I move—

This motion at first glance seems to be quite innocent as it simply gives details of the further sitting hours of this House. The hon. the Leader of the House, as usual, has tried to seek agreement and he has been informed that this side of the House does not agree with this motion. As a matter of fact, we have the greatest objection to it. Let us examine for a moment what has caused this situation. The hon. the Minister has not seen fit to explain to the House why he is moving this motion.

Let us examine the position. Before the election the Government fixed the 29th July as the opening date for the Session and having been returned to power once again they left that date unchanged whereas they could easily have set an earlier date for the commencement of the Session. It has happened on previous occasions after elections that the date for the commencement of the Session has been brought much closer to the date of the election. That would have given us ample time to get through the business of the House. At the start of the Session the hon. the Minister was helpful and he gave us a list of the Bills which the Government intended to introduce. We were told that there were some 29 Bills which had to go through this Session. Our first reaction to that was that what the Minister was trying to do was to put a quart of legislation in point of time into a pint bottle. It was almost trying the impossible right from the word “go”. But over and above that we were informed on Friday that the Government had to get its financial legislation through by the 14th October, and moreover it has to get that legislation through both Houses, not just the Assembly. Sir, when was this known? It seemed to me that the Minister did not appear to be aware of the fact that he had this date line. He had not been informed by the Minister of Finance prior to this that it was necessary and had to be done. Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. If ever there was a classic example of lack of foresight, we have it in this case. This motion does not allow the House sufficient time to deal with legislation in the ordinary way and to give sufficient thought to the legislation which is brought before the House. If we examine the time available to us during the present Session we find that if we go on sitting the present hours until the 21st October we will have 190 hours, which is obviously insufficient time from the Minister’s point of view. With the added time we are going to sit 217 hours if we go on until the 21st October, but if we sit a week longer, the sitting hours will be just over 250. It is true that the Minister gave us a list of the measures which have to be put through, but that list was merely descriptive and did not itemize the various Bills as such. One would like to know whether notice has been given of all Bills which the Government proposes to introduce this Session. Is the Government going to introduce other Bills, of which notice has not yet been given and which the Government feels must go through? I hope that the Minister will give notice of as many Bills as possible, even if he is not going to proceed with them, because I believe that under our parliamentary system—I think most members do—it is a very useful and a very good thing and it redounds to the credit of Parliament if the Government gives notice of Bills as long as possible beforehand even if they are held over at the end of the Session. This enables the various interests to study the Bills and to make representations to the Government. There are outstanding examples of such cases. For instance, take the Planning Bill of the Minister of Justice. I think it was held over for two sessions, and by the time it was dealt with in the House it had become a much more acceptable Bill owing to representations made by various parties. I believe that generally we tend to be too hasty in getting on with legislation. It seems to me that this Government regards the number of Bills that it nuts through the House as the yardstick which determines its achievements. That is the aim and the goal of the Government: The more Bills it can churn out the better. In fact, the yardstick of good government is this: The fewer the Bills that are put through, the less the legislation, the better the government.

Then let us examine for a moment the committee which sat on the revision of the Rules of the House. As you will remember, Sir, the new Rules became operative in 1964. What was the purpose of this all-party committee which ed the Rules? It was stipulated that there must be unanimous agreement with regard to the proposals put forward. It is history now that there was unanimous agreement with regard to the proposals put forward. They were eventually adopted and these are the Rules under which we operate in this House to-day. Speaking from memory I think we altered some 170 of the 216 Rules. We altered many of the archaic observances of the House as well as making some fundamental changes. What did we do in order to make Parliament more efficient and to speed up the work? We limited the time of the debates on the second and third readings of Bills. There was a reduction in the length of time allowed for speeches by individual members from 40 minutes to 30 minutes. There was a limitation of 30 minutes on speeches in the third reading, and there was a limitation placed on the number of times when a member may speak in Committee. There was a limitation of the time allotted to the Railway Budget, to the Committee of Supply and for the Main Budget. Of course, the basis of the adoption of these new rules was that we would no longer have the unseemly scramble at the end of the session, sitting night and day. That was quite clearly understood, that we were streamlining the rules to make the procedure more efficient. It was not providing an opportunity for the Government simply to pile in more legislation because we had taken less time. That was not its purpose, and I say that most emphatically, having been a senior member of that Select Committee. I am one of the few remaining members, unfortunately. Most of the members of that Committee have disappeared and I think there are only about four of us left in the House.

I think it is a great pity that the hon. the Leader of the House has not been a Whip and was not a member of that Committee, because otherwise he would not be doing to-day what he is doing. In the 1964 session, after these rules had been adopted, the then Leader of the House proposed that we should sit in the evenings. We only sat three evenings. We did have morning sittings for approximately three weeks and I believe we sat one Saturday. But then in the 1965 session, when the present Leader of the House took over, we sat on nine evenings and approximately for two weeks, and that was after objections had been made from our side because his proposals originally were to sit for far longer than that in the evenings as well as in the mornings. I want to ask the Leader of the House whether he intends that at a later stage of this Session he will pile on the morning sittings on to these extensive evening sittings which he is suggesting now? Because if that is so, it makes the position quite impossible for the staff as well as for the members, and particularly for the members of the Opposition. Government members have not the same difficulties as the Opposition. They have Ministers who take responsibility for introducing the legislation and they have all the Departments of State behind them to provide them with the necessary information to use in this House. Also, for a long period beforehand, in the process of producing a Bill, it is discussed by the Cabinet and by Departments, and they know a long time ahead and they have the information. The Opposition receives the information when the Bill is published after the first reading, and they have to discuss it very soon afterwards. I will give the hon. the Leader of the House this credit. He is accommodating in so far as he can be, in order to give us an opportunity to study these Bills. I may say the co-operation between the parties, as it stands at the moment, has been excellent.

The Government accommodates the Opposition and the Opposition accommodates the Government in regard to the business and the running of the House. But I regret to say that this sort of proposal tends to destroy that atmosphere. You cannot put Parliament into a straitjacket. If you propose this sort of thing and there is opposition to it, then it breaks out somewhere else and in some other form, whatever the rules may be. I can only come to one conclusion. As far as the Leader of the House is concerned, every now and again he demonstrates that he is a person with a mailed fist in a velvet glove. I believe that a motion such as this, creating once again legislation by exhaustion—that is all it is—does not enhance the prestige of Parliament outside at all. It is to be avoided. I do not think we should indulge in this at all, and I believe that the Minister to-day in proposing this motion has broken faith with the intentions, the promises and the understanding arrived at when that Rules Committee sat. I cannot but come to that conclusion, and I believe he is doing a great deal of harm to the system by doing this. While obviously one tries to co-operate for the good of Parliament and its smooth running, he is making it more than difficult to do so. It is up to the Government to plan its affairs better than this and not to land Parliament in this situation where it is a case of holding a pistol to the head of the Opposition and saying: If you do not pass the Estimates by 14th October there will be no salaries for anybody. That is not a position any Opposition should be placed in by a Government. It is not democracy. That is not the way to run Parliament and therefore we protest in a most emphatic manner to this motion which is before us now.

I want to associate myself with what the Chief Whip on this side has said. I am not going to cover the ground he has already covered. After the Select Committee to which he referred had finished and its proposals to alter the Standing Rules came respectively to hon. members on that side of the House and to members on this side, certain assurances were given in good faith by the Chief Whip, who had been a member of that Select Committee, and by those of us who were members of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee. What were we driving at? It was to save the time of the House and to avoid this kind of thing; it was to avoid all-night sittings and all that pressure and trouble. As the hon. member has pointed out, it was to avoid that rush at the end of the Session. That is what we sought to achieve.

Last year, when the Leader of the House came with a similar motion to this, but rather less restrictive than this, we pointed out how we resented the fact of this introducing a motion of that kind with that background and that history, when we on this side had placed all our cards face upwards on the table with a view to seeing whether we could get agreement with the Government and relying on the assurances we had received from the highest authority on that side of the House, that there was to be mutual agreement or there would be no change in the rules. We met that fairly and squarely and we came to agreement without any attempts to try to score a point here and there. I want to be fair to hon. members opposite and say I believe that they came equally fairly and openhandedly, and with their cards face upwards. But already last year there was an attempt just to gain a few extra hours in order to pass legislation.

I want to say again that I resent very strongly indeed what I consider is an absolute breach of faith now with the Minister bringing this motion before the House. I remember very well indeed some three or four years ago what the then hon. member for Humansdorp, when he was Leader of the House, said in regard to a motion which came towards the end of the session in terms of which there was to be time taken in the mornings and in the evenings and where there was to be just one flat-out hammering, as much as human beings could bear, from first thing in the morning until half-past ten at night, day after day, to try to get legislation through, and to which we objected.

The hon. member for Humansdorp in those days got up and said: “When we were in opposition we made the same kind of objection to what your Government did, which is precisely what we are doing to-day. We expect these objections from you. You are the Opposition. We made the same objections in those days when we were in opposition. But it is all part of politics, it is all part of Parliament, it is all part of the game.” That is no longer the case to-day, Sir. It was no longer the case once these new rules were adopted. That is the point. When once the new rules were adopted, then the old objections and the old principles fell away completely. There was a new deal. And we want that new deal to be adhered to.

If the Government wants to see this legislation through, then, as the Chief Whip has pointed out, they have had ample opportunity. There was no compelling them to wait until late in July before they came along with their legislative programme. They could have called Parliament together before then. The elections took place at the end of March. What were they doing all that time? They could have come along earlier. But no, they did not do that. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister even now to decide which legislation can be dealt with properly, as Parliament ought to deal with it, within the time that is available between now and whenever the hon. Leader of the House wants Parliament to rise. If he wants Parliament to rise on the 21st October, then let him work it out so that we have finished on the 21st October. But let it be done decently. Already there is a strain on the Opposition, Sir. [Interjections.]

That is the spirit in which hon. members on the other side are viewing the situation. They view the matter as a laughing matter, as a matter of no consequence. The hon. member who laughed has not yet learned what the dignity of Parliament means. He is a new member who has only just come here.

He does not know what dignity is.

We are trying to uphold not only the dignity of Parliament but also the traditions of Parliament. We are trying to uphold a way of life in our Parliament. I again wish to appeal to the Leader of the House to withdraw this motion. I want to ask him to work out exactly what legislation he wants to see on the Statute Book by whatever date he is fixing for Parliament to rise. It is not for this side to fix the date. We are not fixing the date. That power is entirely within the hands of the Leader of the House. But if he goes on with this motion, then I repeat that this is a complete breach of faith in respect of all those negotiations which took place in the past before the new rules were adopted. I charge the Government—because the Leader of the House is the mouthpiece of the Government in this matter—with that complete breach of faith. Moreover, it is a warning to us for the future as to what we are to understand when hon. members on that side of the House give us their assurances and ask this side to accept those assurances at face value. How can we do such a thing, Sir? I say that the Opposition are already under pressure. What is more, the staff are going to be under pressure. Will hon. members on that side now laugh?

Yes.

The hon. member says he will also laugh if the staff, too, are under pressure. The whole thing is a laughing matter. The same hon. member is prepared to laugh if the staff are under pressure. But it is no laughing matter for the staff to be under that pressure, Sir, pressure lasting day after day for the last month or whatever period it is that the House will be working under pressure. I appeal to the hon. Leader of the House to treat Parliament with the dignity which it deserves. I ask him to treat Parliament in the manner in which it deserves to be treated. That is what I appeal to him to do.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to serve as a member of the Select Committee which made these recommendations to the Standing Rules Committee. I think serving on that Committee was one of the most pleasant experiences I have enjoyed in this House. We had as Chairman the Leader of the House. I remember that at that time I was much impressed by the guidance he gave us. He said that he himself had served in this House in a small Opposition, and that whatever we did in drafting these rules he would always have in mind the rights of the Opposition. The result was that we reported unanimously to the Standing Rules Committee. What did we do in our report? We streamlined the procedure of the House. We introduced shorter speeches. We even gave Ministers in charge of Bills the right to curtail debates if they wished to do so. There was no difficulty. There was no question of any further all-night sittings. Those days were past. They were regarded as the dark days of our Parliamentary system. Now we have this proposal before the House. I want to say, Sir, that I am very disappointed that this motion should have come so early in the Session. I do not know whether there was any undertaking about the length of the Session. The length of the Session is rather like an open-end trust. The Government can start earlier or finish later as they wish. But it is unnecessary to act against the spirit of these rules. It is the spirit of these rules that matters. If there is anything worthy of the standard of the recommendation of the Select Committee, then it is the production of these rules wherein it is laid down in a crystal-clear way what the position is. It is an excellent piece of work. I sincerely trust, Sir, that the hon. Leader of the House will revise his decision and give us a chance to do our work here in a normal manner.

Mr. Speaker, I was also a member of the Select Committee that dealt with this matter of the revision of the rules. Now, one person I hold responsible for this matter is the hon. the Prime Minister himself. The hon. the Prime Minister gave a lead when that Select Committee was appointed. It is a Parliamentary tradition that there are more Government members than Opposition members on a Select Committee. But in this case the Prime Minister made an exception. Not only did he express the wish that the two sides should have equal representation on this Committee, but he also hoped that the Committee would be unanimous. The Leader of the House sat as Chairman of the Comittee. At the end of its deliberations the decision of the Committee was unanimous. The hon. the Prime Minister gave the lead, and he gave the lead because he hoped—I feel sure—that the revised rules would be acceptable to both sides and that no majority rule would be apparent in coming to a decision. But the very spirit of that Committee is being broken now.

You see, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as if the Government has faced this Session without making the necessary calculations. I submit that it was only a day or two ago that the Leader of the House knew that we had to get the financial measures through by the 14th October. We were certainly not told that at the first meeting of the Whips, at which the Leader of the House was present, at the beginning of the Session. I think that the Leader of the House only learnt that recently. Surely it shows bad management on the part of the Government? Surely they should have made their calculations earlier? Surely the hon. the Minister of Finance should have told the Leader of the House and the Cabinet that the 14th October was the limit? You see, Mr. Speaker, certain assurances have been given by the Leader of the Other Place to the members of the Other Place. They wanted certain time to discuss financial measures in that Place, before the whole of the financial legislation was disposed of. Certain assurances were given in the Other Place as well, assurances which are not the subject of discussions here. You see, Sir, the calculations which should have been made long before Parliament commenced were obviously not made.

The Government would know which legislation is essential, they would know which legislation is contentious. They would be able to estimate, according to the rules, the amount of time that would be taken up by these legislative measures. By means of a simple addition sum they would know the total amount of time which would be required for proposed legislation, legislation which was essential and in the Government’s interests. As far as financial legislation is concerned, the different periods of time are covered by the rules. The time allowed for the Railway Budget is a fixed time. The time for the Estimates is a fixed time. So also the time for the financial measures, for the Budget debate, and so on.

These periods are all fixed in the rules, and no estimating is required. But it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the estimating has not been done. Either the hon. the Minister of Finance has not told the Leader of the House until a late date, or else he has been caught unawares. But, Sir, he should not have been caught unawares. So we find ourselves in a position where we have to take the time factor into consideration when dealing with financial legislation. And that is quite inexcusable. It is quite inexcusable that we should be out in our calculations with regard to financial measures. The times are laid down in the rules, Sir. The Committee that dealt with this matter felt that it was essential that the times on the Railway Estimates should be cut down. It felt that we should cut down the times for financial measures. We drew a distinction between the time allowed for Ministers and that allowed for members. Every effort was made by this Rules Committee to anticipate what should be done with regard to financial measures. So that all the Government had to do was to estimate the time that would be required for essential legislation. It is quite clear that they have done neither. They have neither made a proper estimate of the financial legislation nor have they made a proper estimate of the other legislation, and here the Minister’s fond hope that we are going to adjourn on 22nd October is not going to be realized; it cannot possibly be realized even if we are going to deal with the financial measures alone; it cannot possibly be realized even if we sit until 29th October, and so we are going to have extended hours, and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister when he replies what his estimates are for the end of the Session because, Mr. Speaker, the Minister should when coming with a motion of this kind give some indication of what legislation is essential.

At the beginning of the Session when he told us what he hoped would be passed, it was quite clear that no careful estimate had been made of the time required. I support all that has been said by other members on this side to the effect that to force this motion through, as the Government has the power to do, is a breach of faith in itself. It is a breach of faith in that in the initial stages when we decided to amend the rules, the lead was given by no less a person than the Prime Minister himself—it was a very successful committee; it was ably led; my regret is that the present Leader of the House was not a member of that committee. I say that in no disparaging way, but I think if he had been on that committee, he would have a better appreciation of what was done. The hon. the Minister has been most co-operative during this Session, but to push this through at this stage, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the background those of us who have worked on this Select Committee have had, is a breach of faith. I am sorry to say that to this Minister. It is a great pity that he was not a member of that Select Committee, because it is not in accordance with the spirit of that Select Committee that a resolution of this kind should be pushed through, because it boils down to, as hon. members have already said, government by exhaustion.

It is the wish of those of us on this side of the House who did not serve on the Select Committee, to state our point of view too. At the time when the members of the Select Committee came to the caucus with the amended ruled of the House, with proposals which were of a revolutionary nature and which created entirely new machinery with the object of expediting the work here, there were many members who were concerned and who asked the members of the Select Committee what it would mean in future. The members of our side who had served on the Select Committee gave us the assurance that it signified an attempt in good faith to streamline the work of Parliament and to prevent the spectacle of overworking in undue haste at the end of sessions. The entire object was to facilitate the business of Parliament and to make its functioning more dignified. When we were given that assurance, we asked what the Government’s attitude was. They then told us that we should accept that the Government members of that Committee, that is to say, the Government itself, had the same object in view. It was being done in the interests of Parliament, it was being done to prevent the kind of spectacle we are having to-day. We as an Opposition therefore accepted those rules, because to us it was out of the question to doubt the good faith of the Government or the Opposition when it came to the business of this Parliament. For no matter how much we quarrel, no matter how much we differ, we always try—and that is one of the traditions we have created in South Africa and to which you, Mr. Speaker, referred that day at the beginning of this session when you were reelected as Speaker—to safeguard the dignity of our Parliament, and as members we deal with each other in the utmost good faith. Today we feel that we may have been misled to some extent, and that the members who represented us on that Committee were also misled, and that they would not have given us the assurances we received in our caucus if they had known that anything of this kind could happen on the part of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, a conscientious member of this House simply cannot carry out his duties day after day and week after week unless he is prepared to work hours that would horrify any trade union in South Africa. [Laughter.] Of course there are hon. members who do not take Parliament seriously; I regret to say that, but there are members who regard Parliament as some kind of glorified club and who can laugh when one says anything like that. But conscientious members on either side of the House have to work exceptionally long hours in order to finish their work. They have to come here at 9 o’clock and even earlier in the mornings, and they leave at 7 o’clock, and even then they have to take work with them to do at home. It is a mistaken impression on the part of the public that a member of Parliament works only during the hours Parliament is sitting. Apart from select committees on which they have to serve two or three mornings a week, there is secretarial work, there is research work, there is preparation to be done; and anybody who has sympathy with the work of the House of Assembly should realize that it is asking rather much that in a session of 12 weeks, as seems to be planned for this session, there should be only seven normal sitting weeks in accordance with the aims of the Select Committee, but that five of the 12 weeks should be weeks of abnormal working hours and activity. That is unfair and unreasonable. Not only is it a disservice to individual members; it is also a disservice to the institution of Parliament, something that we, no matter how wide our differences may be, cannot tolerate. We want Parliament to be an ornament in the public life of South Africa. We should like to appeal to the Government, to appeal to the Leader of the House, to recall the spirit in which that Select Committee sat and completed its deliberations, the spirit in which Parliament adopted these new rules unanimously, although they meant a tremendous curtailment of the rights and privileges of the ordinary member. We did that because we had the dignity of Parliament at heart, and we did that because we believed in the good faith of all the members of this House. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be necessary to feel that in future we shall no longer be able to rely on the good faith of at least one Party in this House.

I am not aware of any assurances given to the Opposition that Parliament will not sit any additional hours during an ordinary session. I have no knowledge of that. I have no knowledge of any assurances, and I reject the accusation of a breach of faith. Why did hon. members not accuse this side of the House of a breach of faith when it was proposed last year that the House should sit additional hours? Why did they not make an accusation of a breach of faith this year, during the last session, when a motion was proposed for the House to sit additional hours?

Almost 50 per cent of the time of the House.

But what is the difference of a breach of faith whether it is 50 per cent or 5 per cent? That is absolute nonsense. There is no breach of faith. I reject that accusation. I think hon. members must be realistic; I am not aware of any assurances that the sitting hours of Parliament would only be those provided by the Standing Rules and Orders, and it would be absolutely foolish for any Government to give such an assurance. Mr Speaker, one cannot predict from session to session what amount of work is going to come before Parliament. You cannot plan three or four or five years ahead, and hon. members must realize that the activities of the country are continually expanding whereas the number of months that Parliament is in session every year remains static.

Why should that be so?

I have been in this House for the past 23 years and under all previous governments it has always been the position that legislation is rushed towards the end of the session.

That was before the new Standing Rules and Orders came into force.

The new Standing Rules make no difference in that regard. Of course not. I repeat that no assurance was given that the House would only conform to the sitting hours laid down in the Standing Rules and Orders, and if that were not the position, then hon. members should have made this accusation of a breach of faith last year when I proposed that the House should sit additional hours. Last year as a matter of fact we sat nine evenings in addition to the usual Wednesday evenings.

Only on nine sitting days.

The hon. member reminds me of the saying that if you steal five shillings it is not theft, but if you steal R5,000 it is. There is no breach of faith, and hon. members must be realistic. What I am asking the House to do is to sit six additional hours a week. That is all, three additional evenings of two extra hours.

Do we only sit two hours in the evening?

On Monday, Tuesday and Thursday.

Until what hour do we sit at night?

Hon. members know that when there are evening sittings, the House adjourns at 6.30 instead of at 7, that means half an hour less as far as the usual sitting hours are concerned, and from 8 to 10.30 means 2½ hours, from which the half hour has to be deducted. The hon. member’s facts are wrong again.

Let me say that I have every sympathy with hon. members. There is only one consolation, Mr. Speaker, and that is that what I am asking them to do, I have to do myself.

No.

I attend the sittings of the House probably more regularly than most hon. members and in addition I have to do my ministerial work too, and what hon. members must remember is that we come down to Cape Town, to Parliament, to do a job of work, and when there is a job of work to be done, it has to be done.

Not by exhaustion.

