Mr. Chairman, I will not ask for the half-hour because there are many members on this side of the House who would like to participate in the debate. There are a few things that I would take up with the Deputy Minister.

First of all I want to put on record that there are considerable differences between the two parties on transport policy for South Africa. I do not wish to debate or enumerate those differences today. They are known, and our point of view is represented by the majority report of the Marais Commission. We accept all of those findings and they will be part of the programme of action which the United Party will adopt when they come into power. When I put that on record, I want to mention specifically that one of the recommendations of the Marais Commission was that action should be taken in order to overcome the congestion of traffic in our urban areas. Some of our cities are being snarled up and throttled by the tremendous growth of motor vehicular traffic in their industrial life, especially towards and in the centre of the city. During the Railway debate, the hon. the Minister made the point that he felt that the solution of the problems of our greater cities would be in underground railways. Therefore I should like to know what the policy of the Department of Transport would be if our greater cities, one or more of them, wanted to build an underground railway to ease this congestion. Would the department be willing to negotiate and give financial assistance? Obviously in the case of an established city, the building of an underground railway will be a matter of tremendous expense. I will not take it further except to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to state the policy of the department towards assisting in the financing of an underground railway or other measures that may be necessary to relieve the traffic congestion in our big cities.

Then I want to ask just one or two questions about road safety. We have had debates and Bills about road safety during this session of Parliament. I will therefore not go into detail. I think one of the major difficulties which any campaign against road accidents must deal with, is the failure on the part of the motorist and the pedestrian to appreciate the danger that exists for himself. Somebody has said that until the imagination of the people catches up with the deaths on the road, it will be very difficult to apply road safety measures efficiently. I therefore wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether part of the road safety campaign in South Africa will be, more than before, a campaign of education. In that connection I would like to know whether it would not be advisable to publish statistics of the consequences of road accidents in greater detail. We do get statistically an account of the number of deaths on the roads and of the number of people injured. I think more details should be given of the extent and the nature of the injuries. I think the public should be made aware of the people in South Africa who go around without eyes, arms and legs as the result of motor accidents.

[Inaudible.]

I think so, Sir. I have got a point there because I believe that it is necessary that the imagination of the people should catch up with the deaths on the road. It is for that reason that I mention this. According to experts, one of the major causes of road accidents today is the lack of communication between driver and driver. The driver in a motorcar is isolated from his fellow-users of the road. He does not understand what the man intends, what he does or what he has observed. As a result of ignorance resentments grow up, wrong attitudes develop, courtesy suffers and accidents become more likely.

Then I wonder whether the department will be interested if it could adopt some device that will make known better than the present electronic and electrical devices, what the intentions and the thinking of motorists are. There are inventions available that I would like to tell the department about. I have no interest in them. By means of these inventions motorists can perceive how another driver reacts for example to road signs, danger signs and things like that. These are very simple and cheap instruments. I take it that the Road Safety Council and other agencies with which the Department of Transport has contact, would be interested in conducting a research campaign into the possibility of making communication between motorist and motorist actually using the road and understanding each other’s plans and reactions. If these things are more readily available to one another, I think the department would be interested in conducting a research. I do not think one can say more than that at this moment.

Then I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what is happening to Jam Smuts airport. Could we have the progress report in respect of Jan Smuts airport? When is it expected to be completed and when can we expect the teething troubles which it is experiencing at the moment, to end? I think, for example, of the tremendous delays which very often occur in delivering luggage to passengers. I had that experience myself and passengers often have to wait longer than it takes to fly from Durban to Johannesburg for the receipt of their luggage at Jan Smuts airport. A similar difficulty does not seem to exist with the new development at the D.F. Malan airport. There the delivery of luggage is remarkably efficient. I have not experienced anything like it except at a few of the other aerodromes in the world that I have been to. Of course D.F. Malan is not yet a fully-fledged international aerodrome and its difficulties are fewer.

In regard to Jan Smuts, are you referring to the international or domestic section?

To both. It has happened on the international section that passengers arrive there while there is no staff to receive them. That is probably something which has happened more than once. It is a Customs responsibility and apparently not that of the Minister. I have seen people wait there for half an hour before the Customs people come on duty. I am not being unduly critical of this. I am not trying to get any joy out of this. It is a question of teething troubles but I think the travelling public would like to be reassured.

There is one grievance at Jan Smuts aerodrome that I think the department should know about, and that is the new parking garages and the tariffs charged. There is tremendous resentment. Private enterprise had a garage there and you could park there for R1 a day. I am not quite sure what the tariff is but it comes to about R2 a day, more than double the amount charged by private enterprise. The businessman feels this. He goes to the airport, which has to be some distance from the city, in order to support the South African Airways; to avail himself of the facilities and to be a customer of the South African Airways, and he feels that he is being fleeced if he is charged at this rate for parking his motor-car while he is using the services of the South African Airways I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister should consider the suggestion that where a person has a ticket, especially a short ticket to fly to, say, Cape Town in the morning and back in the evening, he should be given some reduction in the charges for parking. I think that is a fair suggestion and I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider it.

Then, Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, who is responsible for the transport of the nation and the co-ordination of the various means of transport, to indicate to us what the attitude of the Government is to the motorist of South Africa. Does the Government regard the motor-car as necessary for transport in South Africa? With all the problems that the motor-car creates, it plays the most important part in the social, industrial, commercial and agricultural activities of the country. It is a vital link between the producer and the consumer. Our transport could not function in South Africa today without good roads and without vehicles. There are a great many motorists in South Africa, remarkably many considering our population and the income of our population. In June, 1961, we had a total of 1 081 000 motor vehicles in South Africa; by June, 1970, that number had risen to 2 247 000. Private motor-cars alone over the same period increased from just under 800 000 to 1 654 000 in 1970, an annual increase in each case over the past 12 years of 12 per cent, which is quite remarkable. It is something of which South Africa should be proud, because it is an indication of the standards that we have achieved in this country. If you take our total population, Sir, there is one motor vehicle for every 13 of our people. If you could take Whites alone—this could only be a calculation—I think you would find that there is about one motor vehicle for every two White people in South Africa, a ratio that can only be compared with the ratio in the United States of America. The ratio here is higher than in any country in Europe with which I have been able to compare the figures. This industry directly, through its motor assembly plants and its servicing plants, employs 160 000 people earning R200 million a year, and if one includes all the associated industries, one finds that the motoring industry employs 2 million people, 9 per cent of our population. I want to know what the attitude is of the Government to the people who do this for South Africa. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Yeoville raised a few matters here with the hon. the Deputy Minister. One of those matters concerned what the Minister’s attitude would be if one of the local authorities decided to give serious thought to constructing a tube railway line. Sir, today there is, in fact, not a city in South Africa that can afford or justify such a tube railway line for the number of urban inhabitants. [Interjection.] That is my view; the hon. the Minister may say what he thinks about that. I think that investigations have already been instituted in that connection. Our urban populations are still altogether too small for such an undertaking in South Africa. The only city that can perhaps be considered in future, in that connection, is Johannesburg, but the general opinion overseas, and the impression with which our people who investigated this matter overseas, returned to South Africa, is that if a city’s population is less than five million it is uneconomic and unjustified to construct a tube railway line. The hon. the Minister may, however, give his own view in that connection. There are, of course, aspects that must be borne in mind with a view to the future. In Johannesburg I think that one should be planning such routes, even at this stage, and be thinking about that with a view to the future.

The hon. member said something here about road safety and our approach to it. I do not have much to say about that. All I want to say is that I do not believe we shall be able to do much to reduce the death rate on our roads until such time as we have much better control on our roads. Sir, I know there are people who will be harshly critical of what I am going to say now, but I do not think that with our present control set-up on our roads we can ever achieve anything in this connection. There is also a great deal of criticism about the way in which control is exercised on our roads today. As far as this matter is concerned, I think we can only make progress if we go to the root of the trouble. I think we can only make progress if there is one central authority which takes over the control on our roads. I think the Department of Transport must do this. There will be a row about that. There will again be people who say that we are depriving other bodies of their rights, but in this connection the decisive question is what is in the national interest. I say today that it is in the national interest that control on our roads be taken over by one central authority.

Then the hon. member spoke about our airports. That is an interesting subject, Sir. I sometimes wonder what goes on in the back of the minds of people moving about in our airports, people who are frequently critical because they sometimes find they are not treated as smoothly as they expected. I wonder whether those people have ever asked themselves what problems and tasks are involved in the handling of the mass of people and freight at our airports. Great expense is now being incurred at two of our most important airports, i.e. Jan Smuts and D. F. Malan. At the moment there is also a programme in operation at Johannesburg which will eventually cost South Africa R49 million. At our various airports in the next five years, apparently no less than R60 million will have to be spent to create the necessary facilities to be able to carry the increasing traffic on our airports. I think it is a good opportunity today to sketch a picture for hon. members of the activities at our airports, and to compare the present position with what it was about 10 years ago. I cannot go into all the aspects, but I just want to tell hon. members that in 1959-’60 only about 146 000 international passengers were handled on our State airports.

Flights?

No, I am now speaking about passengers. There were 146 000 international passengers. Sir, 10 years after that, in 1969-’70, the number had increased almost fivefold to 674 000. There was an increase of 16,5 per cent per year, on the average, as against the world figure of 12,5 per cent. On our domestic routes the number of passengers increased from 580 000 ten years ago, in 1959-’60, to 2 389 000 in 1969-70, an increase of almost 400 per cent in a decade, or an average of 15,5 per cent per year, as compared with an average of 10 per cent in world air traffic. When we come to air freight, we find that in 1959-’60 7½ million kg were handled on our airports, while in 1969-70 49½ million kg were handled, ie., seven times as much freight as a decade ago. Sir, if we suppose that over the next 10 years our domestic passengers will increase in number by an average of 16 per cent; that our international traffic will increase, by an average of 18 per cent per year and that the airfreight will increase by an average of 20 per cent per year, then it is calculated that in 1979-’80 our airports will handle no less than 3¼ million international passengers and 12½ million local passengers. Jointly this is no less than 15,75 million passengers on our airports, and they will have to handle no less than 300 million kilos of freight.

I say that if one takes these aspects into consideration, one gains a slightly different view of the activities on our airports and one gains a new perspective. If one thinks of the fact that the S.A. Airways decided that they should acquire the most modern jets for the purpose of expanding our airways, and they are acquiring Boeing 747’s, our airports must be ready to receive these new jets and the mass of passengers involved. There are also growing pains, and sometimes there is a bottleneck here and there. But when we come along with problems and are critical about what is going on at our airports, we must always bear in mind this tremendous expansion and the tremendous extent of activities taking place, and then we must also think of the terrific amount of capital we must continually invest in these airports so that they can keep pace with the growing air traffic.

I have already mentioned that at the moment there are gigantic development plans at each of these State airports, with no less than R49 million for Jan Smuts Airport and R5,9 million for D. F. Malan Airport. The other airport handling international traffic is the J. G. Strydom Airport. There we are now engaged in developments costing R2,9 million. It is calculated that within the next five years it will cost us a capital amount of no less than at least R60 million to keep pace with the activities of our airports. Therefore it is essential for us to look at these aspects and view in a new light the tremendous problem that arises in the handling of this increase in freight and passengers. [Time expired.]

I crave the indulgence of the House just to complete what I was saying in regard to the problems of the motorist. I believe that the Department of Transport should be aware of the fact that the South African motorist is in a most disadvantageous position compared with motorists elsewhere in the world. I just want to mention the fact that directly or indirectly this industry gives employment to two million South Africans or 9 per cent of the population, according to a calculation made by the Automobile Association, to whom I owe most of the statistics I have quoted. It is interesting to know too, that as far as the maintenance and the repair of the motor-car in South Africa is concerned, we are probably worse off than most countries in the world. They are expensive. The cars are delivered from the assembly factories very often in poor condition, because the onus is put on the distributor to get them into final shape, and very often the distributor is not up to the standard required and the motorist suffers. When repairs have to be done, the motorist must pay high costs and get not only poor service but often also slow and tardy service, because we do not have enough motor mechanics. In the United States and Europe there is an average of one mechanic for every 50 motor-cars, but in South Africa there is one mechanic for every 96 motorcars. So one can imagine what the difference must be. If you want to buy a car in South Africa, you pay more than you pay in most other countries. Dr. Griffiths, of the University of Sussex, recently wrote a survey of the motor industry in South Africa, and I want to quote one paragraph from that very interesting document—

That is what motorists have to pay. Again, it is not directly the Minister’s responsibility, but he should know what is done to us through taxation. The South African motorist, the 2 million people who own vehicles in this country, pay R1 million a day in various forms of taxation and costs. About R350 million to R370 million it will be this year according to the Estimates. Of that Customs and Excise account for 52 per cent, registration and licence fees 19 per cent and the sales tax 13 per cent and the excessive profits made by the Railways on the transport of fuel and oil 16 per cent. Then take insurance. The hon. the Minister can be happy to think that third-party insurance in our big cities has not increased over the past ten years, a most commendable effort, but in the case of the rural areas third-party insurance has increased from 30 per cent to 47 per cent in the past 10 years. The comprehensive policy, which a sensible motorist will always have, has increased by 120 per cent to 130 per cent in the past ten years. The cost of repairs has gone up by 188 per cent over the past ten years. To pile misery upon misery, the Government has now embarked upon a policy to build in a larger local content in our motor cars in Phase III of this development which faces South Africa with a simple choice. If we want to have reasonable motoring costs in this country, this phase will have to be modified—perhaps abandoned, but certainly modified because many people today have made heavy investments with a view to the development of the local content. If that does not happen, we face the unhappy alternative—and the hon. the Minister of Transport should note this—that we will have to reduce the number of models of motor-cars available in South Africa. We shall have to exclude a large number of makes from the South African market and we shall have to be satisfied, as has been proved in the case of South America, with motor-cars which are technologically and mechanically and even as far as safety measures are concerned, years behind the models produced by the mother factories in the larger countries of the world. Our small market will not justify the re-tooling that is necessary year after year to keep a motor-car model up to date. That is the unfortunate choice before South Africa. I think I have said enough to indicate that the motorist today suffers under many disadvantages. He is an easy fiscal target; he does not get in the cities the assistance to which he is entitled in order to be more mobile, because of differences of opinion between the Government and the municipalities. This is why I hope there will be an agreement as far as relief of congestion is concerned, so that so many motor-cars are not dumped into the centre of our cities every morning and taken away every evening. The motorist suffers because of the shortage of manpower; he suffers because of taxation; he is at a disadvantage in every possible way. I now want the Department of Transport; to tell South Africa what the attitude of the authorities, of the Government, is towards the motorist. Do they regard the motor-car as an evil which must be taxed and burdened and, as far as possible, pushed out of existence, or do they look upon it as a necessary economic and social amenity to which the people of South Africa are entitled? If so, will they use what influence they can to make the life of the motorist tolerable and to achieve the greatest possible results and the greatest possible efficiency in the transport organization in South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must excuse me if I do not follow up on what he has just said because in the few minutes at my disposal I have another matter of fundamental importance I should like to raise here. It actually concerns the saving of lives and the prevention of the loss of life. Since the hon. the Minister of Transport is making a big contribution, under this Vote, to the prevention of the loss of life on our roads, I want to say that we are grateful for what is being done. Thousands of rand are being spent on direct contributions. For example, a contribution of R120 000 per year is being made to the Road Safety Council. A contribution of R20 000 is being made to flying clubs, etc. We are grateful for that contribution, but as far as I am concerned the question arises as to whether we can say that there is a physical saving of lives as a result of this money which is being made available to those bodies, or whether this only embodies prevention. I am actually asking that question because in another sphere lives are actually being saved in the physical sense, which is legally necessary and for which very little is being done by the department. When I say “very little”, let me immediately state that I am very grateful for that little which is being done, but I would very much like a great deal more to be done. The contribution being made in respect of the physical saving of lives at sea is actually minimal, and that is why the thought struck me that we should ask the State to do more. If hon. members now ask me why I am advocating such a matter, though I myself come from the interior, let me immediately say that I am doing so because I have experience of these matters. Years ago I had the privilege to lodge pleas for contributions in the provincial council so that buoys could be placed along the coast. I had the privilege, and I still do today, of being the vice-president of one of the big fishing clubs of the Western Province. For that reason I therefore had the privilege of advocating this matter in the provincial council. Even today we still get a meagre contribution from the provincial administration for maintaining the buoys that we put up with our own money. Let us come back and think of the angler himself. This is a big sport, which probably has more participants than any other sport in this country. It is an open sport for which not a single cent can be collected. One feels that something must be done, and who can do it other than the State? The people who live here in the vicinity of the coast and furnish this service, must do everything voluntarily. If one looks at the figures of what has been done over the last few years by sea rescue, one would find that more than 50 per cent of those people, who landed up in trouble, came from the interior. Is it the sole right and the duty of our people on the coasts to also look after them alone. In the first place I want to say that we must and will look after everyone. I was a very enthusiastic angler for many years, and I myself took part in this rescue work. I have already seen young people falling into the sea and drowning and nothing could be done about it because there were no sea rescue buoys. Now we have set up buoys. I am the fortunate owner of a boat, and I too have already seen people getting into trouble at sea. I myself have helped people out of the sea, and that is why this is a sore point as far as I am concerned. For that reason I am asking the Minister and the department to do something for these people of the Sea Rescue Institute. In the past four years, since the Sea Rescue Institute of South Africa was established, no less than 400 lives have been saved. I am speaking of the saving of lives in the physical sense. One hundred and fifty boats also got into trouble at sea and were brought to safety. Do hon. members not think that those 400 human lives are worth money to us? Hon. members will find, in most cases, that the people who go out to sea constitute South Africa’s young manpower. They are the people who are physically healthy and who can go to the sea. They are the people who are full of life and eager for living and for the sea. If this Sea Rescue Institute were not there, there would have been 400 less people alive in South Africa. Can we afford to lose 400 people, people who are actually at the peak stage of their lives, at the stage where they can do a great deal of work and produce a great deal? In this respect I now want to ask the State for assistance. Since the department is already giving R24 000 per year to those people, hon. members and the Minister may perhaps feel that this is a great deal of money, but I can tell them that in fact it is minimal.

Five years ago we began with one single boat 16 feet in length and with two engines mounted. Those engines cost R1 500 to R2 000 each and must be replaced every year. We cannot do so at present, and we therefore do it only every third year. The people who man those boats are volunteers; they do not get a single cent for that work they are doing. They take their own lives in their hands to save those of others. Is it not our duty to ensure that those people will have a little more convenience and security on those boats? Today there are 16 stations manned by 16 boats. Because we have had this tremendous navigation round our coasts in recent times, because so many individuals land themselves in trouble on our coasts, individuals which the Sea Rescue Institute must then hasten to assist, and because we have already had to coast around for 20 hours to help the State in the search for survivors after one of their aircraft disappeared over the sea, I think the State has an obligation to make a bigger contribution to these people. Because these boats cannot go out further than 8 or ten miles, while at times rescue work must be done 20 to 30 miles out to sea, the Institute has decided to acquire larger boats. This year two boats are being built for the Institute. These boats cost R35 000 each and have a range of 200 miles instead of 10 miles, as in the case of the small boats. Because we cannot obtain a subsidy on the outboard engines, it has now been decided to purchase larger diesel engines on which purchase tax is not levied. We are now going to obtain these two boats which are under construction. Shelters must be built for them. That will cost about another R10 000 each. Now you will be able to see that the purchase of those two boats will cost us R100 000 this year. The State contributes the meagre amount of R24 000. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister today whether he cannot help us this year by pushing up the subsidy of R24 000 to R50 000. That will then provide us with 50 per cent of the amount we need. The rest we shall have to find ourselves. In America every cent of the cost of these life-saving endeavours is carried by the State. In other countries of Europe 50 per cent of the costs are borne by the State. In South Africa at present only 25 per cent is carried by the State. We have already saved 400 lives, and therefore I ask the hon. the Minister if he would not be so kind as to help us this year. Even if the subsidy is not increased, we ask for an extra grant so that we shall be able to pay for those two boats which we must take delivery of one of these days. Thereby we shall be able to help in sea rescue, which is so essential. Now that navigation round our costs has almost quadrupled, it has become essential that rescue attempts be extended. We can only do a small portion of the work with the meagre few rand we ourselves can collect from people. I want to drop this point now by mentioning an instance where we saved three lives, i.e. those of a father and his two sons who clung to a boat for nearly 24 hours. A month after they were saved and had regained their health, we went to them to ask for a contribution. What does the House think was that man’s contribution? It was R5. It can now be seen what we are faced with. Who can help us other than the State? Today I want to make an urgent appeal to the Minister to increase that subsidy to R50 000 this year so that we shall be able to buy these boats to enable us to save lives at sea.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member who resumed his seat a moment ago in his praise for the excellent service performed in respect of the protection of life at sea. I want to support his plea, because this service is invaluable to South Africa.

†I want to proceed, firstly, to a matter which gives me serious concern. This Vote which we are debating this afternoon, dealing with the Department of Transport, should deal with the affairs of the Department of Transport over the last year and, in the normal course, should deal with the report of that department. Only after 2 o’clock this afternoon was the annual report of the department put on our desks for the first time. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he regards that as the way to treat Parliament. When we are obliged to debate a departmental Vote in which money is asked to run that department for a year, we as Parliament are entitled to have the latest information available to us. This report is dated October, 1971. It was submitted to the hon. the Minister by the department in October, 1971. It has taken from October until the 20th April, at 2.15 p.m. as the debate was starting in Parliament, for this report to be laid on the Table for the information of members. I submit that this is contempt for Parliament. It is typical of the attitude of the Government towards Parliament. It treats Parliament as a rubber stamp which must say “yea”, “ja”, “ja baas”, “ngiyabonga ’Nkosi”, “ja en amen” to everything which the Government does. I want to protest at this insult to the institution of Parliament and to the responsibility of Parliament. If the hon. the Minister wants to blame the Government Printer, I suggest he fights it out with the Minister of Finance, because it should not take six months to print a simple report, a report running into only 52 pages. The hon. the Minister had it in October last year. What has he been doing with it? Has he been sitting on it like his airport terminal? In any public company the annual reports must be before the members at least two weeks before the Annual General Meeting. If not, that board of directors would be dealt with. This board of directors, this hon. Minister, should therefore be dealt with for treating Parliament with this contempt.

Now I want to deal with the matter dealt with by the hon. member for Yeoville, and followed up by the hon. member for Parow, namely the question of airports. The hon. member for Parow quoted figures which I am now for the first time, after 2.15 p.m. today, able to check in the latest report. He correctly showed the vast increase in traffic through our South African airports. I find, for example, that Louis Botha airport in Durban handled 619 000 passengers, excluding transit, compared with 1,7 million at Jan Smuts, leading all other airports in South Africa. The hon. member for Parow said that we must recognize this tremendous growth in air traffic and in transit. It is true. From 1966 from under a million through Jan Smuts, the figure rose to nearly 1,8 in 1970-’71. I do not know where the hon. member for Parow got these figures. Did he have a prior copy of this report? It will be interesting to know.

No.

Nevertheless, I accept that the traffic has gone up tremendously. Then I look at the Loan Estimates for this year. Take a guess what has been voted for Louis Botha airport, which handles one-third of the traffic that Jan Smuts does, the second-highest in South Africa. There is the magnificent sum of R50 voted for Durban airport. R50 would not even be enough to sneeze with at the present cost of travelling on the Airways. Then the hon. member for Parow said that we must put up with a little bit of inconvenience. He said we must put up with inconveniences sometimes. But what sort of planning is this when Durban airport, with its growing traffic, the second-highest in South Africa, is only voted a token R50?

They are Natal haters.

I can well ask if they are Natal haters. Is it Natal hate we are getting here? The fact is that the Department has been playing around with the sitting of the La Mercy airport. They have been receiving objections and they do not know yet what they are going to do.

You never approached the Minister as member of Parliament.

I have approached him, and have raised this matter year after year. Despite all the assurances and the final definite statements “This is now our final decision”, I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to get up there and to say that they have finally decided on La Mercy, and to give us a date when that airport is likely to be operating. I say here, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to contradict me, that there will not be a new airport in Durban in this decade. There will not be a new usable airport in Durban in operation for at least a decade from now on, if not two decades. That being the situation, is it any wonder that we have inconvenience and shambles? If one looks at the airport at Durban and sees the conditions under which the South African Airways staff has to operate it is an absolute disgrace. There are no facilities for the number of people.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Let the hon. member make his own speech.

Why does the hon. member not ask that that new airport be built at Oudtshoorn?

Let the hon. member make his own speech. What is the trouble with this Government? It is more interested in Oudtshoorn than in the passengers of the South African Airways. That Government is more interested in winning votes and playing politics than in running the country and looking after the needs of South Africa. That is why we have a token Vote of R50 for an airport which cannot possibly cope with the requirements. That is why the hon. member for Parow has to plead for tolerance. “Let us put up with the mess,” he says, because his Government is not interested in planning. It is not looking ahead. I challenged the hon. the Minister last year. I said that Jan Smuts would not be ready for the Jumbo jets. It was not ready, and it is still not ready. Not only Jan Smuts not ready, but we have gone through similar chaos here at D.F. Malan. I do not have the time to deal with it now, but the hon. the Minister knows that I asked him a question a week or two ago about arrivals at D.F. Malan. He gave me answers which were incorrect.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the hon. the Deputy Minister knows they were incorrect answers. I am not going to quibble over it. It is part of the chaos in handling traffic at airports which are not ready for it.

Which answers were incorrect?

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows what answers were incorrect. One member on his own side gave him the information. I am not quibbling over the details; I am quibbling over the fact that the department has not been able to plan far enough ahead. I ask now that the Government wake up and realize, as regards this traffic to which the hon. member for Parow referred, what is required on the ground, so that we can then cater for and deal with it. I ask the hon. the Minister specifically, will he give an undertaking that something will be done to assist the staff who have to work at Louis Botha Airport in Durban? Because at the moment it is in such a state that it is not only inconvenient to passengers, but it is putting an inhuman strain on the personnel who have to work there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is remarkable what a cloud of dust this hon. member for Durban Point has kicked up today. You saw how cantankerous he is. I do not know whether the report he complained about is the major reason for the cantankerousness he has displayed here today.

But daily we also have the other situation, i.e. the United Party continually attacking us about State spending, which we are supposed to curtail, etc. Consequently this report was, for a change, printed by the State Printer at a cost probably lower than if it had been tendered for. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply, giving reasons why it has only appeared today, and indicate that this is not in contempt of this House. But I should have liked to hear the hon. member for Durban Point if a report had been tabled in which there were perhaps a few mistakes in the English text; then he would again have said it is contempt of the English language to table such a report. He complains here about the information that is not at his disposal. Then he asks whether the hon. member for Parow obtained a report in advance. Today I want to tell you that the Department of Transport is probably one of the most accessible departments as far as information is concerned. The hon. member knows as well as I do that he could have obtained any information, statistical or otherwise, from the department if he had wanted to take the trouble. But no, he chose to stand round here today speaking about the airport in Durban, challenging this person and then that person. Do you know where his cantankerousness comes from? It comes from his challenging various individuals in the lobbies the past 14 days, and he knows the hour of reckoning has drawn near.

In the short period left to me I should briefly like to deal with another matter. You will remember that we passed legislation this year establishing a National Road Safety Council for which every motorist must pay an extra premium of 50 cents per year. People being what they are, it is natural for the general public to expect a great many results for that 50 cents. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to ask that National Road Safety Council, when it comes into action, to give very urgent attention to the whole question of drivers’ licences for those driving heavy vehicles. We expect this council to reconsider the whole standard and basis relative to the issuing of heavy vehicle licences. They will definitely have to set very high standards. Statistics will probably indicate that the accidents in which heavy vehicles are involved are accompanied by an alarmingly high percentage of deaths. One is gripped emotionally and filled with horror when one reads certain reports in the Press, such as those we have again read recently. I want to refer hon. members to a report which appeared on 13th April, last week, as a result of a similar accident. A large front-page report read : “Pregnant mother and two daughters killed in accident.” The report reads, inter alia (translation)—

In the next day’s newspaper there was a follow-up of the report which read as follows—

As a result of the increase in our standard of living we hardly see any White lorry-drivers on our roads today. That this will be the case in future, to an increasing extent, is probably not ruled out either. The result is that to an ever-increasing extent we are dealing with Bantu drivers as far as these heavy vehicles are concerned. Hon. members must not misunderstand me now and think I am a racist who states that a Bantu cannot drive. However, I think it only logical that the Bantu with his particular background does not have the same traffic instinct as we do who have grown up in a car, as it were. Therefore I want to advocate today that not only the driver, but also the owner of that vehicle should be held liable in cases where negligence can be proved. This National Road Safety Council will be in a position of enforcement. Therefore I think they will be able to make out a very strong case for the principle of vicarious responsibility being implemented much more strictly by the Attorney-General in criminal cases of this nature. This is the only way we shall also be able to compel the owners of heavy vehicles to take note of the standard of the drivers of their own vehicles.

Then I want to make the additional allegation that a very great percentage of the accidents on our roads today are also caused indirectly by heavy vehicles. To be able to illustrate this you only had to drive the short distance between Sir Lowry Pass and Bot River during the past Easter week-end. There was an absolute crippling of traffic behind the heavy vehicles trundling up the hills. Dozens of cars were moving behind them at a snail’s pace. This results in the drivers of those cars sometimes trying, in their frustration, to pass those heavy vehicles at the most difficult places. I am aware that a minimum speed cannot be implemented in practice. The majority of these vehicles use almost the entire roadway and never make any attempt to drive on the side of the road, even where this is made possible for them, so that the traffic can again flow normally. It struck me that vehicles of one particular furniture transport company and also of a certain petrol company were not guilty of this dangerous inconsiderateness. This proves to me that those drivers act upon instruction they receive from their employers. I therefore believe that if my hint is acceptable we will not only obtain better equipped drivers of these heavy vehicles, but also that the employers of those drivers will inevitably have to be more particular about the conduct of their drivers on the road. If we could rectify that, the 50 cent premium we have to pay annually would be fully justified.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Tygervallei made excuses for the late delivery of this report. I however should like to join the hon. member for Durban Point in saying that this report should have been in our hands already at the beginning of this session if not before. I made inquiries as to when the report would be on hand and was told that it would be available at the beginning of this week. It is very necessary for us to have this report. This is an important department and we should have this report in order to get up-to-date figures and to know what is happening in the department, otherwise it is absolutely useless. It is no good receiving this report at such a late stage as it simply becomes out of date. Although we may say that we could use it next year, it would still be out of date.

What exactly do you want?

Well, I do not know whether that hon. member is interested in the information contained in the report. I do not know whether he has ever read the report. When the hon. member does get the time he should read it and he will find some very interesting information.

The hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members have dealt with the question of road safety. The hon. member for Tygervallei also dealt with the subject. We are all “experts” on traffic and we do cur best to advise the authorities as to how we can overcome accidents. I am not convinced that all the fault lies with the Black drivers. I think that a lot of our drivers are at fault. I also think that a lot of us in this House at times commit offences and get away with it. The only way in which one could really watch bad driving is to have better policing methods. At the present moment, in so far as traffic control is concerned, we find that our traffic officers, especially in the rural areas, seem to use cars. Apparently motor cycles are uncomfortable. But if they were to get round on cycles and if there were more of them I think there would be a considerable drop in accidents caused by motor vehicles that are not roadworthy.

I should like to deal with our airports. The hon. member for Yeoville was comparing the D. F. Malan airport with the Jan Smuts airport. He said that things were very much better there. Things must really be very bad at Jan Smuts because the position at D.F. Malan leaves much to be desired. When one goes there on a Sunday afternoon when the 747 is there, and the airport is crowded, one finds absolute chaos. I have been out there several times and I have put questions on the Order Paper to the hon. the Minister about doing something to relieve the position. Sir, I have said over the years in this House that there has been this lack of long-term planning as far as our airports are concerned. Although we have the 747s in use today, our airports are still not up to date. We knew that the 747s were coming and we knew how long they would take to build. We should have been ready to cope with the traffic. One does not know when the D. F. Malan will ever be completed, because the work seems to go on and on there. As has been said here, airports are never really completed, because as the traffic increases, so they have to be extended. Sir, all over the world there has been long-term planning as far as airports are concerned. Having regard to the fall-off in air traffic, it is important that we should be able to offer every type of comfort to air passengers at our airports. Passengers cannot be expected to be satisfied with what they have to put up with at Jan Smuts and at D. F. Malan Airports. Just recently when I was at the D. F. Malan Airport, I watched the staff trying to pack containers, in spite of the crowded conditions, for the 747. As they got the containers on to the vehicles, the public were pushing the vehicles over. There are no proper facilities whatever for handling these containers. As I said, we knew that the 747s were coming and we knew that they would have to be used for 24 hours a day in order to make them pay, but the runways were not started timeously; they are just being finished at the present moment. We were told that the runways were long enough, but that they were being lengthened for reasons of safety. They have not been finished yet, however. This all shows a terrible lack of planning. Sir, the trouble is, as I said before, that the South African Airways, the Railways, run the planes, while the National Transport Commission runs the terminals and the runways, and then you have a third department coming into the picture; the Department of Public Works constructs the buildings. You have this muddle of three departments trying to handle this one major function. The hon. the Minister of Transport knows very well that he does not go to the Public Works Department to build his stations or his harbours; he does not allow another department to interfere with the running of the Railways, and it is high time our international airports were placed under one control, under the control of the South African Railways. The planning department of the Railways could then supervise the future planning of our airports. You cannot have this divided control. Sir, air travel in this country has grown out of all proportion; the growth in air travel has exceeded everybody’s expectations. The old methods that we used to control airports have become out of date, and I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration to the question of handing over the whole of the building and the running of our airports to the South African Railways. I do not belittle the work that has been done by the National Transport Commission, but our major airports should be run by the Railways, because we cannot have this muddle that we have at the present moment. One has only to go to the D. F. Malan Airport on a Sunday to see what absolute chaos there is.

Sir, another item that one is very worried about is the increase in the number of private aircraft accidents. It is a good thing that we art training so many pilots in this country, but I feel that the Minister ought to go into the question of better control of private flights. Just recently we have had some tragedies in which families have been wiped out. One does not know who was to blame, but there is no doubt about it that there must have been an element of carelessness somewhere. I feel that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to going into the whole question of the better control of private flying, because as it is becoming more popular, we will find that there will be more accidents. The hon. the Minister has various airfields round about the cities and there is intense traffic in the air at times. You have the military training craft and we have the planes operated by the S.A. Airways. There is an element of danger there and very much greater control should be kept over private flying than there is at the present moment.

I should like to pay tribute to the very fine work being done by our research ship, the R.S.A. and the crews that go down to the South Atlantic, to Sanae, and the work that is done there. I do not know whether it is really appreciated but this research has an effect on the weather forecasts and agriculture, as well as being used internationally. I do not know whether that is really appreciated, but I would say that it is money well spent and one must pay great tribute to those people who go down there year after year. Do not let us lose sight of the fact that it is a dangerous occupation. There is an element of danger. Every time a crew goes down to this weather station they run the risk of serious injuries with fatal results. We have had our losses there. There is always an element of danger when you deal with ice and snow in the Antarctic. [Time expired.]

A moment ago, in his speech, the hon. member for Durban Point, in referring to the report that has only appeared today, said, inter alia, that this Government is dominating everything and only wants to use this House and Parliament as a rubber stamp. Sir, if that were true, the Leader of this House, the Minister in charge of this Department of Transport, would not have been so courteous yesterday evening as to give the hon. member for Yeoville the opportunity to go and prepare himself to speak in this debate.

I was speaking of the Deputy Minister.

If this Government wanted to dominate Parliament, the Minister would have let that hon. member for Yeoville make an unprepared speech yesterday evening.

It was.

The hon. member for Salt River, who has just resumed his seat, also referred to the airports, inter alia, to D. F. Malan, but I think the hon. member loses sight of the fact that the chief purpose of these 747 Jumbos Jets is to serve the South African public on the external flights. As a result of the interest there was on the part of the public, the Department was also prepared to use these aircraft on domestic flights for the sake of the public. I think we must be prepared to make sacrifices up to the end of this year in connection with D. F. Malan, which will subsequently be one of the most efficient airports, not only in South Africa, but also in the world.

I think I am correct in alleging that today it is actually the first time that we have the opportunity in this House of discussing weather modifications subsequent to their practical implementation in South Africa. Here I am referring to the “Water-hail” operation which was launched in the Eastern Free State with Bethlehem as the centre-point. I do not believe that it has been often in the past that a project has been tackled in that part of the world which the people have treated with as much suspicion as specifically this “Water-hail” operation. Some of the reasons why the people were so suspicious of this scheme was, firstly, the lack of knowledge amongst the public about the scheme itself and its implications, and then also, perhaps, as a result of the mistaken use of a word, “rainmaking”, by the Press and public. Rainmaking it definitely is not. I hope that in the future we shall also do justice to this very delicate, scientific research project and that we shall also describe it as weather modification.

Wanting, as I do, to interpret the feelings of the people in the Eastern Free State in respect of this scheme—and I am referring particularly to its inception—I think I am correct in saying the feelings and words of my people can briefly be rendered as follows, i.e. that we do not like clouds being tampered with. I want to say at once that initially I did not like this tampering around in the clouds either, if I may use this term. But I immediately want to add that after I made contact with the chief meteorologist there, Mr. Du Toit, he not only made me and many others collaborators in this scheme, but he also made us students in this extremely interesting scientific field which is now being tackled in all seriousness in South Africa for the first time. Today I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Du Toit, the chief meteorologist, and his team, who launched this scheme at Bethlehem. The leader in particular, Mr. Du Toit—and I am not forgetting his team—is not only a brilliant scientist but also a man of virtue. I shall come back to that at a later stage. I also want to mention in this House that Mr. Du Toit is not only regarded in South Africa as an authority on weather modification, but that in the United States of America he is also regarded today as one of the world authorities in the field of weather modification, something we in South Africa can rightfully be proud of.

Now perhaps something in lighter vein. I do not know whether this department realizes what a saving this official has brought about for the department. When feelings were running a bit high at one stage, and there were even threats that these aircraft would be fired on, it was this very person who calmed feelings down. I just want to mention that while feelings were running quite high, and just afterwards, it so happened that the Boeing 747, one of our new aircraft, was frequently engaged in training flights above Bethlehem. That aircraft was frequently wrongly viewed as the offender as far as weather modification is concerned. Fortunately, this official of the department also brought about this saving for us.

When I say that I, who was initially sceptical about this project, also want to advocate here this afternoon that more assistance be granted to this scientific team, it indicates the esteem and respect those people have already commanded from us. One now does not want to imply that the American pilots who assisted there and have already gone back to America to return next year, in all probability, only did negative work in South Africa. But we must realize that these pilots from America are not meteorologists or scientists, neither are they scientifically orientated. These people are more interested in the spectacular changes that can be brought about by pollinating our clouds with silver iodide. We should like to ask the hon. the Minister that everything in our power be done to create the opportunity for the meteorologists to qualify themselves as pilots and also, vice versa, that the opportunity be created for our pilots to train themselves as scientific meteorologists, there already being a course for them at the University of Pretoria. For this purely scientific research project, it is of the utmost necessity that the scientific touch should not only be related to ground-work, but that the relative persons should also specifically be able to do research and make observations from the air.

There is another aspect that will also be of great help to these people. Today I do not want to speak about the scientific background to weather modification. I believe that with the two Bills we expect in this connection, we shall have the opportunity to discuss the scientific aspect in greater detail. It is of the utmost necessity, however, that the changes in the weather conditions brought about by the silver iodide polination should immediately be observable and it should be possible for those observations to be transmitted to a central point. It is not practical to observe from an aircraft what happens when pollinization of a cloud takes place. A tremendously spectacular reaction takes place. A cloud, which appeared to be a threatening thunder cloud, changes in size, volume, depth and colour, but what is actually of the utmost importance is the reaction that takes place in the nucleus of the cloud itself, such as the difference in temperature, the rate at which the temperature changes, the change in rate at which the air rises and whereby the moisture, which concentrates round the nuclei, moves downwards to fall through the cloud and form rain. We should like to ask the Minister to consider also providing this team with a glider that can move reasonably slowly within the cloud and which, in practice, can also turn very quickly to return to the original point. Not only are the data they obtain of importance, but it is also an urgent necessity that that data can be transmitted very quickly to a central point. In this connection we are reminded of the new automatic, small type of weather stations that have already been developed. I think they cost about R6 000 each. I should like to ask that this team also be given that equipment, so that after reactions take place they can very quickly be aware of the signals as they reach them.

I believe that in South Africa we have also reached the stage already where we can do practical research on mist clouds at our airports. We know that in the United States of America and in Russia a great deal of research has already been done in this connection. We know that in some countries it has apparently been too expensive in practice to implement methods in that connection. From a scientific point or view D. F. Malan as an airport has not been situated at a very ideal spot. With the temperature we find in these clouds, and with the salt concentration and compounds in the air that cause corrosion, practical use can perhaps be made of the pollination, with calcium chloride solutions, so that the mist can be combated. In this way we can safeguard our airports to a greater extent. I see that my time is up and I want to conclude with the following thought. Since there have been so many discussions in South Africa about this whole scheme I, who live in that part of the world where this took place, want to say that I am satisfied in my mind that Mr. Du Toit, who is a brilliant scientist, is also a humble person and that he does not think to use the forces that man has no right to use, but that he wants to use the talents the great Master has given him in the service of men, animals and plants. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? The hon. member for Bethlehem has referred to yet another of the exciting research projects of the 1970s which have been tackled by scientists in South Africa. I am certainly not qualified to comment on these technical matters and therefore he will forgive me if I do not follow the line which he has taken. However, I simply want to say, and I think it is common knowledge and known to this House, that we on this side of the House have always supported the maximum amount of investment in research because we believe that it is wise and sound investment.

This afternoon I want to discuss certain matters with the hon. the Minister, matters which I believe it is necessary to air in connection with the administration of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Fund. In order to do that, I think it is necessary that we should go back to the history of this fund and to have clearly in our minds what legislation has been passed by this House, and what changes have taken place in regard to the fund itself. In 1942 the original Act was introduced and approved of by this House and was to provide compensation for persons who were caused loss unlawfully by motor vehicles—in other words, as a result of the negligence of some person in control of a motor vehicle. This insurance was then handled exclusively by the private sector of insurance companies who were prepared to undertake this type of business. That position pertained and continued until 1964, when this Government introduced certain amendments to the Act. Among other things, they established the Advisory Committee on Motor Vehicles Insurance, and also what is termed a Premium Committee. This enabled them, the representatives of interested persons, to approach the Minister and to make representations to him and it also gave the department representation from 1964-’65 onwards on the control of the fund then established by these various insurance companies. The next stage in the handling of this insurance came in 1966, when the consortium agreement was entered into whereby the carrying of this insurance was placed in the hands of some 16 insurance companies, companies which had been selected by the Minister. Thereby these companies, and no others, could undertake this insurance unless approved of and admitted to the consortium. At this time the gentleman who subsequently became manager of the MVA Fund, became associated with the administration of the insurance fund, as what I might term an inspector of the insurance companies who were taking part in this type of insurance and subsequently became members of the consortium. In 1969 we had a most interesting debate in this House when drastic changes to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act were introduced. I think the nature of these changes and some of the aspects of the debates that took place, are most material to what I suggest is happening in this fund at the present time. First of all, the M.V.A. Fund, which had been registered as a reinsurance fund, as a company, by the insurance companies concerned, no longer stood in the position of a registered company under the Companies Act, but became a corporate body to be known as the M.V.A. Fund. The M.V.A. Fund was then given, as reference to the principal Act will show, considerable powers, particularly under section 25C of the Act. One of the powers which is enshrined in the Act, is the power I quote, “to investigate and settle claims, to commence, conduct, defend or abandon legal proceedings”. With these wide powers the fund then fell under the control of one individual, namely the manager, a manager to be appointed by the Minister. The fund was then no longer to be controlled by a representative body of the insurance companies concerned with motor vehicle insurance. Mr. Gouws was then appointed as manager of the fund. Under section 25D the power was given to the Minister to appoint a committee Which could be consulted by the manager and which could make representations regarding the business of the fund to the manager. I think it is important that we have that particular power quite clearly before us. Section 25D (2) (a) reads as follows:

Although that power was given to the hon. the Minister in 1969, as far as I am aware, that committee has never been constituted. The manager was however appointed, and left without an advisory committee which he could consult and which, in turn, could make representations in regard to the business of the fund. What happened after the 1969 Act? We find that Mr. Gouws was given unfettered control, except when he was asked to come to the Secretary or to the Minister, unfettered control of a fund of some R50 million including the investment thereof as also to exercise all those powers which were enshrined in and given to him under the 1969 amendments. I want to come to those amendments and particularly—this is material—to the right of the fund through its manager to deal with any litigation as regards damages arising from motor cases. I want to refer to Hansard of 27th February, 1969. I want to say that the matter was raised in debate with the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister under clause 9. Certain categorical assurances were then given by the Deputy Minister, assurances which were accepted by this side of the House. I want to deal with them now. I raised the question of what the intention was with this fund and the power to litigate, to settle claims and what claims it would handle. I said the following in Hansard (vol. 25, col. 1526) of 27th February, 1969—

Order! The hon. member for Parow must resume his seat, and not stand in the passage.

Later the Deputy Minister agreed and I want to quote his words in the same volume, col. 1527 in referring to what I had said—

In other words, it would be limited entirely to claims of motor-cars which are uninsured or are unidentified. While I am dealing with that debate I would also like to deal with the question of the investment of funds. In column 1523 the hon. the Deputy Minister said the following—

That was the position in 1969. Here in passing I want to draw attention to the fact that the Clerk of the Papers of this House is unaware of any report of the M.V.A. Fund being Tabled in this House. No such report has been Tabled in this House. Now what happened? Almost immediately after Mr. Gouws assumed responsibility, and I understand that the Minister must have been aware of these facts, because he is now aware of them, he openly acted contrary to the Deputy Minister’s specific undertaking to Parliament as to what the meaning of that clause was in regard to litigation. This manager requested certain insurance companies to instruct a specific attorney nominated by him to do their legal work. He intervened at will to settle cases which were in the course of litigation between companies and with payments which had nothing to do with uninsured or unidentified vehicles. Finally, this official appointed by the Minister, went so far as to issue an instruction circular to insurance companies. This circular was issued by him on the 29th April, 1971. At this stage he was going to appoint the assessors, the lawyers, and he would also consult the doctors for every M.V.A. claim for amounts of more than R20 000. In this circular, No. T.P. 56/20 of the 29th April, 1971, the following is stated—

This is in the face of the assurances given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The first point which immediately arises is: Where is the control, the efficient control, the effective control by this Cabinet over officials appointed to high office such as this particular official? Because, Sir, the questions which have been asked indicate that as far back as 1969 investment entered the grey money market. There were investments then being made with private concerns. If I consult the section mentioned in the Act, then those investments were made with the consent and approval of this Minister. Sir, it was not one investment; there were eight separate amounts paid out into the private sector for investment in what is termed the “grey market”, and in respect of which, I will come back to this later, certain commissions were paid. I have referred to the position at the time the debate took place, but who was the gentleman who was appointed as manager? What had been his activities while he was connected with the fund under the supervision of this Deputy Minister? What did he do between 1965 and 1969, when he was appointed manager?

Let me give you some of his activities, this man selected by this Government to manage a R50 million fund, without control. On the 6th September, 1967, a company was incorporated under the name of Nohenno Assuransiemakelaars (Eiendoms) Beperk, consequently known as Profinkor (Eiendoms) Beperk. When this company was registered on 25th March, 1968, Mr. Gouws became a director of this company, according to form J lodged in the company’s office. On 2nd May, 1968, he had a thousand shares allotted to him, representing 20 per cent of the capital of this company. On the 17th September, 1968, a form J was then lodged in the company’s office stating that, though he was appointed director on 20th March, 1968, he resigned on 15th May, 1968. This company, as you can appreciate was connected with insurance. One of its main objects was “om besigheid te doen as versekeringsadviseurs en in die algemeen elke aanverwante handeling uit te voer”.

Now, Sir, I must hasten on. The actions of this man are numerous. On 5th February, 1968, another company was registered, the “besigheidsassessore van Suider-Afrika (Edms.) Beperk 68/1088”, of which company Mr. Gouws was a director. He subsequently resigned. But, Sir, on the file of the Registrar’s office is this interesting note:

So the company was duly registered on that date, to make it possible for the contracts with the State Department to be finalized. The same gentleman enjoyed the complete trust of the department and was apparently able to act in this way without any surveillance from the department. Apparently, the Minister did not know what he was doing in handling various claims. On 27th October, 1967, Mr. Gouws purchased a farm, Rietfontein 485, for R22 000. He took transfer on 23rd January, 1968, in terms of Deed No. 1869/1968, registered in Pretoria. On the same day two bonds were registered, ranking pari-passu, each for R11 750, to two of the companies who are members of the consortium.

A 100 per cent loan.

My hon. friend from Yeoville says it was a 100 per cent loan. It was a 100 per cent plus. It was a loan to pay the purchase price plus all the transfer costs. These bonds are registered. This type of activity was going on. Now, Sir, according to the Press reports the hon. the Minister of Transport on 28th July, 1971, confirmed that the Police were invesgating certain aspects of the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund—no doubt following the action referred to in the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, when he said :

I should like to know when the hon. the Minister was informed of these irregularities. On the information that I have this information was passed to the Government some two years ago, and not in 1971. The hon. the Minister could perhaps tell me when he was first informed by the hon. the Prime Minister of the irregularities. But in July, a few days earlier, the Secretary for Transport—here I want to say that the present Secretary for Transport, Mr. Driessen, was appointed to this office in 1969; he was not there at the time of the original appointment of this gentleman on the inspectorate and later to the management—announced that the investigations were of a purely domestic nature. And then on the 1st August, 1971, after the Minister himself had said that there was a Police inquiry, we find an announcement by the Secretary for Transport that the manager of the fund has been transferred for organizational reasons to the Department of Civil Aviation. That was on the 1st of August, 1971.

I am not concerned at this moment with the investigation of the criminal and other acts of Mr. Gouws or anybody else; what I am concerned with is the alarming extent of Cabinet inefficiency again in this instance as in the case of Department of Lands, in the control of expenditure and in the handling of vast sums of money. I want to put some pertinent questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister: By whom was Mr. Gouws appointed manager and on whose recommendation? Was he appointed on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission or was this a decision of the hon. the Deputy Minister himself? When did the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Deputy Minister become aware that the manager was not acting in accordance with the assurances, the solemn assurances, given by the Deputy Minister in this House as to how the Act would be implemented in so far as interference with litigation was concerned? When did he receive a report that that interference was taking place? I should also like the hon. the Deputy Minister to advise the House whether each and every investment made by this fund was approved by him personally, in terms of the Act, before the investment was made and before the money was paid out. My fourth question is whether in respect of the loans to the private sector—eight separate loans were made and they were big ones of R1 million or more, totalling R6,5 million—there was an agreement to pay commission or accept commission after consultation and with the approval of the Treasury. When the hon. the Minister of Finance was asked in the Other Place whether he had approved of this type of investment, he said he did not want to cross swords with a colleague. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us whether he consulted with the Treasury. In the committee that was established in 1964 to advise and control this fund the Treasury was represented. The next point I come to is the question of commission. Is it Government policy that when money is advanced by the Government, invested by the Government, that commission should be paid and that the lender should be in a position of being paid or enabling somebody else to earn commission on the investment of Government money? In the private sector commission is charged to the man who is borrowing for the services rendered, and I want to know whether the payment of commission is permitted on moneys belonging to and invested on behalf of the State. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Parktown, said that commission was paid in respect of some of these deposits. Will he please inform this Committee who received this commission, what the amount of the commission was, and why it was paid in consideration of an investment of State funds made by the Government? Why was it approved by the hon. the Minister?

Then, Sir, I want to know from the hon. the Minister why he has never appointed that committee under section 25D. Why has he never appointed a committee to control the manager of this fund and to advise him on business matters? My final question, to which the hon. the Minister of Transport will perhaps be able to reply, is why there has been this delay in the investigation. The control of the funds was in the hands of one person. The Police have been dealing with this matter since July of last year. There is only one person to be investigated, and that is the manager of the fund. We are now near the end of April and there is still no sign of a prosecution or a report. Has the hon. the Minister received a report from the Police? Has a report been placed before him or his colleague, the Minister of Police? Sir, these are matters which concern the public, and I want to say in conclusion why the public is so concerned, apart from the culpable inefficiency of the Deputy Minister in the discharge of his duties. The consortium companies retain 25 per cent of the premiums to finance the handling of claims, the investigation of claims, the employment of assessors, legal advisers etc. But, Sir, that has not been done, at the cost of the ordinary man in the street who pays MVA premium every year, because it has been taken from the fund itself by this manager himself appointing and remunerating the assessors and the legal representative. Sir, let me give you one example, a case in the Free State, where a company was busy with litigation. It had tendered R50 000 in respect of damages and costs to the date of tender. The pleadings were closed and the matter was about to go to court; then the manager intervened and settled on behalf of the fund at R98 870, almost double what had been tendered by the company. He agreed to pay all party costs and in fact, in generosity, also offered to pay R1 000 towards attorney and client costs in respect of this particular claim. The Minister knows of other occasions where petitions have been prepared to obtain consent to sue in the case of uninsured cars; the Minister has then given consent to sue where it had been refused. Sir, another point that I want to make in this matter is that the same fund is now going to be credited with another 50 cents per motor vehicle for road safety expenditure. What confidence can the country have that this money will be properly handled? The hon. the Deputy Minister owes it to this House and he owes it to every motorist in South Africa to compel companies doing insurance to disclose what their profits are and have been, because they have not been called upon to expend the 25 per cent of the premiums which they retained, because of the amounts expended by the manager appointed by the Deputy Minister out of the capital funds of this motor vehicle insurance fund. I believe that this matter is in the same category as the other matter in regard to which we found it necessary to put questions to the Minister of Agriculture. Here we have a complete lack of control over officials appointed by Ministers. In this case also the hon. the Deputy Minister has shown himself completely incompetent and, I believe, not fit to carry on in his present position.

Sir, I want to deal with only one aspect of the matter. I want to tell the hon. member that he has the fullest right to express criticism in this matter. Any information to which Parliament is entitled will be given to Parliament, of course. There is nothing to hide. There is no scandal whatsoever as far as the Government is concerned and as far as the Ministers are concerned.

Lack of control.

No, it is not lack of control. It is simply impossible for any Minister to control the individual activities of an officer in his department. It does not happen. [Interjections.] Sir, before hon. members start making interjections they must first listen; they know nothing about this matter and they will not know until I have explained what the position is. The position in regard to this individual is the following, but first of all, let me say this: I think that I rendered one of the greatest services to the motorists of South Africa with the establishment of this consortium. Hon. members who were in the House at that time knew what the position was after the collapse of Parity. They know that a number of companies refused to insure the motorists because I would not agree to an increase in the premiums. I received a request from she insurers to increase the premiums by a substantial amount, and I refused to do so. In retaliation they refused to insure the motorists, and as a result of this the consortium was formed. As a result of that action of mine, I have saved the motorists of South Africa literally millions of rands. If that consortium had not been formed and if the funds of the consortium had not been lucratively invested, the third party insurance premiums of motorists would probably have been double the present amount today, and there has been no increase over the past six years. That is the position as far as the consortium is concerned. In regard to the 25 per cent administration fee, that was the percentage upon which all the insurance companies worked before the formation of the consortium; they charged a 25 per cent administration fee, 5 per cent for commission to their agent and 20 per cent for administration. It is less now, but that was in force before the formation of the consortium.

Let me now come to the fund itself. Sir, not one cent of the motorist’s money has been misappropriated. Every cent paid into that fund has been invested. I am not now discussing the claims that have been paid out; I am speaking about the money invested.

I am not suggesting that.

I just want to make that clear so that the House and the country can know that not one single cent that has been paid in premiums has been misappropriated; it has all been properly invested. The original instruction was that the money must be invested with financial institutions and in building societies, etc. The Deputy Minister will deal with this matter in greater detail.

Let me now come to the position as far as Mr. Gouws is concerned and as far as I am concerned. I am, of course, responsible for the Deputy Minister and for the department; I am not running away from my responsibility. If there is any reflection on me, and if hon. members have any evidence that throws any doubt upon my integrity or honesty or my efficiency, I am quite prepared to hand in my resignation to the Prime Minister. Hon. members must know that. Mr. Gouws’s personal activities, outside the scope of his work as manager of this fund, first of all came to my attention on 19th April last year. I received a letter from the Prime Minister, which had been sent to him by Senator Van Rensburg, accompanied by a number of documents, in which certain allegations were made that Mr. Gouws was receiving commission from certain institutions where money had been invested. I received this letter which contained certain allegations that Mr. Gouws, as the manager of the insurance fund, was receiving commission from certain companies. They had no right to pay him commission and they are as guilty as Mr. Gouws is. They knew that they were not compelled to pay any commission but they did pay commission, and Mr. Gouws was putting that commission into his own pocket. He had certain companies that he had established, two of which have been mentioned here by the hon. member. When I received that letter on 19th April, I immediately handed the matter over to the Police for a thorough investigation, as it was my duty to do. I instructed the Secretary for Transport to deal with Mr. Gouws. On 29th June, after more evidence was submitted in regard to his activities, he was placed on compulsory leave and on 1st September he was suspended and he is still suspended.

May I ask a question? The question of commission arose because of the change from the normal treasury basis of investment. Had the Fund and the Deputy Minister responsible continued with the normal investments, with building societies, etc., it would never have arisen. Then the matter of commission would never have arisen. That is the point.

According to the information I received even certain building societies paid him a commission.

Were they entitled to give them money?

It is not a question of whether he got the money. I am speaking of what actually happened.

Was he entitled to lend money on the grey market?

He was entitled to lend it with the approval of the Minister, but all the funds that were invested were thoroughly guaranteed and there was no danger of those funds going astray. There was no question of the money not being safe, although it was invested at a very high rate of interest. I think I have given a list of the institutions where the money was invested. Hon. members have that in their possession. There is nothing to hide. It was said in regard to a particular company that the investment was guaranteed by the banks. But it was a high rate of interest and the reason why a high rate of interest was charged was to assist the motorist of this country; because the higher the rate of interest, the greater would be the income of the Fund, and the less chance there would be of an increase in premium, despite the fact that the claims were much higher than the receipt. That is what actually happened. I say categorically that I did not receive any information in regard to Mr. Gouws’ activities, as was maintained by that hon. member, two years ago.

I said the Government, not you.

I am the responsible Minister, and I received no information in regard to Mr. Gouws’ activities before this particular date when I received the letter from the Prime Minister’s office, when I immediately handed the matter over to the Police. Now the hon. member wants to know why the investigation has not been completed. He must ask the Police that. I do not interfere with them. I have received no report, except that I told the Secretary for Transport a number of times; For heaven’s sake, tell the Police to complete the investigations as soon as possible; the matter is hanging fire now for months.

May I ask a question? Is the Minister aware of a reply given to a question put to the Minister of Police this year which indicated that there was no Police investigation being done in this case?

No, that is not true. I think the Police officer who is in charge of the investigation is Col. Sherman.

Then we do not know where we are.

I am telling you where you are. I am not concerned with the questions put to the Minister of Police. I have given my reply. If the hon. member has a quarrel with the Minister of Police, he must speak to the Minister of Police. I am not concerned with what the Minister of Police told him. I am telling what I know. The matter was handed over to the Police [Interjections.] I have not heard the question before.

I thank the Minister for the opportunity. The position is that Mr. L. E. D. Winchester asked the Minister of Police on Tuesday, 8th February, 1972, whether the Police had instituted an investigation into the Motor Vehicles Assurance Fund and the Minister of Police replied “No.”

Sir, no Police enquiry was made into the Fund; it was made into the individual, a certain Mr. Gouws, who was the manager of the Fund. If the hon. member had framed his question correctly, he would have received the correct information. [Interjections.] Does not the hon. member accept my word?

Yes.

Then why does the hon. member shake his head? I am telling him what the position is. The Police inquiry is into Mr. Gouws’ activities, not into the Fund’s. There is nothing wrong with the Fund. Why should the Police investigate the Fund? Not a single cent of the Fund has been misappropriated. Why should the Police investigate the Fund?

The Police are investigating Mr. Gouws’ activities. The fact that Mr. Gouws received commission for investments he made out of the Fund, and that he put that commission into his own pocket, is what they are investigating. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I am as anxious as any other member is that those Police inquiries should be completed. The Secretary for Transport has spoken to the Police a number of times and asked them when they were going to complete the inquiry. However, there is nothing to hide; good heavens! That is the position in regard to Mr. Gouws as far as I am concerned. I want to repeat again that if there is any reflection on me, my integrity and honesty, or my efficiency as Minister, I am prepared to hand in my resignation to the hon. the Prime Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to give the dates which have just been given by the Minister, more fully. First of all the Minister told this Committee that he received a letter from the Prime Minister on 14th April.

19th.

On 19th April. This was handed to the Police by the Secretary for the department on 20th April, after we had properly discussed it. Then, on 23rd April, three days later, the Police started with the investigation. On 12th May the Police had further discussions with the department, the Secretary and myself. Mr. Gouws was placed on leave from 29th June, 1971.

Compulsory leave.

Yes, compulsory leave. He was finally discharged in September, 1971.

Suspended.

Yes, he was suspended in September, 1971.

Did he not get a job in civil aviation, as stated in the Press?

No. If the Committee considers these dates, it will see that action was taken immediately.

The question posed by the hon. member for Port Natal, Mr. Winchester, to the Minister of Police was not whether Mr. Gouws, but whether the Fund was being investigated. The Minister has already told hon. members that there is nothing wrong with the Fund.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Can he explain to the House how it is that the activities of Mr. Gouws became known through the action of members of the public and not through himself or his Department?

I will gladly do that. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the Committee would expect that the Minister, the Deputy Minister, or even the Secretary of the Department, should act as a policeman in regard to the activities of individual members of the department as such. It is not the Minister’s task to go to the Registrar of Companies and check on the registration of each and every company to see who the directors are and whether they are members of the Department. How could a Minister or Deputy Minister get this information other than through the public?

*Mr. Chairman, because my notes are in Afrikaans, I am going to deal in Afrikaans with certain parts of the questions put by the hon. member for Green Point. In the first place, I think that in order to reply properly to this matter, it is necessary that this Committee should see the M.V.A. Fund in its entirety. The Committee should see how that fund is and was handled and what action was taken. Firstly, the hon. member asked me why section 25D was never applied, and the advisory committee was never constituted. The functions of that advisory committee are defined in that Act, and these were mainly to advise the Minister on statistics in regard to tendencies in motor vehicle insurance, motor car accidents and motor vehicle insurance claims. That same work was done by the Premiums Committee, which analyses accident trends, the increase of claims as against premiums and the circumstances surrounding them, and advises the Minister in that respect. In other words, it would merely have been overlapping to use the advisory committee for that as well.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Can he exercise the powers conferred upon him in terms of the Act to establish such a committee? If the work of such a committee, constituted in terms of the provisions of section 25B, was unnecessary and the other committee was appointed in terms of section 1 bis …

The committee was appointed, but it never operated. It held no meetings.

Why not?

Because there was not enough work for the committee.

It seems to me there was.

In the first place, the hon. member made certain accusations in regard to the investments of the M.V.A. Fund. He made the accusation that commission was paid on the investments. The hon. the Minister has already told the hon. member that the State does not allow commission. Such cases have come to notice. Let me first tell the hon. member how it happened. The chairman of the fund submits to the Minister the list of premiums which he has already received and which are available for investment and, together with this, the recommendation in what institutions it may be invested. The Act provides that investments may be made in financial institutions, in building societies, in semi-State institutions like Escom, in municipalities, etc.

That is all and it is stated in the Act.

Yes, it is all. When the Minister has approved it, the chairman has the opportunity of making the investments according to that approval. I am not going to elaborate further on the investigation which took place after that, but I may say that one of the matters being investigated is what he did in regard to the investment after he had received approval. Some of these accusations made by the hon. member for Green Point may possibly appear in that. In the first place we must examine the investment aspect as such. In this connection I first want to tell the hon. members what would have happened if the investments had not been made as they in fact were. I have made an analysis of what the comparative statement with loss of interest would have been if all these investments had been made only with the Public Debt Commissioners. In that case the fund would have shown a loss of interest of R6 537 000 to date.

On an investment of R6,5 million?

Pardon?

Only R6,5 million was invested.

No. I said it was the difference in the loss of interest.

Then the figures are wrong.

Let me state very clearly now what the fund received in comparison with what it would have received if it had invested only with the Public Debt Commissioners …

It was not expected to do so.

No, I mention it because it is one aspect. The hon. member says it was not expected to do so. Let me say to this House that we have been reproached by the Opposition over there and especially in the Senate because not all these amounts were invested with the Public Debt Commissioners, but with private institutions as well. In order to put this matter clearly, I want to mention to hon. members what the difference in the earnings of the fund would have been if it had invested only with the Public Debt Commissioners. The loss of interest would have been more than R6,5 million.

But the Act does not require that.

I know the Act does not require it, but this is the propaganda aspect which the United Party used. I now come to the second matter which I want to put very clearly. If we look at the fund as such—and I must mention this—we shall see that if investments were not made in such a way that a buffer was built up between the premiums and the claims against premiums, the fund would have been insolvent already. The fact that one can invest and earn interest of up to 9 per cent, as the hon. the Minister said, is all that enables one to build up a buffer between the premiums and the claims experience. If it is necessary, and if hon. members want to know it, I am prepared to submit to them what the claims experience as against premiums has been. By so doing I could show them how far they are exceeded.

I must add that the hon. the Minister has already mentioned how the motor vehicle owner in South Africa has been saved millions of rands in the past as a result of the establishment of this fund. In the first place, I want to mention the amount which the public was saved by the refusal of the 20 per cent increase requested by the insurance companies in 1965. If one takes it over the period from 1965 to 1972, the amount which the motor vehicle owner was saved because this Act was introduced by the hon. the Minister, comes to more than R41 416 000.

There would have been many more increases if that one had been granted.

This is based only on the request for a 20 per cent increase which was submitted by the insurance companies as far back as 1965. If one looks at ordinary insurance, one can see what the tendency would have been. That increase would not have remained at 20 per cent, but would have become more and more. I think we may rightly say that, if one takes the present position into account, more than R100 million has been saved.

After overhead expenses and agents’ commission have been subtracted, the net income of this fund amounts to between R28 million and R30 million annually. As hon. members know, the income is collected by the insurance companies and paid over to the M.V.A. Fund.

I should like to explain the method of investment to hon. members now. As a result of the facts which came to our attention and in respect of which an investigation is being carried out now, an investment committee was established which considers applications and makes recommendations in this regard to the Secretary for Transport for submission to the Minister, who then exercises his discretion. That investment committee consists of the senior Deputy Secretary for Transport, the Chief Accountant of Transport, the Manager of the M.V.A. Fund and the Registrar of Financial Institutions. That is the reason why such a committee was appointed. A few moments ago I mentioned the statement of the fund’s investments as at 30th April. I now want to say to hon. members that the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund is not subject to Parliamentary control. Hon. members opposite said a few moments ago that they have never received the figures. These too are not subject to the control of the Controller and Auditor-General. The fund appoints auditors annually, and audit inspections are then carried out by private auditors, who submit reports to the Minister.

I now come to the complaint raised by the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member asked by whom Mr. Gouws had been appointed and where he came from. Mr. Gouws was an official of the Department of Transport. The appointment of Mr. Gouws, like that of any official, went through the channels of the Public Service Commission.

His appointment as manager as well?

Yes, his appointment as manager as well. At a certain stage the hon. the Minister and I discovered that an investment had in fact been made by Mr. Gouws in respect of which the applicants who had borrowed from the fund had paid an amount in commission to the fund as such. Immediately after this had come to our attention, the Minister issued an instruction that there was to be no such thing as commission. We realized immediately that there was a loophole and that if the fund were offered commission, other commissions could also be offered. When the Minister discovered this, that instruction was issued and a circular was also sent out so that all persons could know that there was no such thing that the State or the fund received commission for investments.

Was that money paid back?

That money was not paid back to the two institutions, because it was money that had already been paid to the fund. Now the hon. member for Green Point asks what confidence the public is to have in the handling and the investments of this fund. I want to say to him that in the same way as the Minister said that if his integrity were questioned he would resign, I say so as well. Here I have the auditors’ reports and nowhere is there any shortfall in any of the moneys of the fund as such or has any such money been wrongly invested or invested with institutions which do not have the necessary security. The fund has suffered no loss whatsoever. The hon. member also made out a case against the treatment of claims as such. He said that in the treatment of claims discriminatory and therefore wrong action was taken. I want to analyse the procedures to some extent so that the Committee may see how claims are dealt with.

It was contrary to your undertakings in this House.

Yes, it was contrary to them. Certain other things had to be taken into consideration subsequently. I briefly want to mention a few points now in regard to the treatment of claims. I want to point out that, according to the experience which has been gained, claimants should be kept out of the courts as far as possible. The simple reason for this is that court charges, lawyers’ fees, etc., are so high that they almost take up the eventual award which is made by the court. In this case I may mention the example where the court made an award of R57 000, while the total legal costs amounted to R44 000. In other words, the poor claimant received virtually nothing. Secondly, it is essential to deal with these claims as quickly as possible in order to gain clarity sooner. In this respect this fund has taken remarkably successful action and I want to mention figures which I have taken from 25 claims which were settled directly by the fund or on the instructions of the fund. In this regard a total amount of R2 417 000 was claimed initially. The total amount proposed by companies with a view to settlement and in respect of which approval was requested, amounted to R1 138 000. However, after the fund itself stepped in and determined to what extent these claims could be settled, they were settled for R961 000. In other words, in this case, where I have only made an extract of these 25 claims, there was the tremendous saving of R177 000-58. Let us now look at the number of claims dealt with like this, and in respect of which the hon. member for Green Point is dissatisfied. Of the 146 claims referred to the fund, the fund itself settled 26, while 28 were settled by companies on the instructions of the fund, and 29 were referred back to the companies for further action as they saw fit. Only two claims were settled by the court in this regard. Of these 146 claims, as a result of the actions and the guidance and leadership given by the fund, only two were settled by the court, while the others were settled by the fund itself. If this is the position that I can put to the hon. member, I cannot see how he can make the accusation that the fund is acting illegally here and wasting money. Even though, in terms of the agreement, the insurance companies receive 25 per cent, while the rest goes to the agents …

What about the increase, which was double the previous amount?

I am coming to that now. In this regard the department made a very thorough analysis, for example, of the way in which insurance companies use assessors, of the way in which they use attorneys, of the relationship between attorneys and companies and between the companies and the assessors, in order to pinpoint the unnecessary or the hidden income which companies may possibly have via those channels, and in order to pinpoint and eliminate unnecessary costs. By taking such action the Management of the fund as it is handled now has already saved motor vehicle owners thousands, as it has also done in respect of the claimants, who, in any case, had to pay the legal costs, etc., from their income.

Lastly I want to mention something else; the hon. member did not do so, but I think I should do so straightaway, because I expect it will still be mentioned. I want to point out that we have even investigated the reason why certain of the claims become prescribed, thereby creating a deficiency. I made the disturbing discovery that in respect of the 58 attorneys’ firms which have to handle claims and settle matters, the average prescription amounted to only one over a period of one year, while five of them allowed 10, 6, 9 and 5, respectively, to become prescribed. In other words we are also investigating which legal firms are not carrying out their duties in this regard properly in respect of claims as such.

I want to conclude with this apsect by pointing out to the hon. member that we have already given notice of an amending Bill on compulsory third-party motor vehicle insurance. Hon. members will see in that notice that there are going to be quite a number of amendments, because, as a result of the departmental investigation we ourselves instituted, and as a result of the details ws gathered in this way, we have now pinpointed the various hoopholes and places in the Act …

It should never have happened.

The hon. member says it should never have happened, but this Parliament gave me the Act to administer. In that Act I found deficiencies which opened loopholes which made these things possible. I want to mention only one example. Parliament approved that there would be a M.V.A. Fund with a manager, without making provision for an assistant manager or an acting manager. In other words, Parliament approved an Act —the hon. member is guilty of that together with us—which did not provide for a person to act as manager when the manager was on leave or being used elsewhere. We had to take special steps to rectify this. I mention this so that hon. members may see that a very thorough scrutiny has been made of the way this fund and the Act have been administered, in order to ensure that one may render only the best services to the motoring public and people involved in accidents, and that their money is safeguarded. This relates to the fund as such.

What about the Free State case?

I shall get the particulars about the Free State case; I do not have them here. I shall institute the necessary investigation into the Free State case. I should like to give hon. members the opportunity of dealing with this matter and then I shall reply later to all the points raised.

Mr. Chairman, I rise immediately to make one point clear. No allegation has been made by me or anyone on this side of the House against the integrity of the hon. the Minister of Transport or of the Deputy Minister. But certainly our allegations have been of incompetence so far as the Deputy Minister is concerned.

In what way?

That is the point which I made and I want to make it quite clear. The Deputy Minister commenced with a startling admission. The reason why he did not appoint a committee which should have been there to advise him and the manager, was because of the fact that the work was already being done by the premiums committee and the other committee. Those committees were in existence when the 1969 legislation was brought before this House. Why did the Minister ask for this further committee if the work was already being done by the existing committees? It seems to me—I cannot get away from it—that the Minister somehow or other failed to carry out his responsibility to appoint the committee. First he said that it was not appointed, then he said it was appointed, but that it never met. Perhaps he will tell me when that committee was appointed in terms of section 25D and who were the members of that committee.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the State does not pay commission in respect of loans. I agree 100 per cent. I agree with him entirely. But every investment made by this fund must carry his approval. The hon. the Minister himself said that in respect of investments with Iscor, the Eastern Province Building Society, and Santam Bank, commission was paid because it was arranged. I wish to refer to his answer to a question on 7th March this year. When he was asked about commission, he answered and then asked that a further question should be tabled. He then said, in column 477, that commission was paid when it was a condition of the investment. Sir, he asks what we are getting at? Did he unintentionally approve of loans which involved commission being paid, whether it was to the fund or to anybody else? Because if so, then he is obviously not fit to be put in a position to approve of the investment of funds by this particular committee.

The hon. the Deputy Minister went off at a tangent which was irrelevant to the debate and asked what the income would have been had he invested with the Public Debt Commissioners. While the Minister of Finance is appealing to the country to bring down interest rates this Minister enters the grey market with 9½ per cent loans, with commission being paid as well. Sir, he says “no money of the fund was lost”. Every cent paid to assessors and legal advisers by the M.V.A. Fund itself is a loss to that fund if the cases were not those of uninsured or unidentified vehicles; because those costs and investigations should have been at the cost of the insurance companies concerned. Could the hon. the Deputy Minister answer this question for me: Who approves of the settlement of claims which are handled by the Fund, for example whether the amount is to be increased from R50 000 to R89 000 or R99 000? In whose hands is the settlement of the amount to be paid for damages? The Deputy Minister now indicates that he wants to build up a whole department of managers and under-managers to deal with work which can be done hy the insurance companies who are qualified and experienced and who know how to handle and settle cases of claims for damages. The hon. the Deputy Minister now wants to appoint assistant-managers, his own assessors, lawyers, counsel and so on, to deal with these particular cases. I am afraid that the hon. the Minister’s replies to the points which have been raised do not satisfy us. They certainly do not satisfy me. The Minister has failed lamentably, first of all, to see that assurances given by him as a Minister of the Government in this House, are observed—which they were not—in regard to the matters to be handled by this Fund.

We accepted these assurances.

Yes, we accepted them. Firstly, he failed in that.

Then I took the necessary steps.

That does not answer the question. They were assurances which we accepted. The hon the Deputy Minister must not take it amiss if we say that we are not prepared to accept assurances that an Act will be administered in a certain way In future we will require those assurances to be contained in the Act. Secondly, I want to say that the Deputy Minister’s reply still leaves it perfectly clear that he failed in his duty to appoint a committee to advise him and to control the manager. He failed in his duty to do that. Thirdly, these investments which he made and approved of to Monkor and these other companies, are investments which I believe do not bear the approval of the Treasury; they were contrary to Government policy. They were entering into the grey market and doing exactly what the Minister of Finance did not want to be done, namely spiralling the interest rates and supporting increased interest rates.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry that this thing about Gouws happened. Gouws was a very efficient official. Gouws was an official of the Department of Transport for many years. He came up right from the bottom until he reached the position which he occupied as manager of the Fund. Mr. Gouws saved the Fund and the motorists of this country very many millions of rand. Unfortunately, as very often happens, temptation comes in the way of an officer or individual, who then falls prey to such temptation.

But the hon. member speaks about the control of an official. Over the years there are many cases of thefts and fraud on the Railways. These cases are reported by the Auditor-General every year. Surely the hon. member does not hold the General Manager of Railways, or the Minister, responsible for that. You cannot control the activities of every individual.

This is a different matter.

No, it is not a different matter. The hon. member at least must be fair.

He appointed this committee.

The committee does not control the manager. The manager really had excessive powers. The manager controlled the funds of the insurance fund as well as they could be controlled. The manager of the insurance fund invested certain of these funds and received commission through companies that he formed. Thereon he received commission. That is actually the crime. Then of course it came out afterwards that he received bonds from certain members of the consortium, bonds that were more than 100 per cent of the price that he paid. This, of course, is entirely wrong.

Before his appointment as manager?

No, it was after that, I think.

It was in 1968 when …

He received the bonds, but we only …

I say that that was entirely wrong, namely to receive bonds or loans from companies who were members of the consortium. It is entirely wrong; it should never have happened. The hon. member must realize that neither I, the Deputy Minister nor the Secretary for Transport can go to the Registrar of Companies and find out whether any official in the department has established a company or is a shareholder in a company, unless it is brought to my attention.

The indication given by the hon. the Deputy Minister in the Other Place was that the audits of the M.V.A. accounts have shown nothing wrong. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to consider legislation to bring the M.V.A under the Auditor-General’s control?

Mr Chairman, I have no objection to that at all. Of course not. There is nothing to hide. I want this fund to be administered as well as it can be administered, without any question or suspicion of the misappropriation of funds or anything else.

As I said, Mr. Gouws was an efficient official. He was led into temptation and he fell prey to such temptation. We did what we could. When it came to my attention, the matter was immediately handed over to the Police. They are still busy with the investigations. The fact remains that the companies who paid him commission are as guilty, in my opinion, as he is. They knew that it was not necessary to do that. Why they did it will be established by the Police. I believe that one of the reasons why the Police investigations are so protracted is to get the necessary evidence from all the companies which actually paid commission to Gouws. They could have made voluntary admissions. That is probably one of the reasons why the investigations have not been completed. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I am as impatient as he is to have this investigation completed. Whether it is a criminal offence I do not know. It remains to be seen whether it is a criminal offence for any official to receive commission. That is a matter to be decided by the Attorney-General.

Then I want to say something in regard to the grey market.

Could the hon. the Minister also ensure that the committee under section 25 is appointed and functions? The duty under section 25D of the Act to appoint a committee …

The committee was appointed.

The committee’s function was not to control the manager. Even if the committee was appointed, this still would have happened.

In regard to this grey market that the hon. member referred to, I have a list here of all the financial institutions in which money was invested. I have gone through the list, and there are only three institutions to which exception may be taken, namely Monkor Trust, Protocol Construction and Tuckers Land and Development Corporation. These are the only three, out of almost a few dozen institutions, such as the Sentrale Nywerheidsaksepbank, Santam, Sasbank, Trust Bank, National Industrial Credit Corporation, Bank van die O.V.S., etc., which are all banks, building societies and municipalities. These are not institutions in the grey market. As I have said, out of the whole list there are only three to which exception could be taken and to which I took exception when the list came to my attention, namely Monkor Trust, Protocol Construction and Tuckers Land and Development Corporation. Mr. Gouws had no right to invest any of the funds in those private companies. Unfortunately Mr. Gouws took it upon himself to invest this money before obtaining approval from the Deputy Minister.

Who signed the cheques?

Mr. Gouws.

On his own?

Yes, as manager. He had excessive powers, which he should never have had.

Was his the only signature?

Only Mr. Gouws signed.

This is another Venter case.

The fact remains that there has been no misappropriation of any of the money of the fund, and that is what the motorists are concerned about. The only thing that is wrong is that Mr. Gouws received commission on certain investments made on behalf of the Fund with certain companies. That is what the Police are investigating. Whether Mr. Gouws should have signed alone or not has nothing to do with the matter.

It added to the temptation.

It has nothing to do with this particular matter, because there has been no misappropriation of funds. Sir, that is all I want to say in regard to this matter. I repeat that I am very sorry this happened, because Mr. Gouws was an efficient officer of the department. There was never any suspicion that he had done anything wrong until I received the letter sent to the Prime Minister on behalf of the Law Society, I think, together with a number of documents, and then action was immediately taken. But to think that any Minister or Deputy Minister or head of a department can control the outside activities of any officer of his department is simply nonsense; you cannot do it. You do not find out that anything is wrong until it is brought to your attention. If one of these companies had complained that they had to pay commission to Mr. Gouws, action would have been taken immediately, but they did not do that so nobody knew about it.

Would it not be a form of control if a counter-signatory was required for cheques of these amounts? That in itself would be a form of control.

It would have made no difference in regard to the payment of commission. What difference would it have made? Even if there were 10 signatures on a cheque in regard to a particular investment, would that have made any difference to the commission paid to Mr. Gouws?

It would have lessened the temptation.

What temptation? The temptation would still have been there.

*Why does the hon. member shake his head? I can hear him shaking this head from over here. Even if there were 20 signatures on a cheque, that commission could still have been paid to Gouws. They probably approached him and said : “Look, if you want to invest so much with us, then you are going to receive so much commission on the quiet”; surely the signatories of those cheques will have no knowledge of that.

They would have sought authorization before they si gned.

We are dealing now with an accomplished fact. The Act is being amended. There is an amending Bill before the House now in which we are going to deal with the whole matter.

*If there are any loopholes in the Bill, hon. members may move amendments in order to close all the loopholes. At the moment, however, we are dealing here with something which has happened, which is an accomplished fact. Good investments have been made at high rates of interest, all of them in safe institutions. Even the three companies mentioned here, are absolutely safe; there is nothing wrong with them, although I think it was wrong to have invested in them. Good interest was paid which saved the motorists of this country millions. Had it not been for that high interest, there would have had to have been an increase in the premium.

Sir, this is all I can say in regard to the whole matter.

Before concluding the matter, I just want to refer the hon. member again to his question in connection with the committee. We have three committees, the premium committee and the advisory committee, and section 25 (D) quoted by the hon. member reads as follows—

In other words, this committee had no advisory function to the Minister as such. It was a committee to be used by the manager of the MVA Fund. It says that each member of the committee shall be a person nominated by the registered company, after a request to that effect by the Minister to each registered company as a person suitable to represent registered companies on the committee, and shall be appointed for such period and on such conditions, if any, including a condition as to payment of allowances … as the Minister may determine. In other words, this committee had no control whatsoever in connection with the investments. This committee could be called on by the MVA Fund manager at his own discretion. This committee was appointed.

Then the hon. member put another question to me, as to who approves of the claims. I have already given him the figure and of the different claims, of the 146 claims, which were referred to the Fund, 26 were handled by the Fund itself. The others were referred back.

My question was who in the fund decides whether they are going to pay R5 000 or R50 000, as the case may be?

The amount of the claim to be paid is decided by the manager alone.

The hon. the Minister said that had they found that commission had been paid this would have been stopped. That is not the information the House received from the hon. the Deputy Minister because in column 476 of 7th March, 1972, the Deputy Minister was asked whether commission was paid in connection with investments made by the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund and if so on what basis. He replied that commission was paid where it was offered as a specific condition of the investment. Then he was asked by whom? and he mentioned lscor, the Eastern Province Building Society and Santam. Then he was asked how much commission was paid in 1971? and he mentioned R3 500. Asked who approves of the investments, he answered that it was the Minister of Transport. Now if the investment is offered and commission is a condition of the investment, the Deputy Minister must have approved of the investment and of the commission being paid. Then he was asked what procedure was followed in making such investments. The reply was that quotations received from interested bodies were considered in the light of the availability of funds for investment, rates of interest, security and terms of repayment. Sir, I am simply saying that according to this reply from the Deputy Minister he was aware, whoever approved the loan, that commission was being paid at least in these three instances.

No.

Sir, the first I heard about commission was when that question was put and I saw the replies drafted by the department. It came before me for approval and I saw that commission by certain of those companies had been paid to the Fund. I then said it was wrong. But when approval is given for an investment nothing is said about commission being paid or not. A list merely comes before the Minister of certain companies, municipalities or building societies in which money was going to be invested, but when that approval is given nothing is said about commission. Nothing is said to the effect that any offer has been made by any company. That is the usual submission which comes to the Minister. Then it is approved that a certain amount will be invested with certain financial institutions and building societies. But the first we heard about commission being paid, was when that reply was drafted. Then I said that must stop because it is not the function of the Fund to receive commission on any investments made of Fund money.

There is just one further matter in regard to this question of commission. Last session I asked the hon. the Minister, in regard to investments, why he moved certain moneys from one institution to another, and his reply was simply because he got better interest rates. Well, that was fair enough. It was only natural. But if one looks at this particular issue we have been discussing this afternoon, these three companies —and I do not want to go into the pros and cons of that again—but if you look at the reply given by the Minister in so far as Monkor Trust is concerned, the commission earned there was 8 per cent. In reply to another question to the Minister, also this year, he told me that the average rate of commission earned by investments of the Fund, was 8,02 per cent. I am sorry, I mean interest. Here obviously the first investment to Monkor Trust was at a lower rate of interest than the average interest earned by the Fund. I want to point that cut to the hon. the Minister, that this certainly made that a particularly bad investment.

I would like to say this to the hon. the Minister of Transport. He mentioned earlier on, when he got up to speak, that he did the motorists of South Africa a tremendous favour by establishing the consortium. I do not want to go into all that again, but I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that if he had offered the same conditions to the insurance companies, with which he had differences at that stage, which the consortium now enjoys, there is not one insurance company in South Africa which would not have jumped at the opportunity to do business on that basis.

They all want to come in now.

Yes, they all want to come in now and the only person who is stopping them is the hon. the Minister himself. I would say to the hon. the Minister, as I have said to him before, that if he lets them all in, the Fund would be a good deal better run and claims would be a good deal better handled, and the public would get a better service than they get at present.

Dealing just very briefly again with the Fund, I would like to put a question to the Deputy Minister, in reply to another answer he gave me to a question earlier this session. He told me what the premium income of the Fund was. The Deputy Minister gave me the premium income for the last financial year, 1972, the claims paid and the estimate of outstanding claims. This is the figure I would like to bring to the attention of the Deputy Minister. He gives the figure for outstanding claims of R54,9 million, or almost R55 million. This in itself is fair enough but the previous year the Deputy Minister gave me the figure as well, but then it was R35 million less than in 1971. I know that outstanding claims form the basis of working out any insurance figure, but I would like to say this to the hon. the Minister, that in my experience the increase from R20 million odd to nearly R55 million in outstanding claims shows that there is something radically wrong, either in his estimates for the previous year, or in his estimates for this year under review; and if that is so, I wonder how the Minister could have talked about the necessity of having to increase insurance premiums. There can be no necessity to increase premiums unless your arithmetic is a good deal better than it has been up to now. I can say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he will have to come with far more convincing figures than he has come with up to now to convince me that this Fund is running into financial difficulties. I said to the Deputy Minister some time ago that it was my opinion that the consortium companies were doing very well out of this Fund, and the Deputy Minister must have agreed with me because he reduced the commissions shortly thereafter. I would say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is no good talking in this House, as he has done on previous occasions and in this session too, about threatening that motor vehicle insurance premiums may have to be increased if the accident rate continues. I would say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should do his homework a great deal better than he has done, if he wants to convince me of that argument, because the estimates of outstanding claims are either very wrong this year or have been very wrong in previous years.

I want to turn very briefly to the matter of road safety and I hope I can draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to this particular aspect. I have addressed a number of notices to the new council bringing certain matters to its attention and I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to draw the new council’s attention in particular to the use of heavy vehicles on the roads. It would be very nice if I could have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention.

I am listening.

There was recently a report on African ferry drivers between Durban and Johannesburg which showed that these drivers, who are driving for periods of up to 17 to 20 hours out of every 24, earn a salary of not more than R25 per week. I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to draw the new Road Safety Council’s attention to this matter, because obviously the Durban-Johannesburg road today is more dangerous than any Grand Prix circuit in South Africa. While he is at it, he might also bear in mind the recommendation of certain authorities in Natal who suggest that heavy vehicles have a disc at the rear showing the speed at which they are authorized to travel. This would then show the public whether that vehicle is exceeding its regulated speed. While he is at it, the same thing might apply to passenger vehicles. Buses which travel between Durban and Pietermaritzburg certainly travel far in excess of a speed at which it would be safe for them to travel. I think in their case too a disc should be displayed at the rear of the vehicle or in the vehicle so that the passengers themselves could see the speed at which that vehicle is supposed to travel. I bring these matters to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister, because I believe these are matters of urgency and I wish them to be brought to the notice of the Road Safety Council.

Mr. Chairman, the matters raised here in connection with the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, are matters about which the Minister and his department have a special knowledge, and he therefore will best be able to reply to them. I just want to mention that we shall have an opportunity in the near future of discussing in this House the whole question of the administration of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund when we deal with the amending Bill in question.

But I want to refer to a different subject. This concerns certain remarks which were made in the course of the recent hearing of the application for an increase in bus fares in Cape Town. I hasten to add that this hearing took place in public. It took place under proper control after the local road transportation board had received reports from cost accountants and due consideration had been given to all aspects of the matter. So I do not want to say anything whatsoever about the merit of the case. In the course of the hearing however, mention was made of three factors which contributed towards the increased bus fares in the Cape. These three factors are briefly as follows : In the first place, we have the development of the Coloured residential areas on the Cape Flats which are situated quite a long way from railway connections. The second factor is the question of the staggering of working hours during peak hours, and the third factor is the question of the congestion on our roads during peak hours. To my mind these three factors are probably the most important ones which have led to an application for higher bus tariffs and this was recognized by the local road transportation board. I take it that this was also accepted by the objectors because they did not appeal against these aspects.

As far as the last mentioned factor is concerned, that is the question of the congestion on our roads, I want to say that this is not a matter we can deal with here, because this is a matter which has its proper place in the negotiations between the bus companies and the local authorities concerned in the matter, namely the Cape Town Municipality as well as the other municipalities concerned in the area. I should imagine that it would ultimately lead to the local authorities, in their wisdom, deciding to establish, say, bus roads or bus lanes on which the buses would be able to travel at greater speeds and not be held up as a result of the excess traffic. More consideration could also be given to the possibility of these large buses travelling on freeways to avoid their having to stop too frequently at traffic control points. As a matter of fact, these aspects may be properly dealt with during negotiations between the bus companies and the local municipalities and do not really concern us in this House. We also have to bear in mind that if we were to continue building roads which can cope with the traffic during peak hours, we would be placing enormous costs and an enormous burden on the tax payers of this country. In addition, the building of these roads would necessarily lead to all kinds of side-effects such as the expropriation of valuable properties and the demolition of other properties which may be of historic value, or to other detrimental effects which are usually the result when these bigger and wider roads are built in our cities. If I had to build roads I would much rather build them in the border areas where our new industries have to be established. I mention these matters because we cannot simply allow these roads to be built in an uncontrolled and unlimited way, roads which are built merely to cope with traffic during peak hours. That is one factor I should like to mention.

The second factor is the question of the development of the Coloured townships on the Cape Flats and the establishment of these residential complexes from where the workers have to be conveyed to the various factories and places of employment. Apparently it is a fact that a road transport bus company functions at its best when it has to convey people over short distances. When the distances over which it has to convey people increase because there is no train traffic available, it becomes less economic. The reason for it is that buses cannot be used again and again during peak hours, that they cannot be used on the roads more than once and that, relatively speaking, the fares for short distances are higher than those for long distances. Surely the ultimate object of bus traffic is to get the people to the trains. The facts that our suburban train network on the Cape Flats has not been developed yet to the stage to provide for this, and the result is that the buses have to travel long distances.

To my mind the third factor is the most important one. This is one to which we are, at this early juncture, able to give attention to a certain extent. I have been informed on good authority that if we could have succeeded in staggering the starting times of our places of employment so that they extend over a longer period than the one and a half hour period which our peak hours last, if it could have been staggered over, say, three or four hours, it would even have been possible to avoid this increase in bus fares in the Cape. It would then have been possible for the bus companies to accept the increased costs. It has also been put to me on good authority that if we could succeed in staggering our working hours properly we would have been able to avoid this increase, the stagering of working hours naturally means that fewer vehicles have to be commissioned and used during peak hours. There would not have been such a busy time during which these vehicles had to be kept on the roads. There would be less traffic on the roads, and this would lead to a reduced cost structure as far as operations were concerned. We would even need fewer roads. In paragraph 357 of the report of the Marais Commission of Inquiry I notice that the staggering of working hours was one of the recommendations made by that commission. Paragraph 357 on page 46 reads as follows—

The commission goes further with its recommendation and particularly in paragraph 358 it is suggested that certain promotional committees be established in our major centres which are in a position to negotiate with commerce and trade and other major employers in order to achieve such staggering of working hours. When we consider that approximately 84 per cent of our White population are at present living in our cities and that 97 per cent of our White population will be living in the cities towards the end of the century, we must appreciate that this will become more and more of a problem. I also studied that part of Hansard in which this report was dealt with in 1970, and it seems to me as if this is not a novel idea as far as the department is concerned. I suggest that the authority which should bear the responsibility of establishing these co-ordinating committees should be the Department of Transport because, in terms of the Motor Transportation Act, it is the responsibility of this Department to ensure that proper transport services are established and —in my humble opinion—to ensure that they function properly. I suggest that the initiative in regard to the establishment of this class of committees is the function of the Department of Transport, and that it may serve a useful purpose if this work could at least be initiated in some way or another.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville has given us a very thoughtful speech. I think that on most of the matters that he mentioned, if not all, we have common cause. We are well aware of the problems raised by him. If one only looks at the biggest single item under the Transport Vote, namely the subsidization of railway non-White passenger services to and from the non-White townships, one sees that it has risen by R2 200 000 for the coming year to R16 300 000. This represents the loss upon the rail services only and it gives us some idea of the sort of problem that we are up against. It was interesting to hear him talk about such things as special bus lanes. I do not know whether he is aware of it, but this has been done with some success in Johannesburg. It is a very good idea if you can provide them. For the rest I would suggest some caution on the question of staggering working hours. It is a very nice thought to have and from the purely transport side of things it sounds very good. But one must remember that our entire commerce and industry rely to a very large extent on synchronization, and this includes the synchronization of working hours. I want to raise two questions with the hon. the Minister this afternoon.

The first one is in regard to the national road to the South of Johannesburg, from Johannesburg to the Orange Free State border. A few weeks ago I put a question to the hon. the Minister which was replied to by the Deputy Minister. I asked what the position was with this new road. He told me that the planning of the road had been completed with the exception of a short section in the vicinity of Baragwanath airport. He also told me that construction was not envisaged to commence before the 1973-’74 financial year. He then went on to say that if the construction continued as planned, the road would be completed by 1977. I want to remind this hon. Minister that what we are dealing with here is one of the most important and heavily used trunk routes in the country, especially when one considers that it bears virtually the entire traffic not only between Johannesburg and Pretoria and the South, but also that between Johannesburg and Vanderbijlpark and areas such as that. Not only at peak hours, but at any time during the day or night, this road is totally unsuited to the density of the traffic and I think that those who have travelled on it are aware that it can be positively dangerous. I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister why there have been these tremendous delays in planning the road and also why we have to wait this length of time for construction to begin. This is important, especially when one sees other areas of the country with very good access roads to major towns like we have in the Cape. The Cape Town/Paarl road is a very good one and the new road to Somerset West is outstanding. The road between Johannesburg and Vanderbijlpark can fairly be described as the Cinderella of our national roads. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us that something is being done to speed things up.

There is another matter I would like to touch on, and that has to do with the application of the National Road Safety Act, which was passed this session. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, and I am doing this by way of a probe, whether this National Road Safety Act is goin to be applied to the Transkei. Will the National Road Safety Act be applied to the Transkei?

Yes.

We are not at all sure that it can be applied. Even on reading the Act itself, there seems to be some doubt about whether it would be applied. Section 29 of the Act reads as follows :

There is some doubt about whether Parliament is competent to legislate in this regard.

There is no doubt whatsoever. It will be applied in the Transkei.

Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will just bear with me for a moment. Part B of the First Schedule to the Transkei Constitution Act, No. 48 of 1963, says that “The regulation and control of road traffic, including the licensing and control of vehicles and the drivers of vehicles in the Transkei, but excluding all matters dealt with in the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of 1942, shall fall within the purview of the Transkei Government.” I do not think it can be argued that the 50 cent levy being imposed in terms of the National Road Safety Act, has in fact got anything directly to do with the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. In fact, it is simply being collected along with third-party premiums. I would suggest that this House, in fact, might not have had the power to legislate in respect of road safety and in respect of this levy as far as the Transkei is concerned. We should get clarity on this, particularly now, as levies are in fact being collected in the Transkei along with the third-party premiums.

Mr. Chairman, it has now become almost a routine for the aspect of road safety and related matters to be raised every year under the discussion of this Vote. This has been done this year as well by hon. members on both sides of the House. It is a fact that there is a great measure of agreement in this connection when this matter in regard to road safety is debated. There is not only agreement among us in this House, but also among the public outside in regard to this matter. We know that this matter enjoys a great deal of public attention. Public attention is constantly being focussed on road safety, to such an extent that to some people it has, in fact, become commonplace. We know that particularly during long week-ends, at a time such as the Easter week-end, when people want to travel quickly from places such as Pretoria and Johannesburg to the coast to benefit from the short break, the roads get busier and the offices emptier. On occasions such as these the motor cavalcades move bumper to bumper at a rate of between 800 and 1 000 per hour on certain of our roads. It is particularly in this heavy traffic that it is necessary for the person behind the steering-wheel to have the correct approach from a scientific and psychological point of view and to have the right attitude and frame of mind as far as road use is concerned. These things have been said on numerous occasions and this is just by way of repetition as far as this matter is concerned. It is actually being said that the person behind the steering-wheel should be educated. It is quite difficult to educate a grown-up person who has been driving a motor vehicle for a long time. Nevertheless, this is a task one should never relinquish and with which one should keep on.

From time to time the public is called upon to give its considered opinion as to how road accidents are caused, and in what way road accidents should be counteracted. Such an opinion poll was conducted in the Transvaal some time ago and shed quite interesting light on the public opinion in regard to accidents and their causes. Suggestions for counteracting accidents may be divided under the following categories, expressed as a percentage. To me this is quite interesting. This is what the opinion poll has shown : 39 per cent of the people want the law to be applied more strictly; 29 per cent want driver’s licences to be controlled more strictly; 10 per cent want better road conditions; 7 per cent want sterner steps to be taken against liquor and drugs; 6 per cent want sterner action to be taken against speeding; 3 per cent want sterner action to be taken against unroadworthy vehicles, while 6 per cent have requests of a miscellaneous nature. When analysing this information we find that approximately 80 per cent of the suggestions relate to the people who regard the driver as the major cause of road accidents. In other words, the human factor remains the uncertain factor in road usage. When speaking of education, it has been recommended here in the past that a subject of this nature be introduced in schools, whether in primary or in high schools. I think that apart from the fact that elementary lessons are being given in regard to road safety in primary schools, it is more essential that this be introduced in high schools. Sir, I am very grateful that something in this connection is now going to take place in high schools in the Transvaal. I think this is being done in the high schools here in the Cape Province as well, and most probably throughout the whole of the Republic, namely that a subject called “Youth preparedness” is now being introduced. In regard to this subject, specific attention is being given to road use and vehicle maintenance. I am going to quote just one sentence from this curriculum which is being recommended. It reads as follows (translation)—

“Of this” relates to the death-toll on account of road accidents.

… and confront ourselves with the question whether enough is being done, particularly in secondary schools, to try and avoid our people from bleeding to death on our roads.

I am particularly grateful—and I have noted this with gratitude—that it has been mentioned here today that this aspect has, indeed, been introduced in this subject of “Youth preparedness”.

Sir, people have a saying that immature driving and driving under the influence of liquor are the major causes of motor accidents. As far as driving under the influence of liquor is concerned, there are strict regulations and rules. Throughout the whole world severer measures are being taken in this connection. As far as immature driving is concerned, I should like to make a few comments. This does not only apply to people who, as young people, obtain their driver’s licences but to anybody who obtains a driver’s licence. I feel that the young person and any other person who obtains a driver’s licence should be subjected to a trial period—I am raising this matter in order to have the principle accepted—of six months or a year. To my mind there should be some indication on the back of the vehicle that the person has been subjected to a trial period, as we have the indication in the case of a learner driver who is learning to drive a motor vehicle. In case an offence is committed during that time, the trial period for that particular person recommences. Let us be practical in regard to this matter. A person arrives at half past eleven in the morning at a test centre. Until half past eleven he is subject to the regulations and rules of a learner driver. He obtains his driver’s licence at 12 o’clock and he then has the same rights and privileges any driver of a motor vehicle has. In other words, he is allowed to travel at the same speed in the towns or wherever it may be. This is being applied in various other states and countries of the world, and I think some attention should be given to this idea to see whether this cannot be done in our country.

Further, Sir, I think that the requirements laid down for obtaining a driver’s licence should be much stricter. I believe that, inter alia, a written test should be passed by anybody applying for a driver’s licence. [Time expired.]

Sir, over the years I have raised the problem of the national road linking Port St. Johns with the rest of the Republic. I have received no satisfaction. I raised this matter last year under the Prime Minister’s Vote, hoping that I would get some assistance from him, but all he did was to refer me to a reply which a deputation had received from the hon. the Deputy Minister the year before. I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Transport are here, because I want members in the Cabinet to hear what I have to say.

I am all attention.

Sir, both Ministers will know, especially the Minister of Finance, what the position is, because he, in another capacity, once appointed a committee to go into the question of the development of Port St. Johns. He and Mr. Haak were the Ministers responsible for development at that time. The report which that committee brought out was that there could be no development at Port St. Johns except for tourism. That was the only development they could visualize for Port St. Johns; the Minister of Finance will remember that. Sir, there are two roads to Port St. Johns, one from Natal, via Kokstad, and the other from Umtata. Both these roads are supposed to be national roads. In 1965 I spoke to the hon. the Minister of Transport in this House about these roads and asked him what was being done about them. The reply that I got from him was this—

I might point out that Libode is on the way from Umtata to Port St. Johns—

Sir, that was in 1965. A private company was employed to survey the road from Baziya to Umtata and Libode. I do not know why not to Port St. Johns. Nobody knows why they were told to stop at Libode. That survey was completed some years ago, but nothing has been done about tarring that road or preparing it. From Libode on to Port St. Johns there has not even been a survey and, as the Minister knows very well, from Port St. Johns to Port Edward there has not been a survey. The road is not even located yet. There are only two ways of getting to Port St. Johns and that is via these roads; you cannot get there by sea and there is no aerodrome. I put a question to the hon. the Minister this year as to the road transport service to Port St. Johns and as to what interruptions there had been. The reply I got was that there was no passenger service from Kokstad to Port St. Johns on the 12th, 14th and 22nd January, and on the 4th, 5th and 21st to 26th February. There was no contact with Port St. Johns at all. They tried to make special efforts to get perishables down to Port St. Johns with a big truck, but the truck could get no further than Flagstaff, so Port St. Johns was completely cut off during that period from Kokstad. From the Umtata side it was cut off on the 11th, 12th and 22nd January and on the 4th, 11th, 21st and 26th February. The goods truck was unable to travel from the 21st February to the 28th February, so Port St. Johns could get no goods at all from the Umtata side during that period. Sir, the people in Port St. Johns are dependent on that road. They are farmers and their farm produce must get to the outside market. I understand that one of the hotels kindly undertook to store the cream for the farmers in its refrigerated room until the road was open again for them to get the cream away. The guests were unable to get down to the hotel, and on certain days there was no way of getting out of Port St. Johns on either road, because the roads on both sides were blocked. The construction and the maintenance of roads, as the hon. the Minister has often pointed out, is not financed out of the ordinary sources out of which national roads are financed. A special grant has to be made by the Treasury. The grant this year is R1 million. Last year it was R990 000, so it has gone up by R10 000 this year. Sir, I ask the Minister: What can be done with R1 million? I understand that the average cost of constructing a national road today is in the vicinity of R150 000 per mile. With R1 million you cannot even construct 10 miles of road in a year, quite apart from maintaining the road. Sir, this Government has a duty to the people in Port St. Johns. They were assured by the late Dr. Verwoerd and by this Prime Minister that their interests would be protected. They are in an isolated spot surrounded by what may become foreign territory. At the moment it is controlled by the Transkei Government, and the Transkei Government controls the national roads as well, although they are not responsible for constructing them. They are responsible for the maintenance, as the hon. the Deputy Minister told me the other day. Rut, of course, they only maintain roads out of the money that they get from the Government. This road is unusable at certain times because the rivers overflow the bridges. Port St. Johns is completely cut off when the bridges are under water. Surely something can be done to build new bridges so that Port St. Johns will not be cut off in this manner? My information) from the farmers’ association is that every time they have a rainfall of half an inch or more, the rivers come down and these bridges are unusable. I say that the Government has a duty to the people living down there and that is why I want to appeal to the Minister of Finance to use his influence with the Cabinet. I wish the hon. the Minister of Finance would listen to me for a moment. He appointed a committee once before and he knows what the position is there. I am appealing to him to use his influence in the Cabinet to see that a bigger grant is given. The Minister of Transport always gives me the same answer: “I cannot get the money.” Sir, are we going to go on like this? This has been going on for 10 years now, and I make a final appeal to these two Ministers to use their influence with the Cabinet to see that something is done about that road. The Minister of Tourism met a deputation here, and he was very sympathetic. He agreed that what the touring public wants is a tarred road, not a gravel road, but he could do nothing to help them. He is not in charge of roads, but he is in the Cabinet, and I want him also to join these other two Ministers in using his influence in the Cabinet to get more money set aside for those roads in the Transkei. We are desperate. The roads were taken from the provincial council and it is now the responsibility of this Government to see that they are properly maintained and that proper bridges are built and also that the construction of the tarred roads should commence, because we cannot leave the roads in that state. There is the other national road to Umtata, the stretch from Umtata into East London. It has now become worse than it has ever been. It is a hazard today. It has been patched up but that is not sufficient. There are big potholes in the road. The Minister will know that plans were drawn up to build a new road to bypass Umtata and to meet the national road to Queenstown, but what has happened in that regard? No money has been set aside yet for that undertaking. [Time expired.]

In the course of this debate today we have heard a great deal about road safety, and each of us is indeed concerned about the tremendously high death-toll claimed by our roads. The slaughter on our roads is such that we all feel that any contributory factor which may be the cause of accidents, should be eliminated. That is why I felt that I wanted to mention briefly a few aspects which should be taken into account. One of these aspects are these convoys of new motor vehicles travelling on our roads from the assembling factories to the interior. These convoys, in themselves, present a very great danger to us. We all feel that if they can be avoided, we should do so. The large vehicle-carriers which are on our roads, are another danger. We could eliminate them by having new cars transported to the interior by the Railways. This is high-rated traffic for the Railways, and, in any case, the cost of the railage is already added to the purchase price of the vehicle, and the buyers of vehicles will also be much happier, because the speedometers of these vehicles are disconnected and one is not always sure of the mileage done without the speedometer registering it. For that reason I feel that it is in the interests of all of us, but especially with a view to the accident rate, that these licences be withdrawn. If they could be eliminated, it would add to our convenience on the roads.

A second factor is the question of the speed limit. It has been proved time and again that high speed is responsible for very serious accidents. Since we have such a high accident rate, I think the time has arrived for us to call a halt and take drastic action. To my mind this speed limit of 70 miles per hour should only be allowed on roads built in such a way as to permit of high speeds, i.e. on the dual-carriage roads and the national roads, but on the other roads we should reduce that speed limit. On those roads we should stipulate a maximum speed of 60 miles per hour. It was proved, at the time when the speed limit was introduced on the public roads, that proportionately the number of accidents on the public roads as against the urban roads, to which the speed limit had already been applicable at the time, showed a marked decline and that hundreds of lives had been saved as a result of that speed limit of 70 miles per hour. I feel that we should do something drastic in order to prevent accidents occurring because of this factor.

Then there is another factor, namely recklessness. Here I want to link up with an appeal I made last year. Perhaps I did not phrase it clearly enough. The hon. member for Port Natal also referred to it indirectly. This appeal is that if we introduce a speed limit, we may now allow all vehicles to travel at the same speed. In many parts of the world it is the practice for a heavy vehicle to display next to its number plate an indication as to the maximum speed at which it may travel. I believe that this is essential. I myself have often driven a heavy motor vehicle. It is perilous to drive such heavy vehicles on our roads at high speeds. They are not as easy to handle as are ordinary vehicles, and for that reason they should have a lower maximum speed limit, and that should be displayed on the back of the motor vehicle. I also want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Koedoespoort in regard to drivers’ licences. That person who has just obtained his driver’s licence, should at least serve a probationary period, and an indication to this effect should be displayed on his car so that everybody may see that he is still serving a probationary period, and then it would be the duty of every motorist to watch this person and to report him, because he would still be serving his probation; and if such persons were serving such a probationary period of one year, I am convinced that they could drive much more cautiously, for in the course of that year they would learn to drive more cautiously and slowly. Then there is a certain large enterprise which uses many vehicles. On each of their vehicles they have two drivers who take turns at driving, and in this manner they have reduced their accident rate by two-thirds, just because that driver has the responsibility that if he makes an accident, he is dismissed. This has made them realize that they must drive cautiously.

There is another matter I should like to mention, and that is to urge people to be cautious. There are many motor-drivers who do not care whether they have an accident or not; it does not matter to them, because they are insured, and it is the insurance company that has to bear all the costs. I simply feel that even if his motor car is fully insured, he should personally bear part of the costs if he is involved in an accident for which he is responsible, and that this should not be shifted on to the insurance company. Let us say, for instance, that he has to pay R50 if it is his first offence and R100 if it is his second, and that the fines may increase in this manner; if that were the case, such a person would really feel it if that money were deducted from his salary, if he worked for a salary. Then he would realize that he should drive more cautiously. It would also make our motor insurance much cheaper if they received those contributions from such persons. My motor car insurance is such that I have to bear the first R200, and I get a very big reduction on my premium because they know that I will drive cautiously.

I want to mention one other matter. I want to refer to the consortium’s third-party insurance. Contemptuous reference was made to it here, but I really feel that the consortium that was established at the time, has provided us with a constant premium for the years since 1965. In looking at the trend of all other things and the number of accidents occurring, I am convinced that we would have paid double those premiums if the Government had not stepped in and established this consortium and, by doing so, kept premiums on a fixed basis up to now. I just want to express my sincere thanks for the fact that it has been possible for us in recent years to save the motor-car owners these millions of rand in extra premiums. We hope and trust that they will stand firm in future and take every precautionary measure to see that these premiums are not increased.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member who has just spoken, as well as his colleague from Koedoespoort and the other hon. members who spoke about road safety, for the intense interest they have in road safety. It is important that that interest should be displayed here in this highest House of South Africa. It is repugnant to look at the slaughter on our roads. I shall personally bring to the notice of the new Road Safety Council the various thoughts expressed by the hon. members in respect of road safety. However, I shall come back to some of these aspects in a moment, because I should now like to say a few words and furnish a few particulars in connection with what the hon. member for Yeoville said about this matter.

†First of all, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Transkei has said. First of all, my department, as well as the Minister and myself, have every sympathy with the hon. member for Transkei. We have sympathy with him not because he is a member for the Transkei but because we realize with what problems they are faced and what the situation is there at present. That being so, my department has already prepared a memorandum for the Cabinet. Therein we ask for extra funds for the building of those roads. I want to mention some of the plans. On route A which is not in the Transkei, 23 miles of road will be built. That will cost us R1 380 000.

Where is route A?

I shall give that to the hon. member just now. The Kei River-Umtata road which is 60 miles long, will cost us R3 800 000. The Umtata-Port St. John’s road, which is 61 miles long, will cost us R7 300 000. Then there is another 70 miles of road between Port St John’s and Port Edward. The section of route B which is outside the Transkei and which is 154 miles long, will cost us R11 500 000, and the 66 miles in the Transkei will cost us R6 600 000. That gives us a total amount of R30 587 000 and provision is made therefore in the memorandum which will be laid before the Cabinet. If possible we shall see what the maximum amount is we can get to use in the whole area. However, the whole matter is one of funds. I am glad that the hon. member has made a special plea to the Minister of Finance so that the Minister of Finance, if possible, could also make a plea to the Cabinet in connection with these problems.

Has the memorandum been put before the Cabinet already?

It has just been prepared now.

What do you hope to get this year for the Port St. John’s road?

My officials tell me that it is R800 000 …

That is not enough.

… but it is only for one. R700 000 will be spent on the Maclear road and another R1 million for the other.

Is that for Port St. John’s?

That I cannot tell the hon. member, because I am in the hands of the Cabinet. However, we shall make the representations and see what the maximum amount is that we can get for that.

Then I want to deal with the hon. member for Port Natal. I throw back at him his personal remarks in connection with my arithmetic capabilities.

First prove me wrong!

I am going to prove the hon. member wrong, but that is not all because I want to mention that he, in the figures he quoted to me, did not take into account that claims against the fund from the 1970-71 premiums can still be accepted till 30th April, 1973.

Anybody knows that.

Claims for the 1971-72 premiums can still be accepted up to 30th April, 1974. He never took that into account.

Everybody knows that.

Everybody knows it but the hon. member did not take that into account in the figures he quoted.

That is not how the figures are arrived at. You do not even know …

I see the hon. member for Green Point is not here at the moment.

Since hon. members have referred once again to the sums of money invested with Monkor Trust, Protocol Constructions and Tuckers Land Development Corporation, I want to refer hon. members to the reply I furnished in the House of Assembly in this regard. As far back as 7th March, 1972, I stated in this House, in reply to a question, that a total amount of R6½ million had been invested at between 8 per cent and 9½ per cent interest with township developers, i.e. Monkor, Tuckers Land Development Corporation and Protocol Constructions, and that this had merely been done in order to exploit the high rate of interest. I approved these investments ex post facto. I emphasize the fact that these investments were approved by me ex post facto, because I was satisfied that all of them were properly guaranteed. This links up with the statement made here by the hon. the Minister. The rates of interest in this regard, which the hon. member questioned, are as follows: The interest rate on the investment with Federale Finansies is 8,5 per cent; the interest rates on the three investments with Monkor Trust, are 8 per cent, 8,625 per cent and 9 per cent. The interest rates offered by Protocol Constructions are 9,5 per cent and 9,5 per cent, and those offered by Tuckers Land Development Corporation are 9,5 per cent in respect of all three amounts, i.e. R1 million, R500 000 and R500 000.

Mr Chairman, does the hon the Deputy Minister not agree that the first investment with Monkor Trust was below the average interest rate?

The first amount was invested at 8 per cent.

Yes, and the average interest rate was 8,2 per cent.

It was not below the average interest rate. The average is not 8,2 per cent. Some of the older investments were made at interest rates lower than 6 per cent.

What is “average”?

Mr. Chairman, I come now to the hon. member for Yeoville. In the first place, the hon. member for Yeoville put it to me that the policy of the United Party in respect of transport differs from that of the National Party.

On certain points.

Yes, on certain points. In this connection he referred in particular to “action to overcome congestion in cities”. Then he also asked “whether cities will be assisted if they build underground railways to alleviate the problem”? I want to say that I think that there will be an announcement over the radio today to the effect that the Minister has appointed a committee of inquiry into this problem. I want to mention the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry. It is a very important aspect.

What aspect of the problem?

The congestion of traffic in the urban areas, the urban transport facilities for the entire Republic, in other words, in the metropolitan areas. The terms of reference of the committee are—

1. (1) To submit a report and make recommendations on …

It is important that we take note of this—

1. (2) the way in which expenditure on the establishment of urban transport facilities should be financed, taking into consideration the present and expected economic and financial conditions in the Republic.

In other words, this committee will cover the problems posed by the hon. member properly, even the possibility of underground or tube trains, etc. The committee has to review this entire matter. In addition the committee is requested to have submitted at least an interim report by the end of September, 1972, in which general guidelines are indicated for the directions in which it thinks to find the solution to the problems mentioned in its terms of reference. I hope it will be able to do so, for it is really a tremendous task. The committee consists of the following members : the chairman is Mr. Driessen, Secretary for Transport.

That is a good appointment.

In addition, there are Mr. Cloete, Director of National Roads under the National Transport Commission, Prof. De Vos, head of the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, Dr. J. C. du Plessis, Special Economic Adviser to the Treasury, Mr. H. J. L. du Toit, Assistant General Manager (Planning), South African Railways, Mr. O. D. Gordon, City Treasurer, Durban, Mr. C. J. Hall, Deputy City Engineer, Johannesburg, and substitute member for Mr. Gordon, Mr. Hugo, Chief Engineer, Roads Department, Cape Provincial Administration, Mr. Hindle, Chief Engineer, Roads Department, Natal Provincial Administration, as the substitute member for Mr. Hugo, Mr. Otto, Chief Director of Finances (Planning), Department of Planning, and Mr. Van der Merwe, Provincial Secretary for the Transvaal.

Is there no one, except the person from Natal, representing the city councils?

No, there is the City Treasurer of Durban, and we also have the City Engineer of Johannesburg. I want to satisfy the hon. member for Yeoville that such a committee, which I think is a very competent one, will be able to represent widespread interested parties properly. I also believe that the committee will be able to examine properly the requirements set by the entire economic infrastructure and South Africa’s growth and planning. The hon. the Minister of Finance appointed this committee and instructed it to proceed with its business. I think that we should even at this early stage say to this committee—this is something which we must realize—that its report will revolve for the most part around the question of finances, for as the hon. member said, a tube train in Johannesburg alone could cost millions. It will have to be ascertained what contributions the local authority bodies, etc., are able to make. I do not want to anticipate the task of the committee, for this is really a tremendous task which has been entrusted to the committee. I want to express the hope that this committee will be able to submit to us a programme and a plan according to which we will be able to proceed.

†The hon. member also mentioned the question of road safety and asked whether we are planning with the necessary imagination.

I did not say that. I referred to catching the imagination of the public.

The hon. member asked whether there would be a campaign to educate the public. First of all, I want to mention that the present board as it is constituted at the moment, consists inter alia of Prof. Riekert, the vice-chairman of the C.S.I.R., a member who has already for a long time been appointed by the C.S.I.R. to undertake research in connection with road safety. I do not think that we could have a more suitable person.

*To indicate how important this post is I must indicate to you that the salaries attached to this part-time chairman’s post is R4 800 per annum. The deputy chairman is Mr. Stofberg, one of the senior engineers in our country. He is attached to one of our largest consulting engineering firms dealing with the construction of roads, road safety, and so on. In addition we have the five members of the various executive committees, and the Secretary for Transport, the Secretary for Justice and the Commissioner of Police. Then there is in addition a member representing the municipal associations. We regard the post of director as being so important that we have made the salary attached to the post R10 800 per annum. This post is going to be advertised. I want to express the hope that this director with his staff, and also this council, will not also become a mere documentation centre, as happened with previous councils —and I am saying this without making any complaint against the old councils—but that their approach to this matter will be a revolutionary one. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that education is one of the most important aspects of this matter. He himself asked whether there was no break-down in communication between drivers of motor cars, and asked whether we had the right road consciousness. He said that there were devices which could be installed in a motor car to test the reactions of a driver, his reflexes at the possibility of an accident. This new council has been instructed to investigate all these requirements thoroughly to see what we can do in this connection to ensure road safety. I should like to add to that the ideas expressed by hon. members on the opposite side. In the same way as the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Yeoville went further from that point and came to the Jan Smuts Airport, and spoke about long-term planning. I want to say at once hat there is thorough long-term planning in regard to airports. In this long-term planning the following is taken into account or considered : The motorized traffic, the air traffic, the passenger traffic and the runway and taxiway capacities, the apron capacity, the capacity of the buildings, the movements on the runway, aircraft accommodation, and roads. Then there are still the additional parallel main runways, the aprons. etc. Long-term planning is properly investigated by the master planning committee. etc. The hon. member said that the problem was that we had waited too long. Firstly. I want to tell him that we think that the Jan Smuts airport will be fully complete by July, except for the tube (duin) which may possibly be constructed later. It is planned to construct in future a tube providing access from the one building to the other. This is the so-called telescopic passageway. The construction thereof has been postponed as a result of financial and other restrictions. It will be possible for the Jan Smuts Airport to be placed in full use in July, and I hope that the opening ceremony will take place in October or November. It is true, however, that during the entire construction and development programme there, there have been a tremendous number of problems, and there had to be adjustments in moving from one building to another. Passengers for the Boeing 747 on the internal services had, for example, to be accommodated in the space provided for the 727s and 737s. As a result of the building operations which are in progress, therefore, there has been congestion. But I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that when this building has been completed, it will be possible to compare it to the best in the world. This building will not only have all the facilities for processing passengers and baggage, but it will also have the space. Architecturally, this building will also be a showpiece for the whole of South Africa. I think we will then be able to be proud of this building.

I come immediately to the problem of the D. F. Malan building.

What about the parking?

Since the hon. member has asked me now, I can furnish him with the information in regard to the parking. The parking facilities have of course been leased to a company, after tenders were called for. Those parking garages are in fact for the convenience of the passengers. The building was of course erected by the Department of Public Works. The tariffs there are as follows: Up to two hours it is 20 cents. From two to three hours, it is 50 cents; from three to five hours it is 80 cents; from five to eight hours it is R1: from eight to 12 hours it is R1.20: from 12 to 16 hours it is R1,40; from 16 to 20 hours it is R1,60 and from 20 to 24 hours it is R1.80. Now the hon. member has requested that one should receive a discount on the parking tariffs if one has a valid air ticket. If this has to be done, it can only be done in one way, i.e. by adding the amount of that discount to the price of the ticket. If that is not done, the South African Airways will have to suffer that loss, for we are in the position that there is only a certain amount of parking space, which has been allocated under contract to a tenderer who had to incur very considerable capital costs in order to make the necessary provision and who had to furnish the necessary guarantees, as well as assure the Tender Board that he would provide these services. One could not expect him to decide arbitrarily what concessions he was going to make to which people, for he would not know how many short-term travellers, how many long-term travellers, etc., there would be. He has to provide these services in accordance with this scheme. That is the problem I have in this connection.

Now the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Durban Point referred to the D.F. Malan airport. They raised many objections to the improper functioning and inefficiency of D.F. Malan.

I did not do that. I only complained about the delivery of baggage at Jan Smuts. I said that at D. F. Malan it was much better.

Some people say that it is much worse at D. F. Malan. It depends upon the circumstances on a specific day, and what aircraft are arriving. The fact of the matter is—this has to be taken into consideration; I want hon. members to realize this in the first place—that neither the D. F. Malan nor the Louis Botha Airports were initially planned to