has heard what I have to say this time, he will really devote time, thought and goodwill to the matter in question. Sir, I will again go over the provisions of the War Pensions Act relating to the so-called time limits. Under these provisions, if a man marries more than ten years after the date of his discharge, and he dies, the widow will receive no allowance, as would the widow of a man who married within ten years of his discharge. Similarly any child born to the man later than ten years after his discharge does not receive the allowance, which falls to children born before ten years from that date. The Minister and I have argued this matter year after year. This provision was one contained in all the Commonwealth Pension Acts; it has now been removed from every one except ours, and special provision has been made elsewhere to cover the difficulty about so-called deathbed marriages. Sir, I advised the Minister last year that the South African League and the National War Fund, which had always worked closely together, had investigated the financial implications of the removal of these restrictions, although in my view it is not a question of finance but of ordinary justice. Anyway, these two organizations reported last year that they had traced 77 cases, including 33 deceased volunteers affected by the ten-year time limit. Ten widows and 135 children were affected by not being regarded as widows or children under the Act. The benefits of which they are being deprived amounts to the piffling amount of R23,840 per annum. Sir, now the matter goes further and the Minister will have to apply his mind to the question. As I have pointed out previously, the War Pensions Act now applies to all our military trainees and they will in future suffer the same disabilities under the ten-year time limit as their fathers. I say that this is scandalous. I asked the hon. the Minister of Finance how many Citizen Force trainees had been discharged to date with a disablement which might entitle them to claim under the War Pensions Act. He replied correctly that the onus rested on the discharged man to claim on the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. The hon. the Minister of Defence told me that during 1963 307 ballotees were discharged medically unfit and in 1964, 308. Of these men, discharged over two years, the Minister of Defence said that 114 of them had disabilities of such a nature that claims which may be submitted by them have a reasonable chance of success. That is an average of over 50 casualties a year in our serving forces. Some of them might get married before the expiration of 10 years but they are young men just now. Apart from the sufferers from previous wars there are already over 100 men who may be affected by this 10-year clause. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something about it. The number of men affected is going to increase every year; they are not going to die out as the war pensioners must die out. They are going to increase because of the present position. Last year the hon. the Minister tried to put me off by saying that we could not really discuss these men because the matter would need legislation. I know it will need legislation. Another matter was raised last year and the hon. the Minister is now, quite rightly, arranging for legislation to include the 1914 Rebels under the war veterans pension scheme. Considering our historical background he should have done that before. I do not want him to exclude men who were not Rebels but who did serve their country. I just cannot understand why there is this continual objection to this very simple matter. It is not a simple matter; it is a gross injustice. I repeat that the number of people who are going to be affected by this provision is going to grow every year. There can be no possible reason for the Minister’s refusing to go into the question of seeing that this 10-year time-limit is removed. It will not ruin the country and if the hon. the Minister of Finance says it will I say he is talking rubbish. I appeal to the Minister, between now and the next Session of Parliament, to go into this matter and to introduce the necessary legislation to remove this injustice.

In Johannesburg there is an association called Suicides Anonymous. This has come into being because of the increasing number of people who have tried to commit suicide during the past years. What is disturbing to me is that this Association has found that it is getting as many as ten calls per day from intending suicides for help. There are as many as 100 attempts at suicide per week in Johannesburg. What is further disturbing is the fact that a very large percentage of these attempted suicides are old people who are pensioners. The Chairman of the organization has now to face up to the problem of how to deal with these elderly people who, rather than continue the fight to exist, attempt to do away with themselves. It is a serious matter and I think it is one which the hon. the Minister should investigate as soon as possible. I shudder to think what is going to happen if these large numbers of people who are prepared to commit suicide do not find some way out of their lonely state in life. From the investigations I have made I have found quite conclusively that two things cause this desire to end life in these people. The one is lack of accommodation and the other is lack of food. In most of these cases of attempted suicides it has been found that they are very badly under-nourished and that they live under pitiful circumstances.

I should like to see the Minister carry out an investigation as soon as possible. He should have a team of people to investigate what is going on and see whether these people who have been driven to such lengths cannot be accommodated in one or other of the clubs that have been mentioned earlier on. I feel very concerned about it and I am sure that these old people would appreciate it very greatly if some step is taken by the Department of Social Welfare to help them out of their difficulty.

I want to go from old age right to the other end of the age scale and I want to deal with the few problems which arise out of the care of infants. With the increasing desire on the part of both husband and wife to go and work we find that there has been an increase in the crèche population throughout the country. Some of the crèches are run by local authorities and some by private individuals. I think the time has come where the crèches have to be inspected under two heads. First of all, we want them inspected in regard to the physical comfort of the children. We want to see that the crèches are properly fitted out with the necessary equipment. That equipment is laid down by regulation and I understand that before a licence is issued to a crèche these regulations must be complied with.

In view of the fact that the children are away from their homes for the greater part of the day, a lot of the difficulties from which children suffer are being missed by the parents. The mother takes the child to the crèche in the morning and she collects it in the evening. The child is given its evening meal at home and then put to bed. The association between the mother and the child is over a very limited period. When the child wakes up in the morning it is washed and dressed and taken to the crèche again. This is where I want an inspectorate to be appointed so that they can go to these crèches and find out from what difficulties or abnormalities some of the children suffer. We find children with speech difficulties, for instance; we find children who are emotionally upset; we find children who are extremely timid; we find the weeping child and so forth. Most of those children suffer from some kind of psychological upset. I would like an inspectorate to investigate these children and then refer them to a child guidance clinic where they can have expert attention from a group of people who are trained in these matters. I feel that in these cases it is impossible to depend on the parents to do anything because they are rarely with the child. They are with the child over the week-end perhaps. The amusement and love that is provided and given to the child may consist of taking the child to a drive-in bioscope, for instance. The child lies there, perhaps he falls asleep and that is that. I do not say this is a common thing but it is common enough for us to take notice of. I think these children must be investigated. It should be a regulation that every person in charge of a crèche should keep a register and note in that register what difficulties the children are suffering from. This register must then be inspected by the inspectors who should go round to the crèches. In those cases where it becomes necessary for further treatment to be given, the child guidance clinic ought to undertake that work. The parents should be encouraged to allow the child to get that expert attention from the psychiatrist or the psychologist who is attached to the child guidance clinic.

Arising out of that it becomes necessary to encourage those people who wish to establish these types of clinics. I want to ask the Minister—and I am sure he will be sympathetic—-to have the crèches inspected, firstly, and, secondly, to have child welfare clinics established wherever possible, and thirdly, to encourage the child welfare clinic to teach the child the right way of life and perhaps even trace what happens to these children when they go to primary school to ascertain whether the separation of the child in infancy in a crèche has had any effect on its education in primary school. We must see whether we can establish proper treatment for these children who, through force of circumstances, have to be separated from their parents. [Time limit.]

I want to refer to a question arising under item K—pensions concerning war veterans, old-age people, blind and disability grants. I want to refer briefly to a survey I have made and I crave your indulgence to refer to figures which I know do not apply to this hon. Minister but it is the only way in which I can give an over-all picture of the position as I see it. These are 1964 figures. The total number of people receiving old-age pensions was 145,449; the total number receiving blind pensions was 2,634; the total receiving disability grants was 32,841; and the total receiving a war veterans pension was 24,900 and railway pensioners number 33,820. This gives a total of 229,644. Information gained from the Minister concerned in regard to tax payments indicated, in answer to a question, that there was a total of 95,715 people who were exempt from tax. By subtraction from the number of old-age pensioners, namely 145,449, we therefore find that there are approximately 49,000 old-age pensioners who are liable to tax. I raise this matter although I realize that this figure is not completely accurate because it includes Coloured pensioners and I am not in a position to determine whether they do or do not pay any tax. By simple arithmetic, taking the over-all number of pensioners as 229,644 and the over-all number of people exempt from tax as 95,715, we arrive at a round figure of 124,000 of all classes of pensioners who are subject to tax. My difficulty is this, that where there is an increase in pension, an increase in tax follows. In a certain case where there was an increase in pension of R2 the increase in the monthly amount paid in terms of P.A.Y.E. was as much as 56 cents. I appreciate, Sir, that normally, both single and married people, are exempt from taxation if their earnings are under R600 per annum, but I plead for those people whose incomes may be a little more than that and who are in receipt of pensions. Here is one woman who wrote to me, a partially handicapped, single woman. She said—

I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister, who has always said that he appreciates the difficulties of all types of pensioners, that perhaps his Department could investigate this question of the difficulties of pensioners who experience hardships as a result of their tax. I feel that his Department is the one that has the facilities and the figures available to do this. Having arrived at some decision, perhaps it would be possible for the Minister to make the necessary plea to the Minister of Finance so that this group of not the very poor, and definitely not the rich, can receive some consideration in respect of the hardship they claim they experience from paying tax. Sir, what prompted me to raise the matter was a little note I receive on a letter from a woman who has experienced these difficulties. She said this: “I never was a squealer. I like to keep the peace, but the wheels that do the creaking get the grease”. I think if we bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister, he may be able to help these people.

Then I want to refer to the question of rehabilitation centres and related services, and I want to refer particularly to the powers the hon. Minister has under the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act of 1963. I am grateful to a member of the hon. Minister’s staff for the information which has been supplied to me to-day which indicates that a National Alcoholism Advisory Board has now been appointed and is functioning, and I believe is meeting at the present time. Now, Sir, one of the functions of this board in terms of the Act is “to advise the Minister in regard to any matter affecting alcoholism which the Minister may refer to it”. I suggest that there are two matters, comparatively urgent, which the Minister could in his wisdom decide to refer to this newly established board. The first matter that this board should investigate very closely is the question of advertising alcoholic beverages. I am not suggesting a prohibition. I am only suggesting an investigation. I am aware that statistics concerning drunkenness show that there has been a decrease in the number of people who have come before the courts.

I am also aware that the consumption of alcohol in South Africa has risen, and further that alcoholism as such is on the increase. It is on the increase to a greater extent than the normal increase in population. I suggest with respect to the hon. the Minister that he could ask this Board to conduct a survey on the extent of the effect of modern advertising (radio, films and periodicals) on teenagers who are subjected to this intensive advertising. Sir, there is this difficulty, that perhaps only the Minister is in a position to bring this to the notice of the Board, because some of the organizations which deal with the alcoholic, I find, have in their constitution a provision, which prohibits them from raising matters referring to advertising of the marketing of alcoholic beverages. That is why I refer it to the Minister. Then one further brief point which I feel this Board could consider and that is the advisability of establishing a bureau, to be financed by appeals to the liquor producers themselves, a bureau to conduct sociological research on alcohol, on alcoholism and on the effect of excessive consumption of alcohol. I believe that in South Africa with our multiracial community we have a special problem, and I think it is worthy of special investigation. I am prompted to ask this because I see that the K.W.V. recently accepted the principle itself of a levy by which it was prepared to contribute funds to investigate publicity in connection with the marketing of wine. I believe that right throughout the liquor trade, the firms concerned do not desire to see excessive consumption, neither is it their desire to see a large number of alcoholics. I believe on those grounds they would be sympathetic to an appeal directed to them through the body created under the Act, and I suggest that the Minister should consider seriously asking the National Alcoholism Advisory Board to discuss this particular aspect.

I do not want to follow the hon. member who has just spoken in what he said. There are only a few matters which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first matter is in connection with the relationship between the Department and the education authorities. I am referring here more specifically to the question of irregular school attendance, which fact eventually also affects the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. If there are pupils who are guilty of this type of misconduct, the procedure is for the matter to be discussed with the parents. The principal and his staff try to solve the problem in this way. They are often unsuccessful because the parents are sometimes responsible for this state of affairs. After this, the matter is referred to the official who visits the school. He often has no solution to the problem either and so it is referred to the Department. The Department then investigates all the circumstances which gave rise to this particular misconduct on the part of the pupil. But complaints have been made to me that this departmental inquiry, possibly because they, too, have problems in correlating all the information, is very often rather protracted. The matter is then no longer in the hands of the official who visits the school, or of the education authorities; it rests with Social Welfare and it often happens that that pupil or those pupils, who have now become the responsibility of Social Welfare, still wander about the streets because there is no compulsion on them to attend school regularly. Unfortunately, this position creates bad feeling between the school and the local officials of Social Welfare. Mutual accusations are made because the school is still saddled with a case which has not been finalized. The school wants to know where those pupils are because they do not attend school and get behind in their school work. As far as the school is concerned the matter is not yet finalized. It rests with another authority to bring the matter to finality. But nothing happens. I do not think that matters which are so protracted are conducive to the establishment of good relationships between the education authorities and the Department. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of these problems and whether the matter cannot be given some attention so that these things can be finalized sooner.

There is another matter I want to raise. It has already been said here to-day that many of our old people live fairly lonely lives and that the old people are even afraid of being lonely. We who bear the responsibility for caring for our old people have also considered methods of trying to eliminate this loneliness on the part of our old people. The possibility of clubs has been mentioned to-day and we know that in the planning of building complexes for the aged, provision is made for these facilities so that they will have the opportunity to get together. But there may perhaps be another method which we can use to assist them in this regard. Fortunately, many of our old people are still in reasonably good health and can go on holiday every now and then, but, because of the limited means at their disposal, they are not, in many cases, in a position to do so. We may perhaps be able to bring these vacation possibilities a little closer, if we can assist them with their travelling expenses as a means of overcoming loneliness. Of course, this is not a matter which rests with the hon. the Minister, but I wonder whether he could possibly discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister of Transport to see whether pensioners cannot be given travelling concessions on production of their pension cards. The card could perhaps be designed in such a way that there would be space for the stamp of the railway authority, and in this way we could prevent these facilities from being abused. I believe that if we tackle the matter in this way even though the contribution does not come directly from the Department of Social Welfare but from another State Department, it is a method which we can use to try to eliminate the loneliness of these people. I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister can see his way clear to discussing this matter with his colleagues.

We have had a long discussion on a wide variety of welfare and topics and I think that this would be a convenient time to move—

House Resumed:

Progress reported.