I feel that I have been most accommodating to the hon. members. I have given them every possible opportunity to study the Bills. I have even asked them to tell me what Bills they would like to discuss at any particular time, as the hon. member knows. I realize that as the number of Opposition members is so small, through no fault of ours, but because the public did not elect more of them, they are quite obviously finding it a considerable strain to deal with all the legislation. But if hon. members look at the list of Bills that have to be passed, they will see that they are not all contentious measures. Quite a number will be passed as a mere formality.

Hon. members say that we should have planned ahead, that I should have known in time that the Appropriation Bill must be through both Houses of Parliament by 14th October. But these evening sittings have nothing to do with that. There is ample time even without evening sittings to get the Estimates and the Appropriation Bill through both Houses of Parliament by 14th October.

Why then these extra hours?

Because we have to deal with other legislation in addition to the Appropriation. There are certain Bills that must be passed by the House before the end of the Session. Hon. members have asked why we did not start the session earlier. Then there would have been more legislation to be dealt with, because I can assure hon. members that a number of Bills are standing over in any case until next year. Hon. members wanted to know what other Bills are still coming forward, if any. Hon. members of the Opposition know that there is one Bill dealing with the political activities of parties in regard to Coloured elections. That Bill has still got to be dealt with during this Session and must be passed this Session. Notice of that Bill will probably be given during next week, or so. There might be another Bill amending the Price Control Act, but for the rest all the Bills have been given notice of and they appear on the Order Paper.

What about the Rent Control Bill?

I do not think it is necessary. I think the Minister has the necessary powers to deal with rent control. But it might easily be necessary to have morning sittings towards the end of the Session. That is quite possible.

*Hon. members referred to the dignity of Parliament. What does this have to do with the dignity of Parliament? The dignity of Parliament depends upon the conduct of hon. members in this House, and the dignity of Parliament depends upon proper discussion of matters by hon. members, and hon. members have all the opportunity of discussing matters properly. The fact that there will now be three additional evening sittings every week does not detract from the dignity of Parliament in any way. If we consider the sitting hours of this House before the rules were amended, we find that before the rules were amended the House sat longer hours than it is sitting under the new rules, together with these additional hours that are now being proposed. I cannot believe for one moment that hon. members are being overworked.

Did the hon. the Minister say that we were now sitting shorter hours under the new rules than before? That is not true.

I am not saying that we are sitting shorter hours. I said that we were sitting shorter hours under the new rules than was the case under the old rules, together with the additional hours proposed. That is a fact.

†As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have every sympathy with the hon. members. I was also a member of a small opposition and I know it is a considerable strain to study all the legislation and to deal effectively with it, but it is simply a job that has to be done, and I am afraid that these Bills will have to be passed by the House. In conclusion I want to say that I came across a quotation from the works of Goethe this morning: “Enjoy what you can and endure what you must”. I commend that to hon. members.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I want to reply in brief to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said yesterday. Viewed superficially, what he said would appear to contain a reprimand for the Treasury in that it was made out that the Treasury did not collect all the money which it could collect! I am afraid, however, that that somewhat oversimplifies the matter. As regards the minting of proof sets, I want to point out that proof sets are something which one cannot simply produce and sell in large quantities each year, and then expect to have a regular clientele for such sets. The value of these proof sets lies in the very fact that only limited quantities are minted from time to time. Prior to 1964 we minted 5,000 of these sets each year, and even then we were sometimes saddled with proof sets for which there was no demand. In 1964, however, there was a sudden increase in the demand, especially from abroad, and one year later also in this country. In 1965 we minted 25,000 of these sets, and it is our intention to mint the same quantity for 1966.

Did you not say previously in reply to a question of mine that only 15,000 would be minted?

No. We intend minting 25,000 of these sets in 1966. Prior to 1964 we had a list of regular clients. These people were always kept informed of any changes, and priority was given to them as regards buying new proof sets, just as one usually gives priority to an old client. In 1965 we then had to mint 20,000 additional sets and after some of the 5,000 persons on our list had been supplied with sets, other applications were executed according to the date on which such applications had been received. The largest allocation which has been made to a person in South Africa is 140 sets. It is difficult to see how a person can make R500,000 from 140 sets! I am of the opinion that the natural result of an increase in the production of these proof sets in any particular year would be that such sets would lose their value by the next year, and that one would not be able to sell even one’s normal quantity the next year. I have made inquiries in order to ascertain what the position is in other countries. Australia does not mint any proof coins at present, a fact which is interesting, because Australia too has a new set of decimal designs at present. All that Australia did was to issue sets of uncirculated coins in plastic containers on the introduction of their new series of decimal coins. In Canada so-called “proof like” coins are minted which are also sold in plastic containers. Hon. members should understand that the primary function of the South African Mint is to mint coins to be used as token coins in South Africa. As opposed to that the minting of proof sets is a subsidiary, and not only that but also an incidental, undertaking. It requires rather a great deal of time and care to mint the proof coins, place them in their proper containers and offer them for sale. From an economic point of view the value of these proof sets is dependent on their rarity. Let us assume that the Mint did have the time to mint 750,000 of these sets this year. In this connection hon. members should bear in mind that up to last year the Mint was working on a basis of two to three shifts in order to ensure that the ordinary coins would be available. However, even if we did have the time to mint 750,000 of these proof sets, people would realize that it was only a way for the Treasury to make money. A further consequence would be that there would be far fewer applications for the subsequent year, and in such a case we would have been saddled with the superfluous sets. Any collector will tell you that the value of these sets is dependent on their rarity.

How many applications for proof sets have you received in 1966?

I think it is more than 1,000,000. If we had to meet this demand, it would mean that the Mint would have to be employed on something other than its primary task. It would also mean that people who bought these sets this year because they were still a rarity, would find out next year that the sets no longer had any rarity value. That would cause them not to buy any more sets again. This is the simple economic principle which is at the basis of this matter. I want to give the House and the hon. member the assurance that if the Treasury had seen its way clear to making money from this in an honest and fair manner, it would not have failed to do so. But we do not want to make a great deal of money at the moment and then have to pay for it in subsequent years.

I am not in the least satisfied with the reply of the hon. the Minister particularly in view of the fact that he now has to admit that he has already received applications for more than 1,000,000 of these sets for 1966. These sets he can sell at a profit of 67 per cent and yet he is having only 25,000 of them minted. The Minister tells me that one cannot expect a regular number of customers every year. That I admit. But the position is that during the past three consecutive years there were a large number of applications, viz. 750,000 for 1964, about 1,250,000 for 1965, and more than 1,000,000, it may be even 1,500,000, for 1966. Surely, these applications must establish a certain pattern. Furthermore, if we are now going to satisfy only one out of 60 applications, then we are certainly creating a very unsavoury type of black market in this country. The hon. the Minister stated that up to the year 1964 the number of applications was small. But does he realize why that was the case? The reason is that many of these proof sets were turned down by the American collectors’ associations because they were so poorly made. It was only after the Mint had learned how to make these proof sets properly that the demand for them started to increase. I do not like this idea, as I said yesterday, of giving priority to favourites, to old clients. Why cannot these sets be supplied on the simple basis of “first come, first served’’? As things are now, I take it, any member of this House or a member of the public can apply for a set for 1978 or 1990. There is no clear list of priorities. There is no notice in the Gazette to the public that they can only apply from a certain particular date. Mr. Chairman, this is a most unsatisfactory position.

The hon. the Minister said it meant a lot of trouble to make these things. But if one can make a profit of from 60 to 70 per cent and if businesses outside can make a profit of up to 1,100 per cent on these coins, he as Minister of Finance should be able to go to some trouble in this connection.

There is another aspect of the matter to which I should like to draw attention. In 1965 our new coins were minted. More than 50,000,000 were printed of each of the following coins, namely 20c, 10c, and 5c. Of the 1c, however, only 26,000 were minted. Then something strange happened to these 1c coins, especially to the Afrikaans ones. The Minister told me that an equal number of the English and Afrikaans coins were minted. That I accept. However, somebody must have cornered the market in the 13,000 Afrikaans 1c coins because do you know, Sir, for what amount these Afrikaans coins minted in 1965 are being sold to-day by recognized dealers? Not for R1 each, neither for R10 each, but for R135. Surely there is something wrong here. Surely there must have been some reason why so few of that one particular coin was minted. Why was the accepted practice followed in the rest of the world not followed here as well, namely to overflow the market whenever there is danger of a black market being established? If the market is overflowed with a particular coin, no black market can result. The Minister talked about the loss of revenue. There are more than 1,000,000 people who are prepared to pay R3.20 for a set of these coins and if these sets can be resold in a month’s time for R30 or R40 then surely there is something wrong. Surely an unsavoury market is being created.

Let me repeat: I am not satisfied with the Minister’s reply. First of all, he did not reply satisfactorily to the question why so few sets were being minted and why he did not want to mint more; secondly, he did not satisfactorily reply to the question why he is following a policy which is deliberately helping this monopolistic feature in our economy; thirdly, he has not replied to the question why he will not allow these coins to be sold according to the principle of “first come, first served”; fourthly, he has not replied satisfactorily to the question why he refuses to inquire into this matter. I can assure the hon. the Minister that if this practice continues, we on this side of the House, at least I for one, will not remain quiet about it.

In this matter I prefer to accept the advice of people who have knowledge, experience and imagination and who may have a better knowledge of arithmetic than the hon. member for Orange Grove. If these people gave me certain advice, I would prefer to accept that rather than the shortsighted and in many instances rash remarks of the hon. member.

And John Citizen may simply suffer.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 10,—“Inland Revenue,

R5,347,000.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us some information in regard to the Department of Inland Revenue. The last report of this Department was published in, I think, 1963 for the year 1961-2. That is a long time ago. A lot has happened since the report was published. We have now had three full years of PAYE and we have had the data processing system in operation since the 1st April, 1962. I think it is only right that the House should have some knowledge of what is going on in the Department. One thing that has perturbed us for many years in regard to the Department of Inland Revenue, is a feature which has been common to many departments but perhaps not so serious, and that is the staffing situation. Last year the Secretary for Inland Revenue, when he appeared before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, was very frank in giving us some information with regard to the position of the Department. He told us, for example, that at that time he had some 1,281,000 individual accounts that he had to look after for tax purposes, some 78,500 companies and well over 300,000 provisional taxpayers. This represents a vast number of accounts to look after. He also told us what his staff problems were. He told us that he had authorized posts for 207 senior clerks but only 140 permanently filled and 45 temporary people and 22 vacant posts. There were 113 authorized posts in respect of clerks, only 71 of them permanently filled. He also told us of the problems with regard to trained personnel; he said that some assessors were doing work after they had only been trained for a very short while. We would like to know what progress has been made since last year and what the position is at the present time.

When we look at the Estimates of the Department for this year we see that there are some fairly radical changes on the staff front in that the number of administrative control offices has been stepped up from seven to 30. We would like to know whether these posts have been filled or are going to be filled. The number of posts for administrative officers has been stepped up from 138 to 157.

Then there is another item in the Estimates which is of great interest to us and that is on page 31 where provision has been made for tuition fees in the sum of R3,800. We would like to know what programme is envisaged and whether this amount is considered to be sufficient. All this leads up to another point. I put a question on the Order Paper last week in which I asked the Minister whether he could tell us what the amounts standing to the credit of taxpayers’ accounts were at a particular date. The answer was given very fully and very fairly, but it is quite obvious from the answer that one is not in a position to know what credits are standing to taxpayers’ accounts where they have been completely assessed and where those credits are in fact refundable to them. As we understand the position, in so far as the PAYE taxpayer is concerned, he gets an automatic refund if he has overpaid. I would like the hon. the Minister to confirm this. But in so far as the provisional taxpayer is concerned he has two difficulties and the first is that very often he does not know the state of his account.

Sir, I have two assessments here. One shows a credit of some R1,329 and the other shows a credit of some R1,129 on the account, but the problem is this: Provisional tax has to be paid by the 31st of this month. If the assessment has not been completed for the period ended 28th February of this year, the taxpayer does not know how much of the credit reflected on his statement of account he is entitled to set off against his payment for this year because he does not know what his tax is for last year. You have this problem: You may have a credit of R2,000, on account of revised assessments, which are very often made; your tax liability may only be R200 for the previous year but you do not know how much to deduct, and consequently you have the position that the hon. the Minister is sitting very happily with large amounts of the taxpayers’ money. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us whether something is being done or can be done to alleviate this position.

The second feature, as I understand the position, is that you have to make application for a refund, I think that is incorrect. If the account is in credit after all the assessments have been made, a refund should be made. Then one other very simple question: Why does the hon. the Minister not pay interest on these credits? Sir, if you are one day late in paying your income tax, you have to pay interest, and not at these low rates of interest that were frozen by the Minister, but at 10 per cent, I think, although here I am open to correction. The taxpayer pays interest when he is late but the Minister does not pay us interest when he is holding our money. He holds it for a considerable period of time. He may have administrative problems—I do not know. Possibly the accounting system may have to be revised in part or in whole, because what obviously happens to-day, as one sees from the Minister’s reply, is that the total amount that is paid by taxpayers is credited to their accounts; when they are assessed a debit is raised and the difference is what is owing or owed, and until such time as the debit is raised the taxpayer is always shown to be in credit. I realize the Department’s problems. It is not an easy problem to overcome but I hope that the Minister and the Department will give some consideration to the question of these overpayments.

I want to support what has been said by the hon. member for Parktown and I hope that the Minister, in the course of his reply, will give us an indication as to whether the backlog of assessments has increased. Some years ago there was a considerable backlog of assessments and then the Department managed to get them up to date. Then we were told that the Department hoped to overcome all its difficulties with the introduction of a computer. We know what happened to the computer. They had teething troubles with the computer. For some time the Department was in difficulties and then they found out that the computer was underpowered; that it was inadequate for the purpose and then they got additional equipment. We would like to know what the position is today. However helpful the computer may be, a computer is of no use unless it has the information fed into it in the first instance. In that regard I would like to ask the Minister whether we can have some explanation as to why the vacation savings bonus has increased this year from R144,000 to R260,000. That is a substantial increase. I am informed that the Inland Revenue Department is on a five-day week and that many members of the staff are working over the week-ends. In other words, whereas formerly they worked on Saturdays, they changed to a five-day week and now they are still working on Saturdays and they have to be paid overtime. I am not complaining about the fact that civil servants have to work overtime but I want to know how long this overtime is going to go on; to what extent is there a shortage of staff; what is the backlog and what are the prospects of overcoming the backlog? Because it seems that so long as the Minister is in the happy position of having a credit in the form of taxpayers’ money, which is more than the tax which is due to be paid, he is in the happy position of being able to afford a backlog for a certain number of years, but eventually when the backlog is overcome, the refunds which may have to be made, may place the Minister in a position where he has to make a considerable refund in one particular year and his Estimates may be affected thereby. I think that the time has arrived when the Minister may have to give some consideration to a revision of the remuneration paid in his Department because he is not getting sufficient qualified staff. The hon. member for Parktown has already referred to tuition fees, and the question of training. Anybody who knows any of the senior assessors in various parts of the country will know that they are facing an increased load year after year. Many of them find that they cannot leave certain classes of work to junior assessors, many of whom are not adequately qualified. One must pay tribute to the senior assessors for the tremendous burdens they are carrying. Many of the members of the inspection staff are not doing the inspection that they should be doing because their time is taken up in assessing. The whole purpose of the Act is that a certain amount of inspection should be done. I submit that not only are the assessments in arrear but that the inspection work, which is a necessary part of supervision in the tax collecting organization, is not being done because the Department, through sheer physical inability to cope with the tremendous volume of work, is not able to do the job which it is there to do. Sir. there is no criticism of the members of the staff themselves. Many of them are doing their best, but I submit that an onerous load is being placed upon loyal servants, and the impression one gets is that the backlog of tax assessments is growing and is not being overcome. I hope the Minister can reassure us in this regard and indicate whether the backlog is being overcome; whether he has been able to obtain additional staff; whether he has been able to appoint additional senior assessors so that the tidying up of the tax department can be achieved as soon as possible.

In reply to the last question, I can say at once that we have caught up on the backlog and that we are still improving on the position. The computer, of course, does not do the actual determination of taxable incomes; that must still be done by the assessors. I agree with the hon. member that tribute must be paid to the members of my staff who have to work under the conditions under which they have to work at present, with all this pressure of work, and that in all the circumstances they are still doing such an excellent job.

The hon. member for Parktown wanted to know what the position was with regard to the staff. There is an increase of 25 in the number of administrative control officers, from 5 to 30. The increase is due to the creation of one additional post and the upgrading of the remaining 24 posts. The 25 posts have all been filled. There is also an increase, as he has rightly pointed out, of 19 in the number of administrative officers, from 138 to 157. The increase is due to the creation of 16 additional posts; the remaining three represent a reallocation of posts. Apart from two vacancies which have occurred as a result of the death of the former incumbents, all these posts have been filled. With regard to the general personnel position, let me give the Committee the latest figures: The number of posts on the authorized establishment is 3,001; permanently filled 2,289; temporarily filled 565, and vacant 147. We have found as from the beginning of this year that there has been an improvement in the recruitment of staff under the new conditions of service. We have had better recruiting results than we have had for some time in the past. As hon. members know we also give recruits every opportunity of equipping themselves for the tasks that they have to perform. We have a training scheme and they are helped by a kind of intensive training to enable them to acquire as soon as possible the necessary knowledge for the position. Where circumstances permit, they are also withdrawn from the regular duties and given full-time intensive training for approximately one month. During their training period, their progress is determined by means of tests. Those who are found suitable, are placed on assessing duties. In addition to this intensive training of the beginners and the presentation of lectures to juniors, seniors and the registry staff, tutors check the assessments of junior assessors to determine, inter alia, what errors in principle or errors in procedure they have made so that the necessary guidance can be given by means of personal tuition or further lectures. Officers of the Department are also being continually encouraged to equip themselves by qualifying either in an appropriate degree course or in the diploma course in accountancy and auditing.

The hon. member has also asked what the position is with regard to provisional taxpayers’ accounts. He points out that when they have to make their provisional payments, they do not know what amount stands to their credit. The hon. member has rightly remarked that refunds are not made automatically to provisional taxpayers; they have to apply for them. I do not know what the position is with regard to the two assessments to which he referred here. I should be glad if he will give them to Mr. Wessels to see what is wrong in that case, but generally where a man does not know what payment to make to escape liability of a penalty the position is this: We have evolved a means which the taxpayer can use to avoid a penalty. Where a provisional tax payment is due to be made and the taxpayer has not yet received his assessment for the preceding year, he can approach the Receiver of Revenue for a preliminary determination of any credit which may be due to him. By arrangement with the Receiver the amount so determined can then be set off against the provisional payment to be made without the risk of the taxpayer being called upon to pay interest or a penalty if it should ultimately be established that the amount of the credit has been wrongly calculated. A circular to this effect was issued to Receivers of Revenue by the Secretary on 13th June, 1966. I think that will remove there irksome little points which occasionally crop up.

The hon. member has also asked whether we are not prepared to pay interest on the amounts standing to the credit of the taxpayers. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that although this system is called Pay-as-you-earn, it is not really a pay-as-you-earn system. There are two provisional payments during the year. At the end of the first month of the tax year, the taxpayer actually owes the fiscus a certain amount of money; at the end of the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth months you owe the Treasury so much more; it is only at the end of six months that you make your first provisional payment, but the taxpayer is not charged any interest! If your first provisional payment is a little more than the amount you should have paid, we adopt the attitude that that will probably carry you through in respect of the first, second or third month of the second period of six months. I think we are being very fair to the taxpayers. We are not trying to get an undue amount of interest from them. Although our system is called pay-as-you-earn the provisional taxpayer only pays tax on what he has earned over the previous six months.

Are you personally quite happy with the system?

The hon. member for Parktown also raised the question of experienced assessors. The Secretary reports that there is a slight improvement in the position in comparison with last year. I think that is probably due in part to this system of training that we have inaugurated.

I think the hon. the Minister has overlooked one matter. I did ask him to explain the reason for the big increase in vacation bonuses from R144,000 to R260,000. The amount has nearly doubled and yet the salaries have not doubled. I asked the Minister to give us the reasons for this increase. If the Minister will refer to the Vote he will find that there is an increase from R3,686,500 to R4,099,800, an increase of approximately 10 per cent, but the increase in the savings bonus is nearly 100 per cent. I should like the Minister to let us know the reason for this increase.

Before the hon. the Minister replies to the question put by the hon. member for Pinetown I should also like to say something, but before doing so, I want to associate myself with what he said in connection with our staff. From the nature of my profession I have considerable knowledge of that Department, and we on this side of the House also want to pay tribute to all our Receivers of Revenue for the manner in which they perform their duties. I am not so sure whether we should not regrade this Department, and with that I mean the following: This Department is an entirely technical one. I think we ought to have more senior assessors. I know that it is very difficult to find those people. The senior assessors work under tremendous strain. We cannot run this country of ours if we cannot collect the taxes, and the persons responsible for collecting the funds are few in number. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister, in consultation with the Public Service Commission, will not give consideration to investigating the possibility of upgrading some of these posts in order to get a larger number of senior assessors. The result of that will be that assessments will be issued quickly; the public will be more satisfied; the State will collect its money more quickly, and many of the problems which arise these days and many of the arguments we hear across the floor of this House will be eliminated.

Then there is one other matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and it is in connection with the collection of taxes; it really deals with a new source of taxation. We know that everyone pays income tax on his salary, but that as regards other income two principles are involved. We know that capital income is not taxed. Another principle is the source from which the income is derived. If the source of income is in this country the taxpayer will be assessed here. Another principle is that of the profit motive. Sir? The senior assessors do not have sufficient time to check whether or not the profit motive is involved in every transaction. If we have sufficient numbers of trained staff, they will have the time to be able to determine whether the profit motive is involved, and then many cases in which it is in fact involved will not be overlooked. Under the existing Act the profits are assessed but there is not enough time and an insufficient number of trained staff in the Department to check such cases properly, with the result that many people evade paying taxes in respect of the type of scheme in which the profit motive is in fact involved and in respect of which they should have been assessed. Because it is not possible to go into these matters properly they evade paying their taxes and the profits they make pass as capital profit. The necessary provision is already contained in the Act; we should only have a larger number of trained staff to check such cases.

In reply to the hon. member for Sunnyside I just want to say that, as I indicated a short while ago, we have already started regrading posts on a small scale, and if there is any justification for doing so, and if we can get past the Public Service Commission, we shall continue with that. It is quite true that we are able to absorb much more staff, but the difficulty is that there are so many other employers competing with us. However, as I indicated just now, our staff position is no longer as bad as it used to be. I think a slight improvement is noticeable.

†The hon. member for Pinetown raised the question of the increased amount in respect of the vacation savings bonus. The increase is due firstly to the bonus increasing as scale increments fall due; secondly, the increase in the establishment, thirdly, the bonus is now payable to those persons with pensionable emoluments exceeding R6,150 (married) and R3,240 per annum (unmarried) and, fourthly, the fact that the bonus is also payable on a pro rata basis. The provision has been arrived at as follows: Originally provided, R150,000; add Transferred from salaries, wages and allowances, R110,000. That brings it up to R260,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 11,—“Customs and Excise, R8,591,000”.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to page 36. Under the item “Miscellaneous Expenditure” there is an item of R20,000, “Incidental Expenditure in connection with transfers of officials.” If the Minister will refer to the Estimates for previous years he will find that there is no item under this heading. This is a new item under this heading. Are we to presume that there was no expenditure in connection with transfers in the past, or what is the reason for this item of R20,000?

If the Minister will refer to the column he will find there is nothing under it for the previous year. It is a new item. I want to know the reason for this appearing as a new item, or whether, if provision was made for it in previous years, it was made under a different heading.

Then we have Item “F”, payments to neighbouring territories under customs and excise agreements, Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland, R3,800,000. I should like the Minister to tell us what are the payments to each of those three territories and at the same time to indicate to us whether there are any other territories with which there are customs agreements in terms of which payments must be made.

It is incidental expenditure in connection with the transfer of officials. The increase is R20,000. If you refer to paragraph 6 (i) of the Estimates circular dated 5th August 1965, that is when this new item was inaugurated, expenditure incidental to the transfer of officials was previously provided for under Sub-head “B”. This item includes expenditure incidental to the transfer of officials and payable in terms of Chapter F of the Public Service Regulations.

In regard to the Protectorates, it is the usual thing. There is a fixed percentage which goes to each of them. I do not know whether the hon. member wants me to give a full explanation. Basutoland gets 0.88575 per cent of the total customs and excise collected. Swaziland gets 0.149 per cent and Bechuanaland gets 0.27622 per cent. Prior to the financial year 1956-7 these payments were made as a drawback from revenue as required by the South Africa Act. As the result of discussion in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, it was decided to make provision therefor in the Estimates of Expenditure, and we have to pass it every year. The increase is due to the net increase in the customs and excise revenue on which the payments to the neighbouring territories are based. The estimated amounts due to the territories are as follows. Basutoland gets R2,480,000, Swaziland gets R470,000 and Bechuanaland gets R850,000, making a total of R3,800,000. Does the hon. member want to know about South-West also?

No, that is shown as a separate item in the Estimates. I wanted to know about the Protectorates and the Minister has now given us the amounts. I now want to ask him whether there will be any difference in the allocation of this revenue now that Basutoland is becoming independent, or does that not affect it all?

That will depend on whether any revision is made of the Customs Agreement of 1910. Until such time as a new agreement is arrived at. these are the percentages payable. But if a new agreement is arrived at now that they are becoming independent, naturally this will have to be revised.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote 13,—“Transport, R27,200,000”.

Loan Vote L,—“Transport, R1,790,000”.

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? I take it that in due course the Minister will be here or is his Deputy acting for him?

I understand that of necessity discussion on this very interesting Vote will have to be somewhat curtailed during the present Session of Parliament because so many of the matters which are of concern to Parliament and to the public are at present being investigated by a commission dealing with the co-ordination of transport. Obviously it would be futile for us to discuss the very matters which are under consideration, because the answer will inevitably come from the Minister that he does not want to comment upon it now because it is under consideration by this Commission. That will tend to curtail discussion, but I think that we on this side of the House, who had something to do with the appointment of this Commission, having pleaded for it over a period of years, will be permitted to say that we sincerely hope that the results of the deliberations of the Marais Commission will be a new approach to the whole question of transport in South Africa; for South Africa faces problems in connection with transport as a vital part of our economy, the solution of which cannot be delayed much longer.

It is very difficult to accept that a modern economy such as has been developed in South Africa over the years, can be fitted into the construction of a virtual transport monopoly like the S.A. Railways and Harbours. Road transport, and therefore also a truly adequate road system, for a modern state like South Africa has to be faced and considered, even if it means a considerable change in the attitudes to which we have become accustomed. We should bear in mind, and I sincerely hope that the people who will consider the Marais Commission’s Report when it eventually comes will do so, that the S.A. Railways and Harbours Act dates back to the time of Union. There have been amendments, but the major principle of the monopoly established for that great organization was laid down at the time of Union when motor transport hardly existed. There has since been a complete revolution in South Africa. We feel that we have been slow in South Africa in adapting ourselves to this revolution.

I remember how we had to plead from this side of the House years ago to the Minister and his predecessors for relaxations in the Motor Transportation Act, and how difficult it was to get what we have to-day, for example that many people can convey their own goods for 30 miles. We still have those difficulties. It is our sincere hope that the outcome of the Marais Commission’s investigations will be a new approach to transport in South Africa. We do not want to do the Railways any harm. We wish it well; it is an enterprise in which every South African takes pride; but at the same time we also wish South Africa as a whole well; we wish the economy of South Africa well and we want efficiency in this tremendously important aspect of our economic life. It will be interesting if the Minister will give us some indication of when he expects this Commission to complete its work.

I do not know.

Then perhaps the Minister will in due course have a talk with Dr. Marais to find out when the report can be expected, but we hope it will not take too long. Before the Minister came in, I was saying that it would be difficult to deal with many of the points we want to raise because they are really in a way sub judice and the Commissions still considering them, but I hope that the existence of this Commission will not be a funkhole for the Minister in which to hide and to avoid answering questions. Some of the evidence being led before the Marais Commission at the moment is so obvious, from what has become public, that I believe there can be action on the part of the Minister, and I want to give him an example.

It was in Cape Town that the petrol companies gave evidence about one of the problems they have under the Motor Transportation Act. They pointed out that being limited to 30 miles for deliveries of petrol from their depots, they have to resort to something which is criminally uneconomic, and that is what is termed “backhauls”; they have to take things back along a route already traversed. Some slight adjustment in the distance they are allowed to transport petrol will remove much of that problem. To my mind, that is something which could be dealt with immediately, but it is not so serious as another matter they raised. I cannot believe that this is so. I hope the Minister will tell us they are under a misapprehension. Apparently every petrol company was told that if it wanted to avail itself of the right to transport its product over a limited distance it had to use its own petrol lorry. It means that even from small depots, four or five companies must use five different vehicles, which is uneconomic and must be contrary to the public interest. These people have suggested that they should be allowed to use neutral vehicles which can be used by all the companies concerned.

Are you referring to road tankers?

Yes. Surely if one tanker can do the work for four or five companies it would be wrong to insist that they should now use five vehicles to do the work of one vehicle. It adds expense to their working and to the wear and tear on our roads. It is unnecessary and uneconomic. Therefore I hope the Minister and his Department will watch the evidence that comes before the Marais Commission on simple matters like this, where immediate action can be taken to remove what is probably an oversight but which gives the impression of stupidity. Surely the Minister and his Department can act forthwith and not wait for the Commission to report.

I think the time has come for the Minister to tell the public what his future plans are in regard to our national roads. I do not want to go into detail because I know there are some hon. members who would like to canvass the matter with the Minister extensively. But it is common cause that much of our national road system, constructed from 1936, is completely out of date, particularly some of the older roads, and that they are utterly inadequate and dangerous. We have had experts testifying that many of our national roads have become death-traps. I myself over the week-end travelled over the National Road to Port Elizabeth, but only as far as Riversdale and back, and having become used to the more modern national roads I was surprised to find how narrow and tortuous and dangerous this road is in many places. The road surfaces of these old roads are still fairly good and there is the temptation to speed in modern motor-cars beyond the capacity of the roads. What are the future plans of the Minister? Coupled with this, although I do not want to go into it deeply, is the question of freeways and roads with limited access. Surely the time has come when there should be a general new approach and a dynamic and imaginative plan for the reconstruction of the older roads and for more modern plans for the new roads.

I notice that the Department pays a subsidy of R500,000 a year for the elimination of level crossings. I was gratified to notice that we are eliminating level crossings on our roads at the rate of 22 a year. But is the Minister satisfied that this is fast enough, that enough money is being spent and that enough of our labour resources are being devoted to the elimination of these death-traps? We were all shocked in June when we read about a level crossing accident near Potgietersrus, where a bus containing some 60 passengers was dragged along by a train for hundreds of yards and 6 people were killed and many injured. One does not expect these things to happen. To-day with faster roads and more trains, particularly goods trains on our railways, surely the time has come that we should go a little faster in removing these death-traps. I think the country will be grateful if the Minister will give us a progress report in regard to this matter and also an indication of what can be done to speed up the elimination of level crossings.

Some years ago I made a suggestion that the trains on our railways should be asked by the Minister of Transport to do what articulated road vehicles have to do, and that is to have reflectors on the sides of the trucks and coaches. I speak from experience which we must all share when I say it is very frightening when you go along an unknown road and you suddenly find yourself faced with a level crossing over which a long goods train of some 60 trucks is moving and which is invisible until you are almost on top of it, whereas if we could have reflectors on the sides of these railway trucks they would be visible over a much longer distance and it would contribute much towards greater safety at these unprotected level crossings. I was interested to see how many other organizations now support this idea. I have read about it in the magazine The Open Road and I have seen industrialists pleading for it. I cannot believe that it can be terribly expensive. Every motor-car owner to-day has to fit reflectors and articulated vehicles have to fit reflectors on the sides, and I fail to see why there should not be reflectors on the trains. Is it too much to expect for the Minister of Transport to have a talk to the Minister of Railways about fixing reflectors on the sides of his trains?

I have not only talked to the Minister of Railways, but we have been examining the matter for several years.

I am glad the Minister is in touch with his colleague and I hope that these talks will not be fruitless. I cannot imagine anything more futile than that two Ministers should have talks with each other without anything happening. I also want the Minister to tell us something more about the present policy of allowing the delivery of coal by road by private enterprise. There seems to be some confusion in the minds of the public as to whether it is the intention that relaxation of the Act to permit the delivery of coal by road is to be a permanent feature or not.

Yes.

Then I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that this will be healthy under present circumstances because the delivery of coal by heavy trucks is ruining our roads. Is it right for us to anticipate the construction of new roads which can carry these heavy loads, or should we wait until the roads have been completed before we make this a permanent feature of our economy? Secondly, is it right that the consumer’s levy will become permanent? Is it the intention that the consumer’s levy which is paid by the consumers of coal should become a permanent feature of our life? I am worried about it because the S.A. Railways have a tremendous advantage over these private hauliers. If you look at the amount of money paid by. the motorist and the private haulier in taxation, it is a staggering figure. I saw somewhere that for the maintenance of the roads alone, private enterprise, motorists and the owners of other vehicles, pay about R110,000,000 a year, and our road construction only costs about R100,000,000 a year. I do not want to be bound by these figures, but the point I want to make is that high taxes are paid by these private hauliers, whereas the S.A. Railways which also uses our roads pays, no taxes at all. So any comparison of costs and of efficiency between the two systems would be unfair. Therefore, whereas the Railways cannot cope with the coal traffic to-day and, contrary to their policy in other directions, they need the help and support of the private haulier, is it fair that the consumer who is forced to use a more expensive form of transport has to continue to pay a levy like this? I should like the Minister, to give us a statement on his policy.

I am not responsible for the levy; it is the Minister of Economic Affairs.

It is so difficult to have a Cabinet which does not accept Cabinet responsibility. I will raise it under another heading, but I would still like to hear what the Minister’s policy is in regard to this matter. Is that to be a precedent, or can we look forward to further relaxations of the monopoly of the Railways? Or will those relaxations only come when the Railways are in difficulties, or will some of them be made in the true interests of the public? I am curious, and perhaps this Minister can help me here. While these private hauliers have to convey coal, why are they penalized? They are doing a job the Railways cannot do. I understand that many users of coal have managed in the past to hire sites near stations where the coal can be dumped. I understand that the private hauliers have been prohibited from doing this.

I have given instructions that the status quo must be maintained.

I am glad to hear that. Sir, here I need your guidance and also that of the Minister. When the Railways needs private vehicles to deliver goods in the cities, where their cartage service cannot cope, I take it that exemptions are necessary?

No, we have a cartage levy.

So it would not be proper to discuss with the Minister here the more efficient delivery of goods?

That falls under the Railways.

What I want to ask the Minister is what progress is being made in regard to night deliveries. The situation in cities like Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban is one of drastic congestion, which is becoming such a problem that it is giving people grey hairs. It is becoming apparent all over the world to-day that a thriving business community and a thriving industrial community can generate so much business requiring so much transport of goods that the roads normally simply cannot cope, and you have this continuous snarl of traffic. Cape Town is very fortunate with its remarkable system of freeways in which it is leading South Africa, but when you come nearer to the centre of the city you find congestion which at times is unnerving. The result is that the Railways have great difficulty in effecting deliveries of goods in their possession and there is a tremendous waste of time and severe embarrassment to the city authorities. You often get trucks with three trailers which are obstructions in themselves. Somewhere there should be a solution for all this. I am wondering whether the Minister of Transport cannot use his influence with the municipalities and with the Railways to bring about a system whereby private enterprise, and particularly people who take delivery of huge quantities of goods, take delivery at night.

It does not fall under this Vote, but I am quite prepared to do my best.

It is not only the Railways which are concerned but all other forms of transport. The free movement of transport in the cities is involved. I do not think the Minister should only consult the other parties, but he should also bring a little pressure to bear. I know it is very difficult for private enterprise to have staff available at night to take delivery, but the situation is developing in the cities where unless something like this is done it will be impossible to effect deliveries at all. [Interjection.] If after proper negotiation it is not possible for the Minister to find a solution, legislation will become necessary. I think that is inevitable because the cities are becoming over-congested; anybody with experience will confirm this. I think the Minister can be assured of the sympathy of the Opposition if he has to take action in this regard.

Now I should like to ask the Minister something about Jan Smuts Airport. Is it really necessary for us to wait until 1972 for the completion of the new airport? That seems to be a very long time. Apart from that, what can be done to improve the land link between Jan Smuts and the City of Johannesburg? It would be trite for me to point out that it now takes as long from Jan Smuts to Johannesburg as it does to fly from Johannesburg to Durban. I have seen suggestions that the Minister should consider constructing a monorail between Jan Smuts and Johannesburg. It was done in Japan, but I understand the cost would be prohibitive.

It has not been a success in Japan.

I was prepared to eliminate it on the grounds of cost. But there is a good railway line from Johannesburg to Kempton Park. Is it not possible to build a short line to go underground to Jan Smuts and to have special express trains? If it is not absolutely necessary to-day, I think it will be to-morrow. It is time to plan now because the traffic between Johannesburg and Jan Smuts is developing fast and is becoming a problem to the authorities. Something should be done timeously to meet this problem which will become even more acute in the future. It is of course the biggest passenger port in the country. I have been told that more people enter and leave South Africa at Jan Smuts than in all the harbours of our country. Therefore I feel that there should be fast traffic between Jan Smuts and Johannesburg. The matter needs serious consideration and I should like to know what the Minister has to say on the matter.

Then I want to raise another question. I see the Minister is paying over R8,800,000 to the Railways for the transport of Bantu passengers under the guaranteed line system. Has the Minister investigated what other forms of transport can be efficiently used to transport these people, and if so, what have they found? It seems strange that the Railways should be carrying the major burden of this, and the lines to stations like Soweto are becoming over-burdened, as the Minister knows. I have seen suggestions that a different signalling system should be tried in order to have more trains running on that line. I have seen how many trains run on those lines every hour. The figures are quite frightening. We have referred to this matter in other debates and I do not want to return to it, except to ask the Minister what the plans of his Department are for the future. Will more Railway transport be encouraged or will there be more alternative forms of public transport for these areas?

Then I want to raise one matter in regard to the new Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, namely the administration and implementation of the provisions in that Act. One cannot at this stage of the proceedings discuss the Act itself nor criticize the legislation itself. It is a pity, because I would have liked to do that. Is the Minister quite happy about the people who are being appointed as agents for the issuing of third-party insurance. In the month of May, I had a strange experience. I went into a barbers shop and found that I was being canvassed for the renewal of my third-party insurance. I saw charities undertaking the renewal of third-party insurance. Road houses were renewing third-party insurance. There is something wrong. Surely it was not the intention of the Minister under this Act, and surely it was not the intention of Parliament when this Act was passed, that people who have no connection with insurance organizations should be doing the work that is normally the work of the insurance companies? Then there is the question of disks. What guarantee has one that barber’s shops and road houses are really fit to administer something as complicated as motor vehicle insurance? I should like the Minister to give us some reply to-day on this Vote, in regard to the workings of this Act, and to tell us whether he feels that the administrative aspects of this Act are satisfactory. It is a most profitable business, Sir. When the motor vehicle insurance work was done in South Africa by some 60 insurance companies, the business was thinly distributed and they were not keen on it. Now that it is limited to 11 or 12 companies—and I am not criticizing this; it is a fact—it has become a most lucrative business with an assured commission of 20 per cent, very little expense and no risk whatsoever. Is the Minister satisfied that all odds and sods should be appointed as agents for the issuing of insurance, disks and licences? The time has come for the Minister to take this into consideration, and to tell us what his views are. I think, Mr. Chairman, I have given the Minister a little entrée in this debate in regard to the matters in which we are interested.

Are you also becoming a chef?

No. I would become a chef, Sir, only if I thought I could cook the hon. the Minister’s goose for him. I find the Department of Transport one of the most interesting we have in our Government organization. I find it an efficiently managed department. I think the Minister should be very proud of the staff in that department. I think they have a very difficult task in managing and co-ordinating the tremendous transport system of a developing country like South Africa. I think, Sir, they must often be embarrassed because of the tremendous consideration they have to give—almost disproportionate consideration—to one form of transport, which happens to be owned by the State. I believe that the debate on the Transport Vote should be an occasion which the Minister should welcome in order to inform the public about plans to overcome the problems that arise in our national transport system. Therefore I have put these questions to give the Minister and his Department an opportunity to take the public into their confidence. I can assure him that other members on this side of the House will adopt a similar attitude. We will be critical, when necessary, but we also want the public to know about the workings of this very important department.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville has adopted a very reasonable attitude here. I want to agree with him that this department is a very interesting one. The hon. member asked the hon. the Minister quite a few questions and I do not think it is necessary for me to react to those questions. But he mentioned, inter alia, the problems being experienced by private hauliers at present. I also want to bring a matter in connection with private hauliers to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned about the enormous proportions unauthorized transport has assumed throughout the Republic of South Africa to-day. When I speak of unauthorized transportation, I am referring to transportation undertaken by road-hauliers without their being in possession of the necessary permit or exemption. I think it will surprise us to know what an enormous tonnage of goods is transported unlawfully in South Africa to-day. One finds an indication of that in the statistics which are available in the latest report of the Department of Transport and of the National Transport Commission. During the period 1st April, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, transport inspectors inspected 5,000 more vehicles than in the previous year; 11,085 warnings were issued, 4,136 prosecutions were instituted and R50,589 was collected in fines. The attitude adopted by the Department in respect of these matters is reflected on page 16 of the report I have mentioned. According to instructions issued to the transport inspectors they act in the following manner—

These statistics do not really reflect the true state of affairs. There are only approximately 50 inspectors in this division of the Department who operate throughout the Republic and therefore they can only take action against this pirate transport very sporadically. I want to point out that the Railways at this very moment are experiencing a decrease in high-rated traffic and that this type of unlawful transport affects the revenue of the national transport system very adversely.

I also want to point out that considerable concessions have been made since October, 1964, in respect of private transport services. The exempted areas in urban complexes have been extended to a large degree. Control over the transport of certain goods has been relaxed to a very large extent. During the past year 10,000 more applications for annual and temporary exemptions were approved by the road transportation boards. Exemptions were granted in respect of no fewer than 62,000 vehicles. In spite of all these concessions which were made in respect of private transport there has been a tremendous increase in such unauthorized transport throughout the country.

I now want to ask: “Has the time not arrived for taking stricter action against these offenders in the interests of the national transport services? Is it not possible for action to be taken not only against the hauliers who carry out pirate transportation, but also against those people who make use of it? Is the Minister not empowered to take action also against bodies and persons who wilfully make use of such unauthorized transport?” It is not fair that the haulier who undertakes the unauthorized transportation should be the only one to be punished. The other people who are so keen to make use of unauthorized transport should also be punished. I am concerned about this aspect and I want to submit it to the Minister for his consideration.

In the second place, I want to ask the Minister whether he perhaps intends to give consideration to the establishment of a central traffic bureau. The Deputy Minister recently made a speech at Bellville. The deductions I made from that speech were that the Minister was thinking in that direction. To-day I want to put on record here that there is a real need for anything which would lead to more central control over road traffic, and to more uniformity in traffic laws, traffic penalties and fines. If the Minister is thinking in this direction, namely the establishment of a central traffic bureau, something about which there have long been speculations, he will receive our wholehearted support.

The third matter I want to mention to the hon. the Minister is the 70 miles per hour speed limit. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the provincial authorities intend to introduce a speed limit of 70 miles per hour on all roads, i.e. on national roads as well, as from the beginning of next year. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot intervene to prevent or delay this step, in order to obtain more unanimity about the question whether this attempt which will be made will in fact achieve its purpose. I am asking this question because I am not sure whether there are sufficient facts and sufficient reason to justify this measure being taken. I am asking this question because I am not sure that sufficient attention has been given to this matter and that this aspect has been thrashed out properly. The purpose of this measure to introduce speed limits on national roads is to promote road safety and to prevent accidents. I do not know whether we are going to achieve those aims with these measures. In expressing doubt here as to whether this matter has been thrashed out sufficiently, Sir, I want to tell you that a few years ago the provincial authorities were obsessed with the idea that all motor vehicles should have safety-belts. They immediately wanted to make provision for that by way of legislation. Eventually representations were made and the matter was kept in abeyance. To-day those authorities have cooled off a great deal in respect of this matter. I think that further consideration should first be given to this matter of introducing a speed limit of 70 miles per hour. I am afraid that a speed limit of 70 miles per hour on national roads will only make a very small contribution towards preventing road accidents. What I am more afraid of is that this speed limit would only degenerate into an outrageous process of exploiting motorists.

Sir, we have experience of traffic fines with a view to financing budgets. That is something which has assumed scandalous proportions in this country. It is very late in the day—and I merely want to refer to this in passing—if ordinary municipalities these days collect from R80,000 to R100,000 in respect of traffic fines in one year. I want to remove any doubt there may be. I am not talking about my own municipality, but we cannot allow this matter to go any further. We are all road safety conscious. However, we are not quite convinced that some bodies and persons who profess to be aiming at promoting road safety are applying the best and the most effective methods for achieving that aim. Basic things which should be done to promote road safety and to prevent accidents are not always done first. I can give you examples, Sir, but the time allotted to me will not allow me to do so. I want to say that I have a high regard for the work being done by traffic inspectors. They are people who often have to perform a thankless task. They act under instructions but advantage is often taken of them. I do not believe that we are seeing road safety and the prevention of accidents in the right perspective. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Parow dealt with a number of subjects under this Vote. The last with which he dealt was the 70 m.p.h. speed limit that is now going to be applied throughout the Republic. A lot of thought has been given to the question whether a speed limit should be imposed or not. With the very high accident ratio we have in our country the powers that be felt that some limit should be imposed. Personally I feel that such a speed limit will not reduce our accident ratio because you can have an accident even at 10 m.p.h. A lot depends upon the driver. I should, however, like the Minister to give this new speed limit a trial. But it is of little use having a speed limit if it cannot be applied. It will be like it was in the old days when cigarettes were sold everywhere on Sundays although forbidden by law. Therefore, if this new limit cannot be policed adequately it will be abused to such an extent that we might be faced with a further increase in our accident ratio.

I want to say something about our national roads. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, we have a commission appointed by the Minister sitting at present. Its terms of reference are wide but whether the commission will report on national roads is a matter between it and the Minister. Part of its terms of reference read: “Any other matter which the Minister of Transport may refer to the Commission”, However, it is interesting to note that the Minister himself has said during 1963-4 that our national road system was completely out of date. I would say, like the hon. member for Yeoville, that we have come to the crossroads to-day in so far as road development plans are concerned. In this connection it is interesting to read the report of the Chief Engineer when he addressed the Road Federation in 1965. On that occasion he gave a complete survey of our road position in this country to-day. It reads like a blueprint for future planning of our national roads. He made no bones about the position. We over the years have clamoured for black-topped roads. These we have got. Demands made on highways have expanded beyond the wildest expectations. When we started building our national roads we did not have any idea of the measure of this expansion. As a result our system of national roads is out of date and they have to be reconstructed completely. What is more, we have reached the age of the free way. We are seeing it all over the world, these giant free ways that are being constructed. It is interesting to note what the Chief Engineer said in the paper to which I have already referred, in this connection. He said—

He also pointed out that when our roads were built originally they cost about R30,000 per mile. To build a free way to-day costs about R300,000 per mile.

He also referred in his paper to the wasteful influence of the control of our road system. There are various authorities controlling roads. In the Cape, for instance, we have local authorities, Divisional Councils, the Provincial Council and the Road Transport Commission. In this paper the Chief Engineer said the following about this aspect—

So, notwithstanding the fact that the Transport Commission paid 100 per cent of the charges, there were still delays, delays which proved costly. The Engineer of the Transport Commission felt that we had now reached the stage where we should have a new road authority. I am inclined to agree with him. I think we should approach this matter on a much bigger scale than we have done hitherto. You will remember, Sir, that when national roads were first mooted, there was considerable opposition to the method of applying moneys collected from the motorists in licence and petrol taxes. Now we have reached the stage where this whole position should be reviewed. If we look at the Minister’s Vote we will notice that an amount of R44,000,000 is exceeded to come from the motorist in the form of indirect taxation, moneys which will go to the national road fund. On every gallon of petrol a motorist buys, he pays indirectly 14c in taxation. But with this new freeway concept coming about the motorist cannot be expected to carry the full burden and the Minister will have to go to the Minister of Finance to find the extra money. I think it will be wrong to place a further burden on the motorists at this stage in order to pay for these expensive free ways. The money, however, has to be found. Therefore I feel that the Minister will have to go to the Minister of Finance. I think there should be a more even spread of taxation.

But to construct free ways and roads, staff is required. In this connection it is disturbing to read the report of the Department of Transport for 1965. On page 19 thereof the shortage of technical staff is dealt with. The Engineer of the Department in his address already referred to also made mention of this fact. The shortage has reached a very serious stage. The position is that the salaries of these technicians and engineers are linked to certain Government-fixed scales. It is something that the Government will have to give very serious attention to if they want to retain their technicians. The position is now that technicians and engineers leave the Department and join other concerns and the Government has to consult with the concerns and to pay very much more for those services. Time limit.

We find an interesting anomaly in the way in which the Opposition is acting to-day. The hon. member for Salt River just gave another interesting example of that when he insisted on more services being provided. He said that it was not fair that the South African motorist should bear the expenses and he said that the hon. the Minister of Transport should consult with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and should obtain more funds for increased expenditure. This we hear after they talked for days against increased expenditure by the authorities. How can one reconcile these two ideas?

You do not understand it.

What I do understand is that when a person blows hot and cold he cannot understand himself.

However, I want to proceed to another topic, and I leave the hon. member there. Il is my unpleasant duty to refer once more to the alarming proportions being assumed by accidents on the roads in South Africa. It is necessary to quote a number of figures to stress the seriousness of this matter once again. In the Second World War, from 1939 to 1945, a war which lasted approximately six years, 23,269 South Africans were either killed or wounded, and if one compares that with the dreaded disease, poliomyelitis, also over a period of six years, from 1954 to 1960, one finds that 6,136 cases were reported, 600 of which were fatal, but when we come to road accidents we find that the comparative figure for road accidents is shocking. If we once more take a period of six years, from 1958 to 1963, we find that 246,460 people were injured in accidents, of which number 19,717 received fatal injuries. These are alarming figures. If we analyse the statistics we find that it is mostly young people who are involved in accidents and we find that the cream of South Africa is slaughtered on our roads in motor accidents. For the sake of emphasis I just want to make one other comparison. If we take the period of 30 years from 1935 to 1964, we find that more than 49,000 people were killed in accidents, enough people to equal the number of people in a city such as East London. If we consider the fact that the accident rate increased by more than 400 per cent during those 30 years and that it is increasing by approximately 14.8 per cent per annum, we realize how serious the matter really is. Then there is still the material aspect of the matter. Various authorities calculate that the material loss to the country comes to an amount of between R50,000,000 and R100,000,000 per annum. This means that since 1935 we have lost approximately R2,500,000,000 as a result of road accidents.

In 1964, under Standing Order No. 25, I made an appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should assume more powers for combating and eradicating this evil, and on that occasion the hon. the Minister said the following, as reported in the Press (translation)—

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow the autonomy of the provinces and their sense of independence and jealousy in regard to any powers they may possess, to stand in the way of road safety in South Africa any longer. It is becoming absolutely essential that the hon. the Minister should assume more powers, and in this respect I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Parow, who pleaded for a central traffic bureau.

Investigations in the Western world have shown that approximately 85 per cent of all motor accidents are caused by only 35 per cent of the drivers. In his reply on that occasion the hon. the Minister also said that he was convinced that approximately 90 per cent of accidents in South Africa were caused by the human factor, and because this is so, it is necessary that the most important steps should first be taken in respect of the human factor. It is therefore essential that the human factor should receive the most attention, because it is responsible for at least 85 per cent of the accidents. For this reason we need a central bureau where all motor licences will be subject to review, where a record will be kept of every driver in South Africa, and, Mr. Chairman, the activities of that central bureau should be extended to include a periodic revision of licences. We have a fine example of licence control in South Africa in the case of the Department of Civil Aviation. There a pilot has to satisfy certain requirements from time to time. In order to retain his licence he has to satisfy certain health requirements from time to time; he must have the required number of flying hours over the year and must gain experience in order to be able to retain his licence. But in practice it happens that a driver of a motor vehicle may develop some ailment which makes him totally unfit to drive a motor vehicle, and yet there is no manner in which and measure whereby such a person may be deprived of his licence if the matter is not brought to light or if he is not involved in an accident as a result of which it is revealed. To-day it can happen that a person may develop one of numerous ailments which makes him totally unfit to drive a motor-car. Through this central bureau a medical test should also be introduced. This bureau must be a central bureau which is not administered on a provincial basis as that would frustrate its entire purpose. As long as separate statistics and separate control over licences and the issuing of licences exist in each province, it is possible in practice for various offences to occur and to continue for many years before anyone finds out about them. It can happen in practice to-day that I take out a driver’s licence in the Cape Province and that it is suspended in some way or another, and that I then take out a driver’s licence in another province and if that does not come to light by chance the position that I hold a licence in another province while I am not allowed to drive in the Cape may continue for many years. For this reason we need a central bureau from which control over motor licences and all related matters will be exercised on a national basis. Then we may perhaps introduce a points system on the same basis as that on which certain insurance companies to-day load their policies. Those persons who are the guilty ones, the 35 per cent that cause 85 per cent of the accidents, can then be pinned down and a points system may be made applicable to them and when they have committed a certain number of offences they should simply not be allowed to drive a motor vehicle in South Africa. The direction which we should take is to record offences against their names and to have everything on record and to endorse anything in which such persons have been involved against their licences in a central bureau, and also to make it compulsory to endorse their drivers’ licences which they carry with them. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Middelburg dealt with the question of road safety and has made certain suggestions to the hon. the Minister. Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House also are very concerned and view with alarm the continued increase in the serious accident rate that takes place on the South African roads. On this particular Vote we are asked to vote R250,000 for the Road Safety Council and we feel that this is an opportunity to put forward certain views and certain aspects in regard to road safety. The hon. member dealt with the alarming figures, and it certainly is a fact that when one studies these figures and realizes the enormous loss of life and the enormous damage caused on our roads, one feels very alarmed indeed. You know, Sir, that our fatal accident rate has now reached 5,000 deaths per year on the South African roads and the material loss is estimated at R60,000,000 as far as damage and repairs are concerned. The point is to try and ascertain whether more efforts cannot be directed towards road safety, also whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that everything possible is being done to try and reduce the incidence of road accidents, and whether the results that are being achieved are commensurate with the money that is being spent on road safety. I think that this important aspect also has a great deal of bearing on the new national roads that are being built in an endeavour to try and eliminate certain failings of the past and outdated and outmoded designs and techniques of road construction, The question is whether we can achieve a decrease in the accident rate by ensuring that the new national roads wherever possible eliminate certain bad features of the roads which, as I mentioned earlier, have now become inadequate and outdated for modern high speed traffic.

Mr. Chairman, the new approach as far as new vehicles are concerned is to attain higher speeds; the erection and establishment of new national roads is also aimed at bringing about higher speed, and I think that the experiment of a 70 mile per hour speed limit is one that is well worth trying. We know that in the United Kingdom such an experiment is presently under way and also their conditions and their roads are perhaps not comparable with the conditions in South Africa, but it is interesting to note that they have discovered that there has been a decrease in the number of serious accidents since they have imposed a 70 mile per hour speed limit. As a matter of fact they claim that there has been a decrease of 16 per cent on the motorways and a 7 per cent decrease on other national roads. Therefore I think it is a worthwhile experiment, and the inter-provincial advisory board in regard to road traffic legislation would perhaps be wise to give this experiment a trial in South Africa. One can see that there will be several administrative difficulties, but if it is possible to have a greater number of traffic control officers on duty on the roads, in addition to the introduction of a 70 mile per hour speed limit, it may perhaps act as a deterrent to those persons who travel at dangerous speeds at times, so that when an accident occurs it undoubtedly usually is fatal and results in death at such a high speed.

There are other items which affect the safety of the road user and it is not altogether the human element that is at fault. We know that the double carriageways that are established are an elimination of a certain danger as far as head-on collisions are concerned and they also do prevent a certain number of serious accidents taking place. We know that it is a very costly and expensive method of construction and naturally a high road count has to take place before a double carriageway can be justified.

However, Sir, I think that wherever possible we should endeavour to eliminate dangerous intersections on some of our existing national roads. Financially it is not possible to replace all the existing national roads with new roads. But I believe that the first step towards reducing the accident rate is to reduce the number of danger spots that exist on our existing national roads. I think that here a careful check should be kept in regard to the frequency of accidents that occur at these various danger spots. We know that the elimination of a level crossing is the elimination of a road hazard. Similarly, Sir, if a count can be kept of accidents at spots which can be classified as danger spots, it should be possible without a great deal of expenditure to eliminate some of those danger spots. I have in mind for instance certain intersections and arterial roads that join link roads where these intersections can be staggered so as to prevent further accidents occurring at those points. I believe, Sir, that the research that is necessary to go into this whole aspect of eliminating danger spots should be given a high priority with a view to the reduction of the incidence of road accidents. The various motoring organizations, such as the Automobile Association, have made very strong representations to this effect. Now, in the United States of America they also have a large number of road accidents, and there they have been able, by employing a system aimed at the eradication of danger spots, to keep their ratio of accidents figure down to a reasonable level and a reasonable percentage. On the other hand, we find that in comparison that ratio is very high in South Africa indeed. Certain other factors definitely constitute road hazards, such as the use of heavy vehicles. Many of these heavy vehicles are poorly lit, and many accidents have been caused because of these heavy vehicles obstructing traffic and persons having to take chances. I believe. Sir, that it should be compulsory for heavy vehicles over a certain tonnage to have a flashing light, so that at night they can be clearly seen by approaching motorists. Similarly the heavy diesel vehicles which emit a large amount of black smoke, resulting in reduced vision because of the fact that the smoke is emitted on the right-hand side of the vehicle, should be compelled by legislation to have their exhausts so fitted that the black smoke is emitted vertically into the sky, thereby reducing the vision danger which occurs as far as these vehicles are concerned.

Now, Mr. Chairman, certain representations have been made by organizations such as the Automobile Association—which I mentioned before—which I think warrant the attention of the hon. the Minister of Transport. In the president’s latest address—that of June, 1966—the suggestion was made that a special Parliamentary committee should be established to consider the whole aspect of road safety. This committee should take into account whether the present position and system of road safety are satisfactory, whether more effective steps should be taken to reduce the accident ratio; consider evidence from numerous organizations who are interested in this problem; consider the experts’ advice—and a large number of experts have given their views as to how the accident rate can be reduced; and also what part the Central Government should play in granting greater assistance—including, if necessary, the voting of larger funds—to organizations who are investigating and doing research in regard to the question of road safety.

As far as the human element is concerned, numerous ideas and suggestions have been put forward by a large number of organizations relating to stricter driving licence tests and items of that nature. It has also been suggested that learners’ driving licences should be granted at a younger age—some suggest 16 years, others 17 years—so that when the driver reaches the age of 18 years he is then more experienced and has a greater sense of responsibility when in charge of a motor vehicle which often contains many passengers whose lives are in his hands. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few observations in connection with and in the interests of civil aviation under this Vote. In this instance we are dealing with something which has developed in the course of time, and especially in the recent past, into an undertaking which may be regarded as an integral part of both our transport and our commerce and industries in this country. We need only refer to services rendered in connection with our industries by civil aviation private companies in connection with the Orange River scheme in South West Africa as well as in the Transvaal Lowveld. I think that commerce and industry in this country will be affected adversely if we do not take positive and progressive action in connection with certain problems which may be experienced by civil aviation.

In another connection as well the services of this industry have already become important in the Republic. We are thinking, for example, of the training of commercial pilots and better equipping them to take up appointments in the South African Airways, for instance. There are also the services rendered by them in connection with emergencies. They render services in cases of sickness by conveying patients to better equipped medical centres where better medical treatment and care are available to such patients. They also provide an excellent feeder service to the South African Airways as far as passengers, freight and mail are concerned. There are already parts of our country where these services have developed to such an extent that they actually serve as a very important and regular feeder service to the South African Airways. However, there are certain problems to which we should like to see attention being given and in respect of which we are making an appeal to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. This service also makes a very important contribution to the country’s youngest industry, namely tourism, in the form of reservation services and, generally, by way of publicizing places worth visiting in the Republic. But we have found that as regards the supply of aviation fuel, civil aviation is not treated on the same basis in every respect as other concerns which may be able to obtain this essential requirement of the industry more profitably. I want to make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister that this whole aspect should be investigated very thoroughly to see whether positive action cannot be taken in the interests of our civil aviation. You know, Mr. Chairman, that in the times in which we are living, this network of services may also become very important and may be exploited very fruitfully in times of crises. I think it is in the national interest that we should never turn our backs on this industry but on the contrary should do everything we can to expand and develop it further, also with a view to possible assistance which we may be able to obtain in this connection during times of crisis. It is already happening to-day that civil aviation renders assistance to Government Departments in certain centres. I am thinking for instance of the Police Force, of the Department of Defence, and of the Department of Bantu Administration. We are aware that such services are being and have been rendered to these Departments. I think that all these things justify a very thorough investigation into this aspect and into this matter. I should very much like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in this connection.

In the second instance, Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a somewhat more contentious matter. I hope that you will not rule me out of order. We see in the Estimates that a certain amount of money is being provided under this Vote for the purchase of aircraft and motor vehicles for our Ministers. We recently read in the Press that one of the great Western powers—just as on a previous occasion—has prohibited the export of aircraft spare parts to the Republic via a well-disposed and friendly country. I personally hold the view, and I was brought up in this way and my parents taught me, that, in the words of N. P. Van Wyk Louw, it is only a dog that can lick the hand of one who hits him. I want to make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister and to the Department concerned that as regards future orders for similar vehicles, consideration should be given to countries on the continent of Europe and that this attitude, an attitude which is unsympathetic if not hostile, should duly be taken into account in placing orders and when the funds appropriated under this Vote are spent. I want to say in no uncertain terms that I am referring to the attitude recently adopted by America as regards a ban on the exportation of certain ammunition and spare parts for aircraft from that country to the Republic. According to an arrangement of that state these things are not to be exported to South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Randburg immediately that I shall instruct the Department to consider his proposals to see whether any further assistance can be granted to civil aviation, as he suggested here.

I was delighted that this very important matter of road safety was raised here this afternoon by so many members on both sides of the House. It is a matter about which everybody in this country should feel deeply concerned. After everything that has been done in the past years to promote road safety in South Africa and to reduce the number of accidents on our roads, and although it seems at the moment as though we …

Order! The hon. member for Carletonville must put away his newspaper.

I was saying, Sir, that it seems as though we have to a certain extent succeeded in curbing this problem, in keeping it within limits. In spite of everything that has been done in the past in respect of safe roads and everything that is being done by the S.A. Road Safety Council for the promotion of road safety in South Africa, we have not succeeded in reducing the number of accidents to any appreciable extent. Just think of all the money which is actually being spent every year to promote road safety; just think of the fact that the construction and maintenance of our roads in South Africa alone costs R120,000,000 per annum. If one considers that the traffic officers employed by the provincial administrations and the municipalities are costing South Africa R9,250,000 per annum, if one considers that the S.A. Road Safety Council receives an annual income of R500,000 from the authorities, it is truly alarming that road accidents still occur to the extent they do. And then I have not even mentioned the cost of the S.A. Police, which also has to be on the alert for dangerous offences, the services rendered by schools as far as instruction is concerned and the time and space devoted to road safety on the radio and in the Press. A great deal of time and money is indeed being devoted to the promotion of road safety in South Africa at present. But in spite of what is being done and what has been done, the road accident rate in the country is and remains much higher than in most other countries of the world. Even if it is true that we have succeeded in starting to force the road accident rate down, our rate still remains alarmingly high. If we compare this rate with that of other countries, we notice that South Africa’s accident rate is among the highest in the world. If we take the statistics for 1963, we find that South Africa’s accident death rate was 34.7 per 10,000 registered motor vehicles, while the rate in England was only 6.3, in the United States of America only 5.3 and in Canada only 6.9. However, for the purposes of comparison one cannot find a more significant manner in which road accident rates can be calculated than doing so in terms of the exposure factor, i.e. the number of vehicle miles performed. If we use this criterion, we find that the United States of America registered 14.40 accidents (fatal, serious and minor) per 1,000,000 vehicle miles performed, as against 10.71 accidents per 1,000,000 vehicle miles in South Africa. That does in fact reflect fewer accidents in South Africa, but if we compare fatal accidents, we find that South Africa’s smaller number of accidents included more fatal accidents, viz. .35 per 1,000,000 vehicle miles performed as against only .05 in the U.S.A. In other words, the fatal accidents on the roads in South Africa were approximately seven times as many as in the U.S.A, in the same period.

Can you perhaps give us an indication later as to how the vehicle rate is calculated? Is it an estimate or an actual calculation?

Yes, later. I say that this matter is a very serious one; it is a matter which threatens our national existence in this country like a canker. What is the significance of these statistics to the people and to society? We can calculate material losses in terms of concrete figures, but can we calculate grief, pain and sorrow, disruption of the personal lives of people, the disruption of the family life of people, in terms of money or other figures? It is not only the mortality rate and the material loss which are alarming; the tremendous burden caused by serious injuries should also be borne in mind. The hon. member for Middelburg made estimates of what road accidents in South Africa are costing us materially. I do not want to go into that again. I only want to say that in 1965 5,315 persons were killed and 47,403 persons were injured on our roads and in our streets; that means a daily average of 14 killed and 130 injured. This state of affairs simply cannot continue indefinitely; we cannot allow it to continue. We should at least try to bring the road accident rate down to a more reasonable and less serious level. In that respect I am in agreement with the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) that it is time that we in South Africa adopted a new approach in respect of this question as a whole. Should we not approach it from an entirely new angle and attack it on an entirely new front? What I find alarming is that prominent researchers in England have pointed out that if we applied the already known facts in regard to the problem of road accidents without delay and purposefully, the road accident rate could be reduced by at least half. The serious question we should ask ourselves is this: Why are the known facts not applied by the authorities concerned, by everybody or person in the country that is capable of making a contribution in this regard, by all road users, who have already been thoroughly informed by the Road Safety Council in regard to every aspect of road safety? Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the good suggestions made here in regard to road safety by hon. members on both sides of the House. I must admit that I did not hear one new suggestion in regard to road safety, but I appreciate the spirit in which the suggestions were made—because hon. members are truly concerned about the position in regard to road accidents in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, you will recall that at a road safety week in Bellville recently I mentioned certain things with which we may make a start for the better promotion of road safety in the country, and I should like to repeat them for the sake of the record. One of them was mentioned here this afternoon by the hon. member for Parow, and that is the establishment of a central traffic bureau. I just want to mention them to you quickly and briefly: What I regard as the absolute basis for combating road accidents in South Africa are two things in particular. We must find a point from where we can make a start on a sound basis, on a sound footing, to combat road accidents in South Africa, and that is, in the first place, the establishment of road accident records. We must know exactly what the problem is. In this respect I do not only have mere figures in mind, but accident records including peak point maps which will give every authority a proper idea of the danger points and dangerous practices in the area under its control and which can therefore indicate where and how action should be taken in those areas. It is not only necessary that we should know the problem. The human factor is and remains the greatest cause of road accidents and that is why it is essential that we should establish a central register of licensed drivers of motor vehicles as soon as possible, and in respect of the matters I am mentioning here to-day I really want to appeal to the provincial administrations in the country to lend their co-operation in this regard. I want to make an earnest appeal to them. I think that they, just as this Committee, are convinced that we simply cannot allow the present situation in South Africa to continue. If one has a central register of licensed drivers of motor vehicles, more or less on the same basis as the criminal bureau of the S.A. Police, such a record can serve as a guide to the courts for imposing suitable penalties in cases of repeated contraventions of the traffic laws by the same person. The fact that a central register has not yet been established means that in many cases offenders cannot be punished properly.

The idea of a points system was also mentioned here by the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Middelburg. The records in respect of individual drivers which will have to be built up by means of the central register, should not only be made available to our courts, but also be used for a points system which ought to be introduced as was recommended by the Joubert Commission in 1958.

Is that the policy of the Department at present?

The hon. member should listen to me first. I said that I had mentioned these matters at the opening of a road safety week in Bellville and I should also like to bring it pointedly to the notice of the provincial administrations so that they may consider these matters and, where possible, cooperate in this regard so that we may effectively combat road accidents in South Africa. I went further and I expressed the conviction that there ought to be more effective punishments for people who cause road accidents. I do not want to go into that again, it appeared in the Press; I merely want to repeat it here. However, these should be punishments which the culprit would really feel, not merely fines but punishments such as the suspension and cancellation of drivers’ licences, the re-testing of drivers before a suspended or cancelled driver’s licence is re-issued; week-end imprisonment for extremely dangerous offences; the confiscation of motor-cars for a specified period according to the degree of seriousness of the offence; and corrective punishments such as compulsory attendance of schools for offenders. Mr. Chairman, a measure which will require urgent attention is the systematic elimination of danger points on our roads. It is my considered opinion that each province should single out a special unit to attend to the elimination of danger points, especially on the older roads, to which the hon. member for Yeoville also referred. Particular attention should be given to dangerous bends, narrow bridges and ineffective road signs. As far as our urban areas are concerned, I think that I am justified in appealing to our larger urban areas and the city councils which control them. It has been proved through research that in a city the period between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. is the most dangerous period of the day. That is the critical period during which most accidents occur in our urban areas. My appeal to the municipal authorities is to see to it that in all major cities enough traffic officers are placed on duty during these hours. The possibility of making provision for that ought to receive their urgent attention.

Why do you not help them financially?

That hon. member ought to know what financial assistance is already being granted to our urban areas, also in regard to their urban through-road schemes. I also want to emphasize another matter here, and that is in regard to uniformity in our municipal traffic by-laws. I am very glad that the provinces have now reached the stage where uniform road traffic ordinances are being placed on their statute books, but what is also essential is that there should be uniformity in respect of municipal traffic laws, because 50 per cent of our road accidents occur in our urban areas and I am convinced that many accidents occur as a result of. the confusion which exists in the public mind since certain municipal regulations which apply in one city do not apply in another. There is, for instance, the question of pedestrians, and many pedestrians are knocked down and killed in our cities. In Cape Town as well as in Pretoria pedestrians can cross the street anywhere, but in Johannesburg, in the city centre, they may only do so at pedestrian crossings.

One of the hon. members raised the matter of the allocation of traffic fines. I am convinced that the allocation of traffic fines to municipalities is a wrong principle altogether. The subsidizing of traffic control ought to be separated altogether from the revenue obtained from it, and the recommendation of the Road Safety Council that traffic fines should be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund ought to be carried into effect, so that traffic control may be subsidized quite independently of the revenue obtained from the imposition of traffic fines. If there is a matter about which one can feel really sad, it is that sometimes when one drives on very busy roads, with extremely heavy traffic, one sees very few traffic officers, and that while one is driving on those dangerous roads, traffic officers are being used in the city to fine people for trifling offences such as parking offences.

I also want to mention another matter for consideration by the provincial administrations, namely that our traffic officers should be trained effectively and should act uniformly throughout the country. They should be trained on a uniform basis. Early attention should therefore be given to the planning of a uniform system of training for traffic officers as well as the establishment of the necessary training facilities, even if it has to be done on a national basis if needs be. I think that as far as the work of traffic officers is concerned, there is a certain amount of overlapping. We probably all agree that it is desirable to increase the number of traffic officers to keep pace with the increase in traffic, but we immediately realize that the manpower shortage must necessarily be a restrictive factor. Therefore it is desirable that the existing manpower should be utilized as effectively as possible so that overlapping among the bodies and persons concerned with traffic control, viz. the S.A. Police, the provincial traffic police and the local traffic officers, may be eliminated. I am considering—and I should like to have the opinions of the provincial administrations in this regard—the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the possibility of placing all traffic officers under one central control. If the provincial administrations are hesitant, i.e. if it cannot be central control, the possibility can be investigated at the same time—we know what their objections are and were when the hon. the Minister wanted to introduce legislation in regard to road traffic a few years ago—of placing all traffic officers under provincial control.

Those are the matters I wanted to mention in regard to road safety. Hon. members will appreciate that I have only been able to study this matter for a few months and that from the nature of the case I have not yet finished thinking about the question of road accidents as a whole and the promotion of road safety, but I should like to assure hon. members today that this matter is very near to my heart. As a matter of fact, I think that if all hon. members were to begin making a study of this matter, they would discover how near this matter is to their hearts as well. I think that one and all of us, all authorities which are concerned in this, ought to give immediate attention to the matter so that an effective foundation may be laid on which we can build further. It will not be possible to eliminate road accidents immediately; as long as one has to contend with the human factor, accidents will probably always occur, but I think that it is our bounden duty towards South Africa that we should one and all assist in seeing to it that this extremely high accident rate in South Africa is at least reduced to an appreciable extent.

The hon. member for Yeoville wanted to know what the future planning was in regard to national roads. He pointed out that many of the roads are extremely dangerous. I agree with him.

Out-dated.

But I just want to point out to him that during the present year R44,000,000 is being spent on national roads alone. I should like to assure him that the Central Government is thoroughly aware of the requirements and the necessity of modern communications for meeting the needs of inter-provincial or long-distance traffic and the provision of safe, fast and economic traffic facilities. Since we became a Republic five years ago, the National Transport Commission has considerably accelerated the rate of development as far as our national roads are concerned. During the past five years alone, 570 miles of national roads has been tarred, which brings the total mileage of tarred national roads to some 5,209 miles. As a matter of policy the National Transport Commission has undertaken—not only in order to provide roads, but also in order to ensure safe roads—the gigantic task of developing the country’s national road system into a hundred per cent tarred road system on which high speed traffic can be carried with the greatest measure of safety over the long distances between our larger coastal cities and inland centres. Consequently all new national roads on new routes are being planned as through-roads from the outset. Since 1961, 100 miles of national double-carriage through-roads has been congested as well as some 135 miles of national single-carriage through-roads, and in addition 500 miles of double-carriage through-roads and 1,350 miles of single-carriage through-roads are being planned or are already under construction. If within the foreseeable future the Republic has a national road system in which there are 600 miles of doublecarriage through-roads and some 1,485 miles of single-carriage through-roads, it is by any standard an achievement of which the entire country can justly be proud.

When do you think that will be achieved?

Within the foreseeable future. The hon. member can work it out himself according to the rate. A moment ago I mentioned what had been done within a period of five years. Having regard to the fact that the cost of constructing a through-road in peri-urban areas amounts to between R400,000 and R500,000 per mile at present and that in urban areas it is even up to ten times that amount, as compared to construction costs of only R20,000 per mile for roads in the thirties, hon. members will realize that these through-roads cannot be constructed overnight. The construction must necessarily depend on the availability of funds in the Road Fund, and it should be borne in mind that the maintenance of existing roads entails enormous costs. I want to tell the hon. member that planning in regard to our national roads is not static; it is continually in progress. The restrictive factor is not lack of planning, but lack of money—the funds available to the National Transport Commission for constructing those roads.

Is there sufficient manpower?

No, it does of course depend on the manpower position as well.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the question of faster and more efficient transport which can be made available between Jan Smuts Airport and Pretoria. I just want to tell the hon. member that the Transport Commission has already made a contribution of R1.400,000 to enable the province to construct a double-carriage through-road to the airport. A great deal of progress has already been made in that regard.

Then the hon. member complained that certain companies in Cape Town were restricted to 30 miles as regards the transporting of their petrol. The hon. member must be aware of the fact that these petrol companies may lodge an application with the Road Transport Board concerned for permission to transport petrol over a longer distance. As far as we can establish, no such applications from petrol companies have been received to date.

Then he asked that they should rather use road tankers for transporting petrol, and that they should be allowed to co-operate with one another in using road tankers. Such a company is, of course, at liberty to apply for permission to transport petrol in road tankers.

Then the hon. member experienced problems in regard to the agents selling third party insurance. I just want to tell the hon. member that the companies do, of course, enter into an agreement with the agents. The agents only fill in the application forms of the public, provide the discs and collect the premiums, which have to be paid over to the company immediately. There is a proper agreement between the company and the agent, but the agent is not concerned with the reporting of accidents or the settlement of claims. The companies are responsible for that. Besides, re-insurance has been taken out in respect of cases where premiums are not paid over by agents.

In regard to railway crossings and speeding up the elimination thereof, I want to assure the hon. member that everything possible is being done in this regard. For that purpose a special fund has been established to which the various authorities contribute: R500,000 by Transport, R500,000 by the Railway Administration itself and R500,000 by the provinces. That is R1,500,000 per annum. But unfortunately accidents still occur there, in spite of the fact that good progress is being made with the work.

As regards the hon. member’s idea about reflectors on trains, I want to say that apart from the fact that it will entail tremendous expenditure for the Railways—it is a Railway matter, of course, and does not belong under this Vote—it will not really help much, since many of the trucks are covered with tarpaulins and then one cannot see the reflectors.

Then the hon. member inquired about means of transport for the Bantu other than by trains. There is an inter-departmental committee which is constantly investigating the transport of Bantu workers and making proposals to the Cabinet in regard to special railway lines and services which have to be introduced. Where train services are not yet available, the service is undertaken by means of buses, and it has worked reasonably well so far.

The hon. member for Parow spoke about unauthorized transportation by road hauliers. I agree with him. We are aware of that. This unlawful road transportation has assumed such proportions that it is our intention to introduce in the next session an amending Bill which will make provision for much heavier fines and in terms of which courts will be obliged to impose the maximum fine at a third offence. I think I have already replied to the matter he raised in regard to road safety and traffic congestion.

I want to tell the hon. member for Salt River that I agree that our national roads are out-dated. All the new national roads which are now being constructed are being constructed as limited access single-carriage roads and provision is being made for converting them into full four-carriage through-roads at a later stage. Roads around and near cities which carry a great deal of traffic are immediately constructed as four-carriage roads. The hon. member also complained that more money should be spent on national roads than the R44,000,000 which comes from the Road Fund. However. I just want to point out to him that a great deal of the money which is paid into the Road Fund is, of course, paid out by the Central Government in the form of subsidies to the provincial administrations and that that money is also used for the construction of roads.

I think I have replied to everything now.

I was very glad to hear the Deputy Minister tell the House how concerned he was with road safety. We hope that now that he has come into the Department to take over this work, we will see more action taken to control road accidents. We appreciate that it is a very difficult problem. He said that he had had no new suggestions from this side of the House as to how accidents could be avoided. I want to give him one hint. I think he will agree that a number of accidents are caused through impatience. Drivers are impatient and overtake the vehicle in front of them often on blind rises. He cannot stop people from overtaking, but I think the Department can do something else to avoid drivers becoming impatient. We have many cuttings and passes and more and more use is being made of the national roads by heavy transport. We find that drivers of fast vehicles get impatient when following a slow vehicle through these cuttings. I found that in Rhodesia they provide for lay-byes and it is compulsory for the slow vehicle to pull to the side of the road, and these lay-byes are provided every three miles or so. We do not have the same system here, but I want to recommend to the Deputy Minister that he get the Transport Commission to provide for lay-byes, especially through our passes, and to make it compulsory for the slower vehicle to move to the left as it goes up the mountain.

There is another point I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, and that is in regard to policing. We dealt with policing just now. What I cannot understand is why the traffic police were taken off the national roads in the Transkei. They were stationed at Umtata and patrolled the national roads from East London to Kokstad, but now they have been taken to Kokstad. which is now their depot, and we do not see them on the bottom road. The story is that the Province claims it is the duty of the Transkeian Government to look after that road. I submit that is quite wrong and that the Minister should see to it that the Province patrols that road. We have more and more unroadworthy vehicles on that national road and there are also many pirate taxis. I submit that the sooner the traffic police are put on that national road again, the better. We have enough hazards on that road as it is. The road is not fenced and there is always the hazard of animals on the road. I submit that we do not want to have the hazard of unroadworthy vehicles and reckless drivers and no traffic police at all on that road.

In regard to fencing, some time ago I was advised that this Department was consulting with the Provincial Administration and with the Transkeian Government, as well as the Bantu Affairs Department, in regard to the fencing of the roads in the Transkei. Anyone who has travelled on that road will confirm what I say, that the stock on that road are a terrible hazard. I had the experience, coming Hown to Cane Town for this session, where a horse strolled right in front of my car, seriously damaging it. We will have to come to some arrangement with the Transkeian Government or with the provincial authorities to see that the national road in the Transkei is properly fenced. I know there is the difficulty of dealing with the animals you find on the roads, but unless those animals are impounded they will continue to be there.

I would ask the Minister also what his plans are in regard to the building of a national road from Queenstown to Port St. Johns. In reply to the hon. member for Yeoville, the Minister stated that a certain amount was set aside for national roads, but the fund cannot be drawn on at will. But he will know that special provision was made for this road in the Estimates. Last year when I asked the Minister what the programme was, he said they were building the road departmentally from Engcobo to Baziya, but not onwards to Libode, and that they had appointed an engineer to map or relocate the road. I would like to know what has happened on that portion from Baziya to Libode and then down to Port St. Johns. It is most important that attention be given to this road. The Port St. Johns people find themselves in an isolated White spot in a Black area. The Transkeian Government has been promised its independence and the White villages and towns are being zoned for Black occupation. More and more White people are leaving the Transkei, and the people in Port St. Johns are a White community who will always remain there, but they are absolutely isolated. It is therefore incumbent on this Government to see that they have proper roads leading to and from Port St. Johns. The Government has promised to build a national road from Port St. Johns to Port Edward, but that road has not even been located yet. I would like to know what they are doing about locating that road. Have they considered employing private surveyors to do it for them? I also want the Minister to tell me what is happening about connecting the road from Brook’s Nek down to Bizana and to the new road proposed between Port Edward and Port St. Johns. The Divisional Councils of Mount Currie and Matatiele were building a tarred road from Matatiele to Kokstad. Now that road has been declared a national road, but my information is that nothing has been done in the last year and that all work has been stooped. I would like to know why that is, and is the Minister perhaps proceeding with the tarring of that section of the road and of the road from Matatiele on to outside the Transkei. It is most important that the Government should see to those roads because of the new government being established in the Transkei. This Government is responsible for maintaining that road. It was a divisional council road and now it is a national road. It is essential that these roads be kept in proper condition for defence purposes and other purposes. Therefore I ask the Minister to give me a detailed statement, as far as he can, as to what programme he has for the next year in regard to these roads.

If there is one subject on which all of us are agreed in this House, it is road safety and that tremendous carnage which is taking place on our roads. I think I am speaking on behalf of all the members in this House when I say that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the way in which he has replied to all the various questions, and particularly for the great study he has made of road safety and all the plans which he has in mind. But what I want to say to-night is this: It has been many years now that we have been talking about road safety, and for many years we have been bringing the shocking death-rate to the attention of the public. For many years now we have been telling one another that we are exterminating one another, but nobody takes any notice. Even if we were to build better roads, even if we were to appoint more traffic constables, even if we were to use helicopters to control the traffic, even if we were to impose heavier punishments, even if we were to confiscate motor-cars, even if we were to introduce week-end imprisonment, even if we were to try and create central control. we would not be accomplishing anything in regard to these road accidents, because the spirit of goodwill and tolerance no longer exists amongst people to-day. The only way in which we can bring this problem home to the individual is to expose him to public contempt, to show the man in the street who the road-hog is, who the person is who is responsible for these accidents which occur on the roads every day. If I were to assault and seriously injure somebody to-night, I would be locked up by the police, but if I were to ride down the street and kill somebody in a motor-car accident, or wipe out an entire family, then I could drive my motor-car again the next day as if absolutely nothing had happened. That is why I feel that the time has come for us to take drastic measures to bring this serious problem to the attention of the public. To punish the man in court, where nobody knows about it, is of no avail. We must show the man that he is committing murder. If a murderer commits a murder, he is hanged; if a motorist wipes out an entire family, he might perhaps be fined, his licence might be endorsed or he might even go to prison. I want to plead for an entirely new system as far as this is concerned, and the system I am pleading for is that that man must be placed in public view, so that we can all see who it is that caused the road accident and who it is that is causing the carnage on the roads. Just as we have the system to-day where ambulances and police vehicles have a special red light on their roofs, the time has now come for us to introduce that system in this case too. If a motorist has killed another person, a black light must immediately be placed on top of that vehicle which he is going to drive in future, so that we will be able to distinguish him. [Laughter.] The hon. members are laughing at this suggestion. That shows how little they care about the carnage on our roads. When a person runs over and kills somebody and is found guilty, a black light must be placed on the motor-car which he is driving, and when he has committed a very serious offence which resulted in a serious accident a red light must shine on top of his motor-car. If it is a less serious accident it must be a yellow light. When we can identify those people on our roads, i.e. the type of man who causes accidents, then we will find that those people will drive much more carefully. It must be made compulsory that that light of his must revolve continuously and he must never be allowed to switch it off. I think that is the only way in which we can really put a stop to this tremendous carnage taking place on our roads. We must apply drastic measures and one can only do that if one is able to identify the man who has caused an accident on the road. If he is punished by the court, then nobody knows about it. If he is locked up over the week-end, nobody, except his family, knows about it, and on the day of his release he can proceed on his merry way. That is why I plead that the time has now come for us to take drastic measures in order to put a stop to this carnage on our roads.

I listened with interest to what the hon. the Minister and hon. members had to say about road safety. For a year or so I was a member of the S.A. Road Safety Council and I have also been a member of various committees, and there is not a single point mentioned here to-day which has not already been discussed by the S.A. Road Safety Council and its various committees. The Central Traffic Advisory Council has also considered various aspects of this matter, because all resolutions taken by the S.A. Road Safety Council are canalized to the Central Traffic Advisory Council. In regard to the 70 mile per hour speed limit, I can recall that the spirit of the resolution was that the limit was fixed at 70 miles per hour on account of the fact that the technical advice which the Central Traffic Advisory Council had at its disposal was to the effect that no road in South West Africa or in the Republic of South Africa had been built in such a way that a speed in excess of 70 miles per hour could be maintained on it. Furthermore, that if a road could be built which could carry vehicles travelling at a higher speed, the traffic ought to be allowed to travel faster. This speed is in no way a restriction on the traffic. If a road is built which can carry faster traffic, signs can be displayed indicating that the motorist may travel at 90 or a 100 miles per hour, in the same way as there are speed limits to-day. That, in short, is the spirit of the resolution which was adopted.

There is something in regard to the Central Traffic Bureau which I learned from the hon. the Minister and which disappointed me. I was also astonished to learn it, and in fairness to the various provinces and South West Africa, I want to say that when I was still a member of that Central Traffic Council—and I only ceased to be a member in February this year—we had already decided that a Central Traffic Bureau would be the ideal body to deal with traffic affairs, as is now being discussed here. Why that Traffic Bureau has not yet been put into operation I cannot understand, particularly if the resolution has already been conveyed to the relevant Government Department, and if the provinces have already adopted a resolution—I am not sure whether it was at the end of last year or at the beginning of this year. The idea expressed by the hon. the Minister in regard to having a central traffic control authority in Southern Africa is something I find very encouraging. I just want to ask that when the hon. the Minister appoints that commission of inquiry, he should formulate its terms of reference correctly in the sense that they should deal with uniform central control by one body and not central control by five autonomous bodies. That is a shortcoming at present, and in my opinion, it is also going to be the shortcoming in future in regard to the legal application of uniform traffic control. That was the shortcoming in the previous terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into Road Safety, Road Traffic and Road Traffic Legislation, 1964, i.e., that they had to investigate in what way the five autonomous bodies could exercise uniform control. I want to ask that attention be given to this matter in so far as the terms of reference should deal with the possibility of having a traffic force under the control of one body, under the authority of the Central Government.

I just want to refer to the Weather Bureau. I notice that there has been a decrease in the expenditure for the Weather Bureau. In view of the importance of the Weather Bureau and the long-term weather forecasts, which are so important to agriculture, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it will not affect the efficiency of the Department if there is a reduction in staff, because that is apparently what the decrease in expenditure here is due to. Or is the expenditure concealed under other items? I do not want to enlarge on the matter at all, but it is of the utmost importance to agriculture to know what the weather forecasts are, particularly the long-term weather forecasts, which are being aimed at by means of research, so that the farmer can adapt his farming operations to them in good time.

Mr. Chairman, whilst I sympathize with the principle expounded by the hon. member for Brakpan, I must say that I feel his methods of achieving it is a bit too enlightening. I fear that the consequences of an accident-prone person may be that that person has his car mistaken for a Christmas tree in due course. And as for a black light, Sir, not ever having heard of a black light, I think that the hon. member has been looking on the dark side of things for too long. However, I leave him to the tender mercies of the hon. Deputy Minister.

Now, Sir, as new members always like to do, I would like to pay a tribute. In this case I do believe that the men who thought of the national road programme were indeed very far-seeing at the time they considered this matter. One cannot help but admire them. Of course, like so very many things which stand out as solid foundations to the pillars of strength in South Africa, the idea was cast in concrete with the passing of the National Roads Act, Act 42 of 1935. The date, of course, clearly establishes who those men were. Now I wish to direct the attention of the hon. Deputy Minister to one of these national roads, a specific section, and that is the part between King William’s Town and East London. As he knows, this is a portion of route 2, but it is also the extension of route 6, which carries all the traffic to and from East London and the north. Furthermore, it is also the extension of the trunk road which goes from East London to Cookhouse and which carries all the traffic between the Karoo and East London. The initial part of this road from East London to Berlin was constructed round about 1931-2.

The other section, from King William’s Town to Berlin, was constructed by a national road unit in 1939. At the time construction took place, the standards of road-building were, of course, well below what is accepted to-day as necessary for a national road and for the demands of modern traffic. We have heard from hon. members here that our national roads are in fact to a very great extent outdated. Through the years nothing special has been done to this road other than a reconstruction of some 2.2 miles from Mdantsane to Reeston, which was completed in the course of this year. The provincial roads engineer of the Cape remarked in a lecture some time ago that the foundation and surface of a road tended to lose their shape after being in use for a period of 20 to 30 years to such an extent that reconstruction was desirable. Whilst I know that this statement is subject to the influence of many factors, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the factors here all tend towards the necessity for a speedier reconstruction rather than a delayed one.

Now, Sir, let us turn to some figures, some of which were quoted here this afternoon by the hon. Deputy Minister. This road has a traffic density of some 1,550 vehicles or approximately 1,800 equivalent vehicle units and this is increasing all the time. There were, during 1964-5 21 fatal accidents and 144 other accidents. During 1965-6 there were 14 fatal accidents and 141 other accidents. The average over a year is therefore more than the figure for the Republic for one day quoted by the hon. the Deputy Minister this evening. But possibly this is not a good comparison and I would turn to the other comparison he made. He quoted that in the case of the United States of America the fatal accident rate was .05 per million vehicle miles. He said how bad it was, how alarming it was, that South Africa’s accident rate was .35 per million vehicle miles. When we come to this portion of the road, Sir, do you know that at its best it will have a rate of .91 per million vehicle miles? That is at its best.

If we take it that the local traffic reduces the mileage to something in the region of 20 miles for each vehicle, then we arrive at a figure of 1.4 per million vehicle miles, which is four times in excess of the figure for the whole of the Republic and 28 times that of the United States of America. Is it any wonder, Sir, that this road has become known as the killer road of South Africa? What is being done to improve the situation? A speed limit of 50 miles an hour has been imposed. We have had a discussion about the effects of a speed limit and I will not go into the matter. The shoulders of the road have been broadened and we have the problem there that these shoulders are of gravel and, Sir, you know the effect of a join between bitumen and gravel where it is subject to heavy traffic, and especially now that our rainy season is coming.

For years representations have been made in this connection, and what has been done? It has been accepted in principle that the road must be rebuilt. I know that a freeway from Mdantsane to Gonubie Road was approved by the National Transport Commission as long ago as 14th April, 1964. I also know that the Transkei-East London Road which is under reconstruction was supposed to have been given to contractors from Gonubie so that the provincial unit could construct the freeway. But here we find the trouble. This cannot be done, because the unit cannot go over to the freeway side because the hon. Deputy Ministers’ other Department, the South African Railways, has not completed its planning and finalized what it is going to do about its marshalling yards at Cambridge. So nothing can be done about the road.

I was impressed this evening by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement on road development. He mentioned that R44,000,000 was going to be voted for national roads. But does he realize that at the cost figure which he gave himself that only means 114 miles of national road during the course of a year? Does he realize, Sir, that where we already have 5,200 miles of national road—also his figure—it would take 50 years without any extension of the national road network to come back to the one that we started off with? Indeed, he mentioned that this will be “binne afsienbare tyd”. But can one see that this is actually going to be done in the foreseeable future? Then the hon. Minister quoted money as a limiting factor. But I would like to point out what the Chief Engineer of the National Transport Commission said only a little while ago, in February of this year as a matter of fact. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to mention very briefly something in connection with the South African Airways under this Vote. It is a fact that the South African Airways is the pride of South Africa to-day. That applies to both its internal and external flights. It is my opinion that it is the duty of every South African to encourage and urge people who undertake external flights to make use of our own country’s Airways. It is a fact, Mr. Chairman, that although these services are streamlined they do lack some finish in certain respects. People who make use of these flights are of the opinion, and have told me on several occasions, that in comparison with the external flight services of other countries there are some delays. I should like to give two examples.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that he has strayed somewhat from the Vote. We are dealing with Transport now, not with Airways. That falls under Railways.

Mr. Chairman, I submit to your ruling, but …

On which item of the Vote is the hon. member speaking?

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about airports. When aeroplanes arrive at the Jan Smuts Airport it happens from time to time that customs delays occur at the airport. I think I shall be making a positive suggestion when I say that these delays should be eliminated as far as possible. These passengers come from overseas, and their families waiting for them are very anxious to see them. It so happens that they have to sit and wait in the aeroplane at the airport for a considerable time, during which one officer comes along with a small spray to disinfect the aeroplane and, following that, another officer comes along to check the passengers’ yellow fever and smallpox certificates. If these matters could be attended to during the flight, it would go a long way towards making our Airways more streamlined than that of any other country.

If what the hon. member is discussing has to do with flights then it has no bearing on airports.

Mr. Chairman, I submit to your ruling, but these are things that occur at the airports. Delays also occur within the air terminal when a number of aeroplanes touch down one after the other. Passengers then have to wait at the airport for an hour or more before they are attended to.

Mr. Chairman, to come back to the question of transport, I want to say that I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement here to-night regarding some aspects of road safety will be generally welcomed throughout the country. But, Sir, if one takes that statement in relation to the Budget which is before us at the present time, I think one must go a little further and inquire into certain aspects of the expenditure which we are going to be asked to authorize. First of all, the hon. Deputy Minister indicated that he wished or wanted or hoped for a provincial investigation into the question of road safety. Perhaps he is not aware that there has existed for a number of years an inter-provincial traffic co-ordinating committee which has been charged with this particular problem in so far as provincial government is concerned. But I do not think that at this stage and with the very bleak picture which the hon. the Deputy Minister painted to us this evening, that commissions or committees are the answer. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the time has arrived when this problem must be tackled by trained experts on a professional basis and that there is no reason why we should continue with committees, ad hoc, inter-provincial or otherwise, which are achieving no results. That brings me to the one omission in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement, namely that from what he has said one would have assumed that he would say to us that the R250,000 which is to be voted again this year to the South African Road Safety Council should be omitted because it is achieving no results whatsoever. I make no apology for discussing road safety because as the records of this House will show it has been discussed repeatedly. Various suggestions have been made by hon. members of this House as to what might be done to alleviate the accident rate, but whether those suggestions have been futile or whether they have fallen on deaf ears, the fact of the matter is that nothing has been achieved. The Minister himself has given us the figures. What has the Government been doing? In 1964 the contribution to the Road Safety Council was R150,000. In 1965-6 it was up to R250,000. For the current financial year it is again R250,000. In addition to this amount the provinces are collectively contributing an equal sum because the Cape and the Transvaal are automatically levied with 17½ per cent of the total, the Government contribution being 50 per cent and Natal and the Orange Free State together paying 15 per cent. Bat, Sir, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, with an expenditure of R500,000 per year for road safety promotion we find that the estimated cost of accidents and results of accidents last year was approximately R60,000,000. That I think is a reliable estimate. Sir, the provinces are loaded with an unbearable responsibility and I should like to give the figures. At the Groote Schuur Hospital, for instance, in one year 12,800 casualties from motor accidents were treated. The hon. the Minister has given figures for the ratio per million miles, but in South Africa we have a further aspect of road safety which is a cause for concern and that is the ratio of fatal accidents as compared with the number of accidents. Again we are far in excess of the figures for the United States and Britain. Our ratio is 9.8 per cent. In Britain it is 2.7 per cent. In the United States it is 2.65 per cent. Sir, it is not that we are not spending enough money. The hon. the Ministe’ has referred to the millions of rands that are spent on traffic control. We in South Africa are estimated by the Automobile Association to be spending approximately 60 cents per vehicle per annum on road safety. The United States is spending 98 cents per vehicle per annum. But whatever the figure is, we are spending a colossal amount and I return to the inevitable conclusion that the money which is going to the South African Road Safety Council is achieving no results whatsoever. A uniform code is not the answer. There were suggestions this afternoon in this debate that there are various factors which should be investigated and I agree. During one weekend in the Cape Province there were fourteen fatal accidents and the causes of those accidents will show that the problem is so wide that it is beyond the powers of ordinary ad hoc committee to investigate. Death was caused in one instance by a deaf mute running in front of a motor vehicle; two were pedestrians who stepped in front of a motor vehicle and two were pedestrians on a public road who were intoxicated and staggered in front of a motor vehicle. Five of the accidents were therefore due to pedestrians. Two drivers were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Three accidents were attributable to excessive speed. There was one where a driver did not observe a stop sign. In another case a driver entered a stream of traffic from a feeder road without due regard to the traffic on that road. In the case of two others, drivers overtook on concealed rises. It is therefore not only the motorist, but the pedestrian as well. The problem is not going to be solved merely by having more traffic policemen on the roads. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that in mining and in industry in South Africa, there has been tremendous progress. There has been a breakthrough in so far as casualties and man hours lost and the cost of accidents are concerned. There has been a successful campaign against accidents in industry and I can see no reason why that same success cannot be achieved as far as the roads are concerned. It will, however, not be achieved by the South African Road Safety Council, which over the years has been subsidized to this great extent, and, from the Minister’s own statement to-night, is achieving nothing.

This brings me to the next point and that is in regard to the accounts of the Road Safety Council. It is quite interesting, when one looks at these accounts, to find what the position is. One finds, for instance, that there is a large accumulated surplus. I do not know what the figure is now, but at the end of 1964 it was R105,000. Why do we then have to increase our subsidies? Why is it suggested that we should put R250,000 into an organization which is building up a reserve? I see that the accounts are audited by the Auditor-General, but there seems to be a great deal of expenditure on salaries, subsistence and transport expenses, expenses of meetings and entertainment as far as this Council is concerned, which is out of proportion to the expenditure. In regard to the literature which is produced and distributed, R42,000 has been expended, and this has certainly not produced any results. One wonders how much of that literature is read. The direct expenditure of the Road Safety Council on publicity, according to this audited statement, was R48 in one year. There was also an exhibition which cost R887.

Now that the Minister has taken up the attitude which he has in regard to this matter, and has indicated to us that something must be done, I hope that the first thing he does will be to see that we have a properly qualified, properly trained and efficient council to administer what subsidies we are prepared to vote.

Mr. Chairman, considering the size of our country and its geographic configuration, we should be astonished that we, as a small White population who are the real taxpayers, are capable of having South Africa intersected with asphalt roads from one end of the country to the other. One can only express one’s appreciation to the Minister and his Department for what has already been done in this field.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I ask whether, in terms of Standing Order 131, hon. members like the hon. member for Vryheid and others may conduct an after-dinner discussion on their own while a member is speaking?

That is not a point of order.

Sir, may I draw your attention to Standing Order No. 131? It states—

That is not a point of order. I did not hear members conversing. If they had been conversing aloud, I would have heard them. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister said here this afternoon that it would be the duty of local authorities and bodies to take note of and to eliminate danger points on our roads.

Order! Will the hon. member for Durban (Point) please be quiet.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make use of this opportunity to discuss one of these danger points. I am referring to the road between Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark, known as “the road of death”. As you know, Sir, that area has developed immensely and the population has increased immensely over the past years. If we were to make an estimate of the White population. we would find that in the Vanderbijl-park - Vereeniging - Sasolburg - Meyerton area there is a White population of more or less 90,000 and the figure in respect of the non-White population is more or less the same. So in that compact area we have a population of about 180,000 people. As you know, Sir, the national road between Vereeniging and Parys runs through Vanderbijlpark and divides the town into two parts. It so happens that, because of the development of that area south of the road, there are four dangerous crossings on that road. Sir, I should like to quote certain accident statistics. The figures which I am going to furnish are, firstly, in respect of the period 1951 to 1963 inclusive. During this period 32 people were fatally injured, 103 sustained serious injuries and 125 sustained minor injuries in accidents at these four crossings. As a result of the enormous development that has taken place there the position has become very much worse over the past years. During the past 18 months, i.e., from 1st March, 1963, to 30th September, 1964, 20 people were killed at those four crossings as against 32 during the previous 12 years. During the same period of 18 months up to September, 1964, 68 people sustained serious injuries and 232 people sustained minor injuries. In the light of the figures I have mentioned you will realize how seriously the position has deteriorated.

For years now there have been negotiations between the City Council, the Provincial Administration and the National Transport Commission in order to try to make these crossings safer. Only recently agreement was reached for the lighting of the crossings, and for the installation of stop and flicker lights there. Sir, I am not satisfied that this will solve the problem. As far as I am concerned, it can only aggravate the position. The road is a dual-carriage, one-way road. It is a large national road. If a stranger, not knowing the circumstances, were to drive through, he would expect the road to be open, as is usually the case with main roads. I believe that those lights will not have the desired effect. Local inhabitants, who are accustomed to the circumstances, will drive off when the light changes to green, and this fact may cause serious accidents in future. I want to make a very urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of giving immediate attention to this problem, and to see whether something concrete cannot be done to improve the position at these four crossings. During weekends the city folk go down to the Vaal River. We are all aware of the volume of traffic on those roads at weekends. We are also aware of the fact that, with the tremendous increase in the number of motor vehicles as a result of the higher standard of living which we enjoy to-day, the city folk are now aggravating the problems which we would not normally have experienced without this phenomenal development. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to see whether he cannot improve this state of affairs. I want to emphasize the fact that the position there is critical.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to draw attention to one of the points made by the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. He mentioned the great number of agents and how inexperienced they were. I should like to draw attention to the fact that two-thirds of the insurance companies in South Africa, who are not members of the consortium, are not allowed to act as agents under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. I believe that since these people are the most experienced in the country in handling this type of insurance, they should at least be appointed as agents to members of the consortium.

The next point to which I want to draw attention is that, according to the reports, there is a shortage of trained personnel on South African registered sea-going vessels. I have had a report handed to me in which it is stated that an experienced ship’s master with ocean-going experience has been unable to get an appointment on a South African vessel, despite all his experience. I understand that a number of exemptions had been given for masters to be appointed to South African vessels. Here we have the case of South African masters with the necessary experience who have not been given the appointment.

Does that fall under Harbours? Under which item does that fall?

It falls under Item H. Sir, I have made the point I wished to make under this particular heading. I should like to go onto the next point, and that is in respect of airports.

I am quite certain, Sir, that you will agree that this falls under the vote. I was unable to bring up this point on the vote of the Minister of Transport. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to an article which appeared in a recent magazine. In this article it was pointed out that the South African Airways and both Durban and Cape Town would benefit considerably if these airports were extended to permit them to be used for international travel and not just internal travel as at present. I am aware that the Minister did reply to a question raised by the hon. member for Umbilo in this connection, but I wonder whether all the aspects of this particular matter have been considered. The article points out that Jan Smuts Airport is 6,000 feet above sea level and as a result, the payload of big jets is reduced by 5,000 lbs. of luggage, or the equivalent of 25 passengers for each take-off. This results in a loss estimated at R7,500 in revenue on each take-off if the aircraft is fully loaded. This is the reason why South African Airways cannot schedule a non-stop flight between Johannesburg and Europe, although it can do so on the southbound run because the take-offs in Europe can be at sea level. With an average of about 40 big plane take-offs from Jan Smuts Airport each week for other continents the loss of potential payload is something like R15,500,000 annually. Three-quarters of that loss affects the South African Airways directly or indirectly because of the pooling arrangements and no matter which way it is looked at, this is a colossal amount. What needs to be done is to add 5,000 feet to the main runways at both Durban and Cape Town so that the big jets can take off from them with full payloads. The costs involved in constructing the new extension to the runways will be more than met by the increased revenue.

The article continues on another score in this manner—

I want to tell the hon. member for Port Natal straight away that the argument which he raised here in favour of the lengthening of the runway is incorrect in this respect, that he assumes that every jet aircraft taking off will be fully loaded. In most cases, however, that will not be the case owing to a lack of passengers and freight; it will not be as a result of any operational restrictions. None of the airlines making use of Jan Smuts Aerodrome have ever complained of being handicapped by a pay-load restriction. That can be attributed to the fact that the distance over the first sector flown over by aircraft after taking off from Jan Smuts Aerodrome is in no way dangerous, considering the type of aircraft which are used.

As far as the consortium members are concerned, they themselves decide whom they want to appoint as agents.

If the hon. member can furnish the Department with the name of any qualified captain who is unable to obtain work, while exemption is being granted to foreigners, then the matter will be investigated.

I have been acquainted for many years with the road which the hon. member for Vander-bijlpark mentioned here, the road which has those four dangerous crossings. I agree with him that it is a dangerous road. As the hon. member knows, traffic lights have of course been introduced there, and if that still does not help then I do not know what to do; it is a difficult matter to build traffic intersections on these roads. A traffic intersection in the rural areas costs a tremendous amount of money; it costs between R200,000 and R400,000 and takes up approximately 15 morgen. But we can go into the matter, and if any other solution can be suggested by the hon. member or by the Department when they investigate the matter, it will certainly be accepted.

The hon. member for Green Point said that I had allegedly implied in my speech that the Road Safety Council had in actual fact failed in its purpose. I do not think the hon. member is stating the position quite correctly. In fact, I have the greatest appreciation for the work which the S.A. Road Safety Council has done up to now. I think the position could have been very different in South Africa if it had not been for the constant attention which the S.A. Road Safety Council has given to this matter. The hon. member must realize, of course, that the Road Safety Council has no real powers. They only act in an advisory capacity after they have undertaken research and considered solutions which may relieve the position. Consequently it is the position that the Road Safety Council must in fact guide our democratic society with its own permission and approval; it cannot compel the community. At the moment there are already 33 road safety associations and 98 road safety committees in the country. By means of long-term publicity campaigns, the training of student teachers in the method of road safety instruction, instruction for established teachers, theoretical and practical road safety education at school, scholar patrols, road safety competitions, etc., the Road Safety Council is trying to provide instruction and guidance, with the purpose of promoting road safety. The hon. member is, of course, aware of the fact that the provinces are strongly represented on the S.A. Road Safety Council. There are five members of the executive committee …

I did not want to cast any reflection on individuals, but is the difficulty not that the Road Safety Council also has other matters to deal with? They do not deal specially and exclusively with road safety. They do the work on a part-time basis, as it were.

No. I can assure the hon. member that the S.A. Road Safety Council, the organization which has been created, is occupied with road safety on a full-time basis. If the hon. member has evidence to the contrary, then he must bring it to my attention.

He is talking out of ignorance.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Standerton that some of the air transporters are already undertaking the spraying in the air. Others, however, are not prepared to do it.

The hon. member for King William’s Town spoke about the section of road between East London and Berlin. The planning in regard to that section was given out to consulting engineers to undertake. The National Transport Commission has already decided that the route can be kept in good condition in the meanwhile by means of heavy maintenance, pending the reconstruction of the road, and I may just inform the hon. member that discussions have just taken place to-day between the Transport Commission and the Province and that it has been decided to take all possible steps to expedite the work. The problem in regard to the Gonubie Section was also discussed and we trust that the construction of the road will commence as soon as the planning has been completed.

The hon. member for Etosha said that he was strongly in favour of central control of traffic officers by one central body. I want to agree with him, but he will realize that the cooperation of the provincial administrations has to be obtained in this regard. That is why I also think and why I have expressed the view that the entire matter should be referred to a commission of inquiry for proper investigation. The hon. member for Etosha also emphasized the important work being done by the Weather Bureau. I agree with him. Weather conditions influence almost all human activities, and no proper planning can be done without taking weather conditions into consideration. Meteorological information is important for the tourist industry, water sources, health, recreation and sport, science and research as well as the requirements of the individual. The hon. member asked why the expenditure in respect of the Weather Bureau for the year has been decreased. I want to assure him that that is only in respect of certain staff members. There has been no curtailment of services whatsoever. In fact, the services of the Weather Bureau have rather been expanded.

The hon. member for Transkei spoke about places for stopping and places for pulling off the road. Such places for stopping and places for pulling off the road are already being introduced on existing national roads. At some places climbing lanes for slow-moving traffic are being built so that faster traffic can overtake slow-moving traffic.

Where?

At many places; particularly in Natal. As far as the Engcobo-Baziya road is concerned, this road is already under construction by a departmental ‘unit and should be completed at the end of the year. The basic planning in regard to the Baziya-Libode road has already been completed and the consulting engineers are still busy with the detail planning. R100,000 has already been made available this year for the construction of 51 miles of road south of Umtata. The work should commence some time during next year. As far as the road from Libode to Port Edward is concerned …

Port St. Johns.

Mr. Chairman, I am replying to the hon. member and if he does not want the reply I want to give him, then I am not going to reply any further. I just want to say that nothing has as yet been done to this road. It will pass through difficult terrain and it will cost a great deal of money. It will only be commenced with after the other roads we are working on have been completed. [Interjections.] I should like to know whether the hon. member wants a reply.

We want to know whether you can reply.

I am busy giving my reply. I have been courteous to all the hon. members and I do not know why this discourteous attitude should suddenly be adopted towards me. The 5½ miles south of Umtata will form part of a contract which will in all probability be given out this year still. As far as the road between Matatiele and Kokstad is concerned, that is outside the Transkei. The planning has been completed and negotiations are in progress with the Treasury for the necessary funds to be made available, since the money for these roads is provided by the Treasury and not out of the National Road Fund. The road between Brooks Nek and Bizana is not a national road. As far as the fencing is concerned, the National Transport Commission and the Department of Bantu Administration have agreed that the Commission will supply the wire and that the Department of Bantu Administration will have the fence put up and maintained. As far as the traffic control is concerned, that is a matter which falls under the provinces.

Sir, I hope I will not throw a pebble into the still pond which the hon. the Deputy Minister has been busy oiling, but I want to start off by saying that I believe that the Deputy Minister has not done his homework. Firstly, in response to an appeal by the hon. member for Green Point that the Road Safety Council should comprise persons who devote their full attention to it, the Deputy Minister says, “Of course, they do it, and if you can mention anyone who does not, then tell me about it”. Well, I want to help the hon. the Deputy Minister, and the first person I want to refer to is the chairman of that Council, who is sitting at the moment on his left, the Secretary for Transport, who apparently has nothing else to do, except for road safety, except being Secretary for Transport, chairman of the National Transport Commission, chairman of the Advisory Committee on Civil Aviation, in addition to doing a dozen other jobs, but otherwise he is engaged full time on the problem of road safety. I hope the Deputy Minister will not give us that sort of answer when a member on this side of the House raises a serious problem. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville asked the Deputy Minister when the Marais Commission was due to finish its work and when he expected its report. The Deputy Minister’s Minister shrugged his shoulders and said, “I haven’t a clue; I have no idea.” The Deputy Minister had less than no idea. He did not have half a no-idea. Does the Deputy Minister not know that the Marais Commission has held its final public meeting in Pretoria this month, that it has no more public meetings scheduled; that it postponed some evidence which was to be heard in Durban and heard that evidence at its last meeting in Pretoria? Is the Deputy Minister in no contact whatsoever with that commission, because even we as members of the Opposition know that the commission hopes to compile its report within the next year? The Deputy Minister, whose commission it is, however, does not know. We in the Opposition have to tell the Deputy Minister what the position is and I tell him now so that he may answer the hon. member for Yeoville that his commission hopes to complete its work by about next August or September when it hopes to submit a report. That, Sir, is the measure of the homework which the Deputy Minister has done.

Now I want to come to his Department and draw attention to the fact that a very praiseworthy thing would have been done, if it had been done in the interests of efficiency and the conservation of money, and that is that the number of staff in the Transport secretariat has been reduced by exactly 100, from 294 to 194, so in true Parkinson’s law fashion the Deputy Minister or the Minister has now created a new position—or I assume that the Public Service Commission has created the position at the request of the Department. Because their staff has dropped from 294 to 194, it is now necessary to appoint a personnel manager to handle the 100 fewer people, so you have a personnel manager earning R5.775 a year in order to handle 194 people. The Minister also appoints himself a Deputy Minister. We therefore have a Minister, a Deputy Minister, a Secretary, three deputy-secretaries, three under-secretaries, two administrative control officers and seven administrative officers, all senior positions, but they cannot handle 194 people on the staff so they appoint a personnel officer at R5,775. This is not the sort of efficiency that we would expect, because I submit that this reduction of staff is to the detriment of South Africa and militates against a solution of the transport problems of South Africa. I put it to the Deputy Minister that there is seething discontent with the administration of civil aviation in South Africa. I put it to him that it takes up to four months—and in one case it took up to seven months—to get a reply to a letter to the Division of Civil Aviation. I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that in the field of civil aviation, the administration is still living at the pace of the ox wagon. In the one field in which we should be in the jet age, the one field where we are moving forward into the last part of the 20th century, the Administration is breaking down, and I challenge the Deputy Minister to deny that the administration of civil aviation is breaking down. If you talk to any person concerned with civil aviation, who knows anything about it, you will find that his one plea is that this administration should be divorced from the present Department and turned into a department which keeps up with the demands of the century and the demands of civil aviation. I would like to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor (Mr. Sauer) and, before him, United Party Ministers, used to attend the meetings of the C.A.A.C., the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee so that they would know what was going on. Sir, I have here the report for this year, a report which, when you read it, sounds as though everything in the garden is rosy, as though everybody is happy. I put it to the Deputy Minister that if he were to attend those meetings he would find that this report—and I state it here as an undisputable fact—does not reflect the disagreement, the arguments and the discussions which take place in the C.A.A.C.; that in fact the non-Government members of that committee raise and discuss and debate with some heat matters which are reflected here in the report as though everybody was satisfied with the administration. I would like to appeal to the Deputy Minister to re-in state the old practice of personally attending these meetings, so that he can see for himself what civil aviation in South Africa really feels, really wants and really needs. Sir, I will tell you some of the things it needs. It needs, for instance, a divorcing of the control of civil aviation from its present red-tape hamstrung control by the Department of Transport: it needs a new organization, a new set-up, instead of the National Transport Commission for the hearing of licence appeals and matters of that nature.

When the Act was being amended I appealed to this House that reasons should be given so that people who appeared before the N.T.C. as objectors would know why applications were accepted or rejected. To-day only an applicant can get those reasons by applying, and as often as not he is told that no reasons will be given. Sir, some very strange decisions have been given but no objector, no interested party, can get any information. The decision is given and only the applicant is advised. [Time limit.]

I did not really wish to participate in the discussion under this Vote, but I feel I must say a few words after the antics of the hon. member for Durban (Point). The hon. member for Durban (Point) not only acted like a clown to-night, but also embarked upon a smear campaign against a senior official of the Department who is not in a position to defend himself in this Chamber. Mr. Chairman, when I launch an attack I like to cross swords with my adversary on an equal footing. Unfortunately, that does not correspond with the views of the hon. member for Durban (Point). For the information of the hon. member, I just want to put the matter straight, not to break a lance for a very able official, but to make it quite clear that the Secretary of the Road Transportation Board also acts as the Chairman of the Road Safety Council. That is an honorary position he has for which he gets no honorarium or remuneration. I should like to recommend that an allowance should perhaps be paid to the official concerned in future for the inconvenience he has to suffer in having to listen to such unfounded accusations here …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to propose additional expenditure.

I submit to your ruling, Sir, and I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) not to make such allegations against one of our senior officials in future again. I have had to deal with the Chairman of the Road Safety Council at local government level and I can testify that as Chairman of the Road Safety Council he has always acted in a dignified manner and rendered unselfish and loyal service. I trust that he will continue to render the magnificent service he is rendering in this sphere.

As usual, the hon. member who has just spoken, has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It is typical of the Nationalist Party Government that when they are in a spot they try to turn the attack and present the picture in a completely different light. If that member could understand what I was talking about …

That “honourable” member.

Yes, this House gives him that title and I will give it to him. If that hon. member could understand what I was talking about he would know that I was making no personal attack on the ability of any official. My attack was made on the Deputy Minister for a statement which I stated was untrue. I was not attacking the abilities of any individual; I was dealing with the human impossibility of one person carrying out all the tasks which are imposed on this official, and if these hon. members had the slightest bit of sympathy for the public servants of South Africa, they would support us in trying to prevent the loading on to one individual of a cumulative series of responsibilities which no human being can possibly carry. Sir, I do not blame the official, but I blame the Minister and his Department. I blame the Minister for not realizing that it is impossible for one person to be a full-time expert on road safety, a full-time expert on the National Transport Commission for the granting of licences and exemptions and everything connected with road transport, and at the same time to be the genius of civil aviation. No human being can do those three jobs properly, and if that hon. member had been in this House a little longer, he would have joined me in trying to protect a civil servant from these unreasonable and quite unjustified demands which are being made upon him. The Minister would find that he would receive a great deal more assistance from the Secretary for Transport—even greater assistance than he is receiving at the moment—if he were to relieve the Secretary of Transport of this task of dealing with civil aviation and if he allowed him to concentrate on some of his other responsibilities.

I want to take this question of civil aviation a little further. I have here the latest report of the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee, and I want to refer to the question of the subsidy scheme, a subsidy scheme which is now being held to a mere R40,000 a year, and I want to ask the Minister to tell us why only R32,800 of this was spent; why, when there were 473 applications and there was sufficient money available, a surplus of R7.123 was unspent. In case the Minister tries to wriggle out of it let me say that that still leaves R5,000 when you have taken off the glider, for which an appropriation of R2,000 was made and which was not bought. I submit that more could have been done. This money was voted by Parliament; the applicants were available and the money should have been spent.

Now I want to turn to the question of navigational aids at our airports. This is a hardy annual; and I submit that this is another indication that civil aviation should be divorced from its present administrative control and should be given the opportunity to develop into the 20th-century Department which it ought to be. I have here the annual report to March, 1965; it is now August, 1966. but these are the latest statistics, the latest facts, available to us. Of course, the report has not been delayed because of overwork, but for some reason this report appeared some 16 months after the last statistics were made available. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why we have not had a report for 1966. But allegedly there is no overloading of this Department. I say there is. I say his officials are overworked. I say that this Department has not enough staff, and I say that they are unable, physically, to cope with the work loaded upon them. That is the reason, I submit, why I have to quote now the figures going back to more than 14 months ago. Those figures reflect the installation of new navigational aid facilities at the various airports. I want to put it to the Minister that the Boeing 727s and Mirages fly at a combined approach speed of up to 1.500 miles an hour, and if the Minister should be in an aeroplane which meets a Boeing going in the opposition direction he will know what that means. If he watched two Boeings approaching he would realize the fraction of time those pilots have at their disposal to deal with any emergency. I submit that the time is past when we can plod along with R500,000, putting in navigational aids which, although good and necessary, do not provide the modern security and safety that only total radar control can provide. We now have air advisory channels, air-assisted airways, where there is radio control for those who want it, but at the speed at which a jet plane flies we should have to-day the positive control of radar—not just round the airport but for the whole of the flight from one airport to the other. I submit that when we take South Africans up into the air the control of the safety of that flying is a matter which should receive the total priority of the Department. In 1959-60 there were 49,000 landings made at our main airports. In 1964-5 there were 117,000. I submit that the navigational aids have not kept up either with that increase nor with the demands of modern jet flights. I submit that the reason for this is that civil aviation is being tagged along as a step-sister of Transport. Instead of being regarded as the forerunner of the new age, it is being treated as the step-sister. It is being carried along with the minimum which is necessary. But if you look at the registration of aircraft and at the part which civil aviation plays in our modern transport, it is not keeping pace nor playing its part in the development of the transport facilities of this country.

For the information of the hon. member for Durban (Point) I should like to make him understand very clearly that I not only understand English but that I am conversant in his home language.

I was not questioning your knowledge of language.

I want to give him the assurance that if he did not make a direct and very subtle accusation against this Government official, then I do not know what an accusation or an insinuation really means. As far as his sneering remark about a junior member sitting in the back benches is concerned, I would like to express the hope that after the many years the hon. member for Durban (Point) has sat in this House, by the time I have sat in this House so long I will never partake in debates on the political level that the hon. member for Durban (Point) has. (Interjections.) It is often said: There is method in your madness. I cannot understand the method in the political madness of certain members of the Opposition.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote now.

I just want to say that it is obvious that under this Vote which is now under discussion, the method in their political madness is simply this, that it is an attack on the new Deputy Minister of Transport.

On a point of order, Sir, are the words “political madness” parliamentary?

It all depends on whether it is an idiom or not. The hon. member may continue.

Under this Vote I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The reaction he has caused on the part of the Opposition proves that he is going to be a very competent and able Deputy Minister and that he has a great future in this House.

There seems to be a good deal of confusion on the back benches on the other side. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke of and accused us of lacking “method in our madness”. If I may also use the idiom, I accuse him of “madness in his method”. But I want to leave the hon. member at that, and I want to say that I am rather disappointed tonight. We are dealing with the Transport Vote tonight, and it is a Vote for which the Minister of Transport is responsible. This afternoon we on this side listened with interest to him as Leader of the House telling us that there were difficult times ahead, that there was a great deal of legislation and that we would have to work in the evenings. We then said that we would simply have to work in the evenings. I see hon. members on this side and hon. members on that side, but where is the hon. the Minister himself?

If we look at this Transport Vote, we realize—but I wonder whether the people outside realize it to the same extent—that this Vote deals with only a small part of the transport of the country. For example, this Vote does not deal with the Railways or the Airways or the bus services, and it does not deal with the thousands of motor-cars belonging to the provincial administrations.

But what does that have to do with the Vote? The hon. member must please leave aside those matters with which it does not deal.

Thank you for your guidance, Sir, and in view of that I shall not deal with the vehicles belonging to the post offices either. But in any case, if we read of the 84,000,000 miles performed, it only represents part of the large mileages performed by Government vehicles with which I want to deal. We find that the Department of Water Affairs performs high mileages per motor-car, and the same applies to the Department of Bantu Administration, which is actually the department that uses the largest number of motorcars. By the way, I see that the Government was so kind as to give the Transkei Government more than 300 motor-cars. Have they been paid for yet? Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us about that. Nevertheless the figures are impressive: 84,000,000 miles are performed each year by 10,028 vehicles, and the book value of the vehicles is approximately R10,000,000, and this year no less than R4,000,000 is being requested for the purchase of more vehicles.

There are two things which I am particularly concerned about in regard to this Vote. The first is the large number of accidents in which Government vehicles are involved. We have heard a great deal tonight about what must be done in regard to road safety. I wonder to what extent the Government itself does its duty in that regard. During the latest financial year for which figures are available the 10,000 vehicles belonging to the Government were involved in no fewer than 1,600 accidents. Now, if 10,000 vehicles are involved in 1.600 accidents, it means that one out of every six of the vehicles belonging to the Government is involved in an accident each year. The other day we heard that the average for the year for the entire population is only one out of every ten. In that year accidents in which Government vehicles were involved cost the country R154,000.

The second is this, and it is an important one. It deals with ministerial vehicles, not only the aircraft, but more particularly the large black motor-cars, which have actually become the status symbol of the Government today. I think it is time the hon. the Minister kept this House and the country better informed about what is going on in regard to these ministerial vehicles. The last figures were made available to us almost five years ago, but at that stage already it appeared that for the 15 Ministers there were no fewer than 27 vehicles; 12 Cadillacs, nine Oldsmobiles, five Mercedes-Benzes, one Ford Galaxie—27 vehicles for 15 Ministers. I believe it is much more today. Can the hon. the Minister furnish us with the information in this regard? I think that basically it is wrong that more than one vehicle should be made available to a Minister, and if it should be that some of them have to get two—and I hear that some of them even have three—then I should like an explanation. By the way. I am not blaming the hon. the Minister of Transport, because he is one of the few people about whom I have not yet received many complaints in this regard. But I say that when an official vehicle is used for a political meeting or a Nationalist Party rally at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer, then that is wrong and indefensible. When a ministerial motor-car is used for other than official purposes, it is wrong.

I can assure the hon. the Minister that the people outside are concerned about these things. You know. Sir, our Members of Parliament make speeches and think that they have made a good speech, but then it is greeted in the newspapers with a deadly silence that one can cut with a knife. Yesterday I gave a newspaper an ordinary little report in regard to ministerial vehicles, and I wish I could tell you how many calls I have had and how many people got in touch with me in regard to that interview about what I called the use or, one could almost say, the misuse of ministerial vehicles. A person whom I do not know at all drove 100 miles to come and greet me here in the lobby today and say: “That is statesmanship.” And he is a Nationalist. No one has ever before called me a statesman, but it has happened today! The public is concerned and would like to be of assistance to the hon. the Minister of Transport in this regard.

Perhaps it is a case of auis custodiet ipsos custodes—who watches the watchman? If the public sees that improper use is being made of ministerial motor-cars, they would like to help in putting a stop to it, and to whom can they report it? Must they report it to the Prime Minister, or must they report it to me? I am certain that the Minister of Transport is also concerned about this matter and I hope that something will be done about it. because we all want to help to see to it that no improper use is made of these ministerial motor-cars. The poor man must pay more for his food and he must pay more for his train ticket, and while he is standing there in the street this shiny, black status symbol shoots past and splashes mud all over his clothes, and in the back of the car somebody is sitting in the lap of luxury smoking a large cigar. It is no wonder that the man in the street is saying today: Years ago I voted for that man, because I thought he was a friend of the poor man, but he is no longer that today. That vehicle in which he rides is today the juggernaut of the Haakenheimers which is riding us down. I hope that something can be done about this matter.

I want to deal with domestic affairs, matters concerning my area, and what has become a hardy annual relating to the East London Airport. I should like to say that at long last we seem to have taken one step forward in the development of that airport. The Public Works Department has progressed with the building of a new air terminal for East London. The new terminal, when completed, will bring East London at least three miles closer to its airport. I might mention that the old antiquated buildings are still serving their purpose and have done so for ever so long. It is to be hoped that once the new terminal has been completed, with the abolishment of the old buildings, the Department will see fit to lengthen the one air-strip on the airport. I speak particularly of the one running from north-east to south-west. This air-strip is too short for the high-speed aircraft using this runway today. I believe, and the public believes, that if it were not for the efficiency of our pilots, we would have had some nasty accidents on this run-way already. It is only due to the efficiency of our pilots that accidents have been avoided on this run-way. We all know that the East London airport serves as a link between Natal and the Eastern Province, and as a link between Natal and the Western Province, and generally serves as an artery in our coastline air route, and it is imperative that we should improve that airport with the least possible delay. I heard this afternoon—I stand open to correction—that the East London Airport when complete will be re-named, and it will then carry the name of Ben Schoeman Airport.

What? Before he is Prime Minister?

It has been mentioned here that he is not a Prime Minister. Here again I am open to correction, but if my memory serves me well, all the large airports of South Africa bear the names of ex-Prime Ministers.

Posthumously.

It would be creating a precedent if the East London Airport was named after the Minister of Transport. Nevertheless we do not know, it may be his intention to become Prime Minister in the near future?

Order! I do not see anything about the names of airports in these Estimates.

On a point of order, Sir, there is an amount on the Loan Estimates voting money for the building of the airport buildings. That is what the hon. member is referring to.

But there is no name mentioned here. The hon. member may continue.

We in the East London area would be filled with hope, because now at long last the Minister of Transport will possibly have some personal feelings towards East London, and devote his personal attention to improving the airport, which sorely needs attention.

While listening to the hon. member for Orange Grove I could not help recalling a certain article which I read in the Kruithoring before 1948 in which virtually the same things were said as he said in his speech to-night. At that time the hon. member pointed an accusing finger at the Ministers of the United Party who were driving about in large cars. Be that as it may, this is simply a habit of the hon. member and I do not want to help him to rid himself of it. Let him continue objecting to that in future, but I just want to correct the hon. member. The Department of Transport was paid for the cars which he said were given to the Transkei. The hon. member mentioned the accidents. The Government Garage has a fleet of 10,028 cars, and they were involved in only 1,634 accidents, 42 of which were cases of unauthorized use of the cars. This figure includes all accidents, however minor, even those accidents of which the police need not be notified in terms of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance and Regulations. That amounts to only one accident for every 45,000 miles performed.

I want to tell the hon. member for East London (North) that there has never been any request for the lengthening of the runway at East London and that there is no need to do so. The City Council of East London specially approached the Minister and asked him whether the airport might be named after him. He only consented because the decision to do so had been taken unanimously. But the hon. member probably does not know what is happening in East London, as he does not live there.

Then I wonder why the hon. member for Durban (Point) became so excited about me tonight. If he had only listened, he would have heard that I had not referred to the Road Safety Council but to its officials. But the hon. member made a fuss about the way in which we were allegedly over-burdening the Secretary for Transport. If the hon. member did his duty in this House and followed the proceedings of this House he would see that a Bill has been introduced in which the duties of the official concerned are being lessened.

Yes, but when did we get that.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss legislation now.

The hon. member only appears to be cross but he is not really cross; afterwards he laughs again. He also resented the fact that I had not replied to the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with the commission of inquiry into the co-ordination of transport. But it is surely not my duty to ask a commission appointed by the Minister, when it was going to complete its work. These people are still hearing evidence. Let them take their time and finish when they like.

But are you not interested?

Yes. but I do not think this commission is taking too long over their work. They are doing a good job. We know Dr. Marais, the Chairman, as a person who will do a thorough job and I can give the hon. member the assurance that Dr. Marais will take no longer than is necessary to complete the work. Why then does the hon member for Durban (Point) expect me to give the hon. member for Yeoville the exact date by which the commission will have completed its work? Because I did not know when the commission’s report would be completed, he summarily accused me and said that that was proof of incompetence on my part.

As regards aviation, there is an advisory committee on civil aviation which represents virtually all aviation interests, and they have all seen the report referred to by the hon. member.

May I ask whether the Minister is prepared to attend those meetings so as to hear personally what is being said there?

Why should I attend them? We receive the minutes of the, meetings. This specific body is not the only one doing work connected with the affairs of the Department of Transport. There are many other bodies as well. Does the hon. member expect me, when I create the precedent of attending the meetings of one body, to attend the meetings of all the other bodies as well? Then the hon. member will be the first person to accuse me in this House of not doing my work as Deputy Minister.

The hon. member spoke about the Airways. I may be mistaken, but I think that it was the same hon. member for Durban (Point) who paid a growing tribute to the S.A. Airways in this House the other day for the safe and fine services it was rendering. However, I just want to tell him that it is unrealistic and not economically justified to cover our entire air space by radar. This is a large country and the density of our air traffic is relatively low.

Before the hon. the Deputy Minister resumes his seat, may I ask him a question? I asked how many ministerial cars were available to Ministers at present, why more than one was available in some cases, and whether he approved of that?

That does not fall under this Department. It falls under the other Departments which obtain the cars from us. The Department of Transport and the Government Garage only act as agents in providing cars to the other Departments.

Who then is responsible for the use of the cars?

The Departments concerned which have acquired the cars.

I put the Vote. Any objection? Agreed to.

No, Mr. Chairman. I was on my feet before you put this Vote.

No, the hon. member rose afterwards. Any objection?

On a point of order, Sir, you put the question, “I put the Vote. Any objection?”. The hon. member for Transkei then rose and said: “Yes”.

I said after that, “Agreed to”, and only then did the hon. member rise.

With respect, Sir, he did object to the Vote being put.

Did the hon. member intend making a speech or did he merely intend asking a question?

I intended making a speech, but now I shall only ask a question.

Very well, I shall allow that.

I want to ask the Minister a question in connection with the item “Purchase of motor vehicles, R4,060,000”. Does this amount cover the vehicles which are purchased for Ministers? Who approves the purchase of vehicles for the various Departments? Is it not this Minister?

Yes, it is.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says yes. Well, then surely the hon. the Deputy Minister must be satisfied that the different Ministers need the different vehicles. How many vehicles does he think each Minister requires?

One for the poodle.

Mr. Chairman, we accept what we are told by the other Departments as to what their requirements are. We do not ask them for particulars. We just provide the cars required.

Is no standard being applied.

Is the position then that a Minister having an official car can use it for whatever purpose he likes and this Department cannot interfere?

Look under the Prime Minister’s Vote.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 14,—Education, Arts and Science, R41,157,000.

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? I think we can now translate the House from transport on the ground to the serene atmosphere of education. I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister, as is customary on this Vote, his annual report. We have in the past had occasion to comment on the appearance of the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, which has appeared timeously early in the year. This year there has again been no difficulty, and we have received the report as usual. In one respect it is a good report, and in another it is not. It is a good report because its statistical information is worth a great deal to us. The statistics that have been collected in this report will be of value to us throughout the year. But not only that. It will be of value to all the institutions with which the hon. the Minister is associated. I should like to congratulate the Department on that part of the report dealing with the collection of statistics. Where I think that the report is lacking, seriously lacking, is that there is no mention in this report of the Minister’s policy or even his comments on education policy. I think that is a very serious matter in an annual report. We look for a statement from the hon. the Minister in his annual report on what his prospects are for the following year, and a review of the work of the previous year. But all we receive is this statistical report.

Now, Sir, what is lacking on the Minister's report has been made good by another report, namely the Report of the National Advisory Education Council. That I regard as a remarkable report. It is a report of 27 paragraphs only. It is sold at 35c. It is a mine of information and I am exceedingly sorry that the hon. the Minister has not made any comment in his report on the Report of the National Advisory Council. When we agreed to the establishment of this council we looked forward to their research, to their meetings, and to their observations on the prospects of our new education of the future. I should like to comment on what these gentlemen have to say. I see that in last year’s Estimates we made provision for R40,000. This year the provision is for R41,520. If they can produce a report on their work this year, and accomplish as much this year as they did last year, it is cheap at the price. This is an excellent report. I should like to refer to certain items in this report. The Advisory Council has been tackling some of the most serious problems in South African education. One of these problems is the relationship between the provincial education departments and the Central Education Department. They say this right at the beginning of their report—

They say that they are encouraged by the progress they have made. Subsequently they make this observation, and here they are discussing very important matters—

The work referred to is the work of an ad hoc committee on the subject of “The Teacher”. For many years we have been concerned here about the position of the teacher in South African education. We have been concerned about his recruitment, his training, his emoluments, his status as a member of the profession. Now this council, by establishing an ad hoc committee, has carried out an investigation and has reached a stage where there has been a large measure of agreement. These ad hoc committees they have established have really accomplished very good work. But there is no observation, as I have said, in the Minister’s Annual Report on this work. I think it is very necessary that he should have said something. We have discussed the position of the teacher for many years. It is a serious position, especially for English-speaking people in this country. We have mentioned for years in debates in this House that, especially in the Transvaal province, which I know well, the situation is I can say desperate. We have not got English-speaking teachers. Now I have often, in response to that, heard the question: “Whose fault is that?” Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that it is not anybody’s fault particularly. But I will say that the Departments of Education can do a great deal to alleviate the position. For many years we have said that if a female teacher marries she must immediately leave the Department. She must give up her profession. Why? Because she now becomes a married woman. That does not apply to any other profession. It does not apply to the medical profession, the nursing profession, the legal profession, and it does not really apply in the Civil Service. That is what the position is in the Civil Service. I am quoting now from a resolution at one of the conferences of public servants. This is what was said there—

Now what is happening in the Transvaal is this, and I speak of the Transvaal because it is my own province and it is also the province of the hon. the Minister. We both know the circumstances there very well. We are told that in the Transvaal to-day if married women are employed it means that the young teacher leaving the training college will not be able to get a post. But that does not apply to English-speaking teachers. It does not assist us to say that teachers are bilingual. The hon. the Minister and I know what bilingual means. There are degrees of bilingualism. But when we are asking for a teacher, especially in a primary school, we want a teacher whose home language is the home language of the child. There is no section of the community that has put up a greater fight for that principle than the Afrikaans-speaking people themselves. They have been eminently successful. Well, Sir. I think that something will have to be done about this. We must try to employ teachers after they are married. Let me tell the hon. the Minister what is happening in other countries. In Britain and in Germany they are today asking married women in their thirties to come back to the teaching profession. They are pleading with them to come back. And they have gone so far as to say that if those women cannot leave their families, their small children, then two ex-teachers who were trained in their youth can share a class. One comes in for the morning and the other one for the afternoon. And that is being done in practice. The same thing is happening in Germany. All these efforts are being made to recruit members for the teaching profession. And, Sir, I am very interested indeed in the observations that have been made here by the National Advisory Council. But let us get on with the report. I will quote what they say on page 4. What they say on this page is the most important part of all, and I shall have to quote rather at length here because, in the three paragraphs to which I shall refer, every word is well-weighed and gives us information that is unobtainable elsewhere. They have a contact body, that is to say a body operating between the National Council and the heads of departments in the various provinces. It is the contact body of the executive committee of the National Advisory Education Council. This is what appears on page 4 of the report—

—that is the hon. the Minister—

But the hon. the Minister has not said a word about it. It was in August and September last year. There is not a word mentioned in this departmental report. There has been no statement by the hon. the Minister, as far as I know, in the Press. A draft Bill has been presented to him. There has been an opportunity for discussion at that level. Sir, the Report goes on to say this—

—they may not say too much because they are an advisory council only—

They may not say too much—

Mr. Chairman, this is something that we have been striving for for the last 40 years. Here is a constructive report to the hon. the Minister. It has been lying in his hands for a year, but nothing has been done about it. This House has not been made aware of the work that is being done. I quote further from the Report—

Now, Sir, I think that is going a bit too far. I do not think layman’s language is needed for the hon. the Minister, who is himself a distinguished member of the profession. I think the Report has gone a bit too far there. I think they had in mind there, I would not say the members of the staff, but the general public. Finally I want to quote this—

How are we to judge, Mr. Chairman? We have not seen the draft Bill. We do not know what the recommendations are. And the hon. the Minister has not given this Committee the information we should have received. I am exceedingly sorry. I want to say, coming back to this question of the supply of teachers which they have dealt with to my great satisfaction, that last year a delegation left the Transvaal to go to Britain and the Continent to recruit teachers, especially teachers of mathematics, science and English. They went off—and I have a report here from the Transvaal Department—with every possible inducement to teachers overseas to come here. There is no question now of being bilingual. They do not say now that you must be bilingual within three years or else you cannot go on the permanent staff. All that has gone. They said. “Give us immigrants, give us teachers.” They came back empty-handed. They could not get teachers. Why not? Because there was a scarcity in every country in Europe. They are better paid in those countries. It is a more rewarding profession in those countries. Therefore, Sir, we have to depend on our own resources. Regarding any steps the hon. the Minister is prepared to take—especially for English language education—he can depend upon the support of this side of the House.

Now, Sir, I should like to go on to another matter. There is not only the Report, because the Report finishes up on a very high note. The hon. the Minister would like this high note repeated. It says this—

Now, I think that is a magnificent statement of an advisory body that has been in existence a very short time.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to come to one or two other matters under the Minister’s control affecting him and his Department. I will take the first one. Two years ago the hon. the Minister sponsored an application for the establishment of a university at Port Elizabeth. The Committee will remember that those representations of the hon. the Minister were very favourably received by us. The introduction of that Bill was a departure from an old procedure. The old procedure for establishing a university, for example, the University of Natal, the University of the Orange Free State, Rhodes University, and Potchefstroom University for Hoër Christelike Onderwys, was that all these applications came to this House in the form of a private Bill, one not sponsored by the Government, but in the form of a private Bill. I should like to say in passing that where the hon. the Minister is prepared to sponsor an amending Bill, I agree with him. But I think the departure from the old system was unfortunate. Because, Sir, when a private Bill came to this House—as hon. members are aware—we followed the usual procedure in dealing with private Bills. It was referred immediately to a Select Committee, who reported to the House. It was a very pleasant experience, being a member of those Select Committees. I am sorry the hon. the Minister has departed from that procedure. I think he should give very careful consideration to whether he should not revert to the old procedure of introducing a new university by means of a private Bill.

What about the University of South Africa, Stellenbosch University and University of Cape Town?

They are in a different category. The name University of South Africa, as we have it today, is really a misnomer, because the original University of South Africa was not the University of South Africa we have to-day. I raised this question on one occasion in the House. The then Speaker ruled that the University of South Africa was sui generis. It was unlike any other university and therefore should have special treatment. That was the ruling of the Speaker, the late Mr. Conradie.

I should now like to come to another point, namely, the question of the organization of higher education in South Africa. Here I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence to assist us on this side of the House and this Committee generally in this matter of considering higher education in the country. If I may say so, I regard this hon. Minister as the senior Minister of Education. I say this because we have four Ministers of Education and in addition to that we are concerned with the Minister of Finance as well. The hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science is concerned not only with the higher education of White students but also with the education of non-Whites, i.e. of Indians, of Coloureds and of Bantu. They are still admitted to his universities. When I say “his” universities I refer to what we regard as the “White” universities. He knows that under Section 17 of the 1959 Act no White student may go to a non-White university college and that a non-White student can go to a White university only with the Minister’s consent. Here we have great difficulty when we deal with education and I should like the hon. the Minister to use his influence. Our difficulty is that we never know with which Minister we should deal. Let us look at the definition of “Minister” in the 1959 Act. I refer here to the Extension of University Education Act, 1959 (Act No. 45 of 1959). Let us see who the Minister is. Definition No. (ix) gives the meaning of “Minister” as follows—

1. (a) in any provision of this Act applying to a university college for Bantu persons or to a Bantu person, the Minister of Bantu Education, or the Minister of Bantu Education acting in consultation with another Minister in terms of a proclamation issued under Section 38; or
2. (b) in any provision of this Act applying to a university college for non-White persons other than Bantu persons or to a non-White person other than a Bantu person, the Minister to whom or the Minister to whom acting in consultation with another Minister, the administration of the provision has been assigned by proclamation issued under Section 38.

Now let us see what Section 38 says. Let us see whether that section tells us who the Minister is. It reads—

That is, however, not all because sub-section (2) provides that the State President may from time to time vary or amend such proclamation. Sir, I should like the hon. the Minister to give my suggestion serious consideration. My suggestion is that he should discuss with his colleagues a proposal that all forms of higher education for all races should come under the control of the Minister of Education, Arts and Science.

I want to start by congratulating the hon. member for Kensington on having been restored to the position of chief critic and main speaker on the Opposition side in regard to education matters. Previously, he had to leave this function to the ex-member for Hillbrow. I want to congratulate the hon. member on having been restored to this position. I also want to tell the hon. member that he has a safer past, politically, than the ex-member for Hillbrow. We could always refer the ex-member for Hillbrow to his previous speeches and points of view. But I have also come across a point of view of the hon. member for Kensington which has a bearing on what he had to say here to-night. All of us heard the hon. member speaking here this evening in great praise of the report of the Advisory Education Council. The hon. member said that it was a wonderful report and went on to speak in glowing terms of the council, which, according to him, is an eminent council which has rendered excellent services. I could not but think of a report which appeared in Hansard of May, 1963, in which the hon. member made a vicious attack upon the composition of that council …

Yes, on the composition of the council.

He berated the hon. the Minister at the time because, he said, the council was so badly constituted. I want for the moment to quote just one short sentence from his attack. He said: “The whole of the advisory council is academic.” That was his main criticism. He said that the entire council was objectionable and that we should have appointed people such as pharmacists and others to it. He mentioned, inter alia, the name of Dr. Van Eck. The people whom the hon. the Minister proposed to appoint were not acceptable to the hon. member.

But Dr. Van Eck is not a member.

Precisely, but the hon. member wanted him to be a member of the council. Allow me to tell the hon. member that he, like his party, was wrong again, as usual. The Government acted responsibly and correctly. We now have the results of that action and now the hon. member joins us in lauding the wonderful results that have been achieved although, when the composition of the council was originally discussed, he expressed the meanest criticism of it.

There is another point of criticism raised by the hon. member that I should like to discuss. The only criticism expressed by the hon. member in regard to the report of the Department of Education was that the hon. the Minister had not made any mention of policy in the report. He had not said what he was going to do. In fact, he told us nothing about his policy. That was what the hon. member alleged. But the hon. member for Kensington is, after all, a senior member of this House. The heading to this report indicates immediately that the hon. member was examining the report for things which it could not contain.

The report is by the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science and is submitted to the Minister. It is, therefore, the annual report of the Department to the Minister. How is it possible for a report of this nature to contain details of the policy of the Minister? I am sure that if the hon. member had read the heading to the report he would not have asked such a foolish question.

The next point of criticism raised by the hon. member was in regard to the employment of married women in the teaching profession. He specifically mentioned the province of the Transvaal and said that, as soon as a female teacher there married, she was unable to continue teaching. He then went on to refer to the position in England and in Germany. Apparently, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows more about the position in England and in Germany than in the Transvaal. Does he not know that the present position in the Transvaal is that, as soon as a female teacher marries, she may be appointed permanently for a further period of three years in the teaching service, and that this is done in order to retain her services? These teachers are appointed for a period of three years and in addition they have the security of knowing that they will not be given 24 hours’ notice to leave the service. Indeed, I think that the arrangements in this connection in the Transvaal are better than those in England and in Germany. However, the hon. member has fault to find with this practice because it is something which is our own. Mr. Chairman, I feel obliged to repeat that the hon. member’s approach to this matter was ill-considered. There is, for example, also the question of the new Education Bill. He mentioned the fact that the new measure had been submitted to the hon. the Minister last year but that, up to the present, nothing had come of it. The hon. member should try to contain his curiosity a little. That measure will be submitted to this House in due course. As is pointed out by the Advisory Education Council, this measure was provisionally drawn up in layman’s language. Its provisions have still to be converted into legal language, and once that has been done, the hon. the Minister will again have to deal with it and, in all probability, discuss it with various other parties. Only then will he be able to submit the measure to this House. After all, the hon. the Minister cannot come to this House with a half-baked measure and have it torn to pieces by the hon. member. There is ample time for that measure yet. The hon. member himself knows that we have not had a normal session year. We had only a short session at the beginning of the year and hon. members opposite made a great fuss here this afternoon because it is the Government’s intention to have so much legislation passed during this Session. Imagine the fuss they would have made had the Government introduced this measure as well! Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was quite unable to pass legitimate criticism of these matters. However, I should like now to leave this matter and the hon. member at that.

I should like to express a few ideas which I think are necessary in our general approach to education. The four pillars of education, the four pillars upon which education in South Africa and in every other country must rest, are the child, the teacher, the parent and authority. I should like to deal briefly with each of these pillars, although I do not think that time will permit me to discuss all four of them now. I shall therefore return to them at a later stage. The first pillar that I want to deal with is authority and its task in education. The function of authority is to determine the policy in regard to education in its particular country. Authority has to determine this policy and the policy has to be determined on a national basis. With our having become a Republic on 31st May, 1961, the time when we existed as four separate provinces and approached the question of education accordingly, came to an end for good. On that day we as it were outgrew the shoes of our constitutional childhood and, by so doing, reached the stage of constitutional maturity and adulthood. Now that we have a Republic with its own spirit and its own character, it is the task of authority to lay down a policy on a national scale and to determine a national basis on which education in our country must be applied. Nor is it strange that this should be so. I should like at this juncture to quote from the “Survey of Education”, a Unesco publication, and I want to refer specifically to Israel. Israel does not simply place its education on the broad basis in terms of which the child is expected merely to learn to read, write and count. On the contrary. The authorities in Israel believe that there is a specific task to be performed by education. This report puts it as follows—

If this is true of the Israel of to-day and the circumstances under which she exists, then it is a hundred times as true as far as the Republic of South Africa is concerned. It is a hundred times more applicable to our country that we should not merely educate our children in the usual way in order to equip them for everyday life but that we should equip them specifically to be fully prepared to meet the problems of South Africa and the future development of our Republic. I therefore believe that as far as South Africa is concerned, our education policy must be determined on a broad national basis.

It must, moreover, be laid down in legislation. At the moment we do have no Education Act, but we know that legislation in this regard will be forthcoming next year. We look forward to that legislation providing for a broad policy for our education. After a national basis has been laid down for our education, a further task of the State is to ensure that that policy is carried out. This, together with the provision of the necessary funds, is the main task of authority in respect of education. The State must, of course, also take the initiative as far as research into education is concerned.

I come now to the task of the parent, a task which I see as one of being co-responsible. I feel very strongly about the fact that parents in South Africa are too inclined to regard education as the task of the authorities and of the authorities only. The result is that our parents are not sufficiently positive and active as far as their approach to and interest in education are concerned. I am not talking about interest in the sense of going to watch a football match in which their children are playing, but interest in the spirit prevaling in our schools. To my mind the school must be a replica of the home. In my opinion, therefore, the school must be a substitute for the home. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Randfontein referred to certain criticisms which the hon. member for Kensington originally made against certain appointments to the National Advisory Education Board. But I believe that the hon. member for Kensington has been big enough to acknowledge that and to give credit where credit is due. However, I trust the hon. member for Randfontein will forgive me if I do not follow his trend of thought further because my time too is limited, and there are other aspects with which I want to deal. First of all, I should like the Minister to give more information about sub-Vote K. particularly about the item “Post-doctoral fellowship posts”, for which R30,000 is required to be voted. Then under sub-Vote L under the heading “Youth Services” I notice there is an increase of R50,000 in the amount to be voted. The explanatory note at the bottom of the page says the total amount to be voted, i.e. R75,000, includes R50,000 for an immigrant youth scheme. Will the Minister be good enough to enlarge on these two items?

The hon. member for Kensington referred to the position of teachers, a matter which I should like to pursue from the standpoint particularly of salaries. During the Budget debate and from a question which I put to the Minister in this respect, I learnt that the total overall average salary increases which teachers had enjoyed between the years 1948 and 1966 was 170 per cent. I realize that when one comes to deal with an overall average it is a complex subject and that to break it down would require a great deal of time and examination. I feel, however, that there are certain aspects to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. First of all, I should like to take grade D, i.e. male school teachers who took a four-year course after having attained matric. Here the position is that the minimum notch in 1966 shows only an increase of 127 per cent over that of 1948, whilst the maximum notch of 1966 shows an increase of 116 per cent over that of 1948. These are teachers who are mostly allocated to our secondary schools. They form an important and vital part in our education but it is obvious that their salaries fall below the average the Minister has given. When we come to grade B teachers, i.e. teachers with a two-year course after matric., we find that their minimum notch for 1966 shows an increase of only 108 per cent after 18 years and the maximum notch one of 98 per cent. I believe there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction still amongst the teaching profession at the manner in which these increases have been implemented. I have been advised that on no occasion has a teacher been granted the full notch and that many, in fact most, teachers did not derive benefit from the new notches immediately. I am also told that in 1963 an undertaking was given that a permanent committee would be set up, apparently, it was suggested, along the lines of the Burnham Committee in the United Kingdom. This committee would periodically review conditions under which teachers were working and deal primarily with their salaries. It has been suggested that this is a subject which can be dealt with by the National Advisory Council but according to my information from the teaching profession it would appear that the teachers themselves are not happy that this particular body should perform that function. In other walks of life we have the position where both employer and employee can discuss salaries and reach agreement. We have that position under the labour legislation and it seems as if that arrangement is working reasonably satisfactorily. In the teaching profession, however, no such facilities exist and I believe that teachers would feel much happier if a body on which the Department and the teachers themselves are represented more or less equally could arrive at some arrangement acceptable to both.

There is another matter to which I want to refer, a matter which has recently enjoyed a certain amount of publicity in the Press. This relates to the question of indoctrination. There have been reports in the Press, reports which are looked upon as disturbing to our system of education in South Africa, in which responsible people, in one instance a member of a Provincial Council, have indicated quite openly that that they are of the opinion that it is easier to indoctrinate pupils in Afrikaans schools. Reference has also been made to the emphasis which has been placed on the teaching of history and it has been suggested that history can form the ideal subject as a means of indoctrination. There is ample evidence, for all the world to see, in a book which has been published recently entitled “The Power of Prejudice in South African Education”. The author of this book has conducted a very complete inquiry, an inquiry devoted mainly to teaching conditions, books, reference books, etc., in the Transvaal. This inquiry has indicated, I believe, there is a great deal left to be desired in the manner in which history is being taught in the various schools of the Transvaal. I raise this matter because I believe it is one of serious national importance. It is one which concerns the immigrants coming to South Africa. Here again we have had expressions of opinion from the Afrikaans Press showing a certain anxiety, an anxiety which seems to be spreading, in so far as the language medium chosen by immigrants is concerned. Dagbreek referred to this and has predicted that in the next decade roughly 102,000 new South Africans will be educated with English as their medium in comparison with approximately 8,000 who will be educated in Afrikaans schools. I want to say with all the eloquence at my command, that surely the …

Order! The hon. member is now raising a provincial matter.

I am referring to the question of mother tongue education. I was coming to the question of what effect it was having on South Africans as a whole. I believe that as far as South Africans as a whole are concerned our whole object with new immigrants should be to make them good South Africans, irrespective of the language in which they have been educated. They must be good South Africans first.

Order! That is not the point. My ruling was that you are now raising a matter falling under the provincial councils.

I have also raised the manner in which history is being taught in the Republic of South Africa, not only from a provincial point of view but in the Republic as a whole. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the fact that I am rising now only to be interrupted a few minutes later, and therefore I shall not attempt now to reply to what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said in regard to indoctrination in Afrikaans-medium schools or in regard to the attendance of immigrant children at English- and Afrikaans-medium schools. I shall do so on a later occasion.

The importance of our education is reflected in the fact that during the period 1948 to 1965 the Central Government made the sum of R1,412,000,000 available to the four provincial administrations for education. The amount in the case of the Transvaal was R670,000,000, for the Cape R485,000,000, for the Free State R134,000,000 and for Natal R123,000,000. The amount voted by the Department of Education for White education alone for the year 1964-5, i.e. for a period of 12 months, was R271,000,000. I am mentioning this merely by way of introduction to indicate to what extent we realize how important education is.

In the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, a report about which the hon. member for Kensington had almost nothing good to say, I find that a few surprising facts are revealed, facts which are closely related to the direction which education is taking under the new dispensation. With a view to the continually changing labour pattern and our man-power requirements, emphasis is being laid on the optimum development of the capacities of every serviceable person. Ever higher demands are being made on the intellect as well as on knowledge. It is the function, task and duty of the Department of Education, Arts and Science to see to it that these requirements are met. The worker must remain a student throughout his career. He must keep on studying, a fact which has also been emphasized, inter alia, by the Transvaal Director of Education. He demanded of teachers that they should keep on studying. It is for that reason that refresher courses have practically become an established practice. In this regard I want to refer to the compulsory refresher course of the Department of Education, Arts and Science for all mathematics teachers which was attended by 156 teachers last year. Vocational education is no longer the work of an instructor. Here I am quoting from the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. It is no longer a question of merely teaching children a trade, but it is the work of teachers who have to educate children where the education is directed more at the child than at the trade. In addition more interest is being taken in the child as such than in the labour or in the fruits of the labour. I want to point out that five and three year training courses for apprentices can now be reduced to three and one-and-a-half years, respectively, provided that academic or technical certificates are obtained beforehand. These are all drastic changes made in order to meet the requirements of industry in respect of man-power, and it is in the first instance also the task of education to see to it that man-power receives the necessary training so that it can meet the demands being made on it.

At this stage I want to express a few thoughts about the opportunities which are being offered to older people to become artisans, such as in the case of the National Trade School for artisans at Westlake. There are certain spheres of employment which inevitably reject valuable labour resources from time to time and then one finds a breadwinner who sighs and asks where he can make a new start and what he can do. He then asks himself whether at his age he will have to sell his labour on the open market for unskilled labour for a consolation wage, and that while he is a man with three or four or more children. I thought that the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration, who has just asked whether that is all, would have used that word which he mentioned in the shortest telegram which has ever gone to a wedding, i.e. “seven”. In any case, these people are in most cases in possession of a Standard 8 or Standard 10 certificate. The spheres of employment from which these men have from time to time been rejected and will in the future still be rejected are, inter alia, the mining industry and agriculture. In the mining industry this happens when further exploitation has become unprofitable and in agriculture it happens when droughts such as the present one compel young farmers to go to the cities either permanently or temporarily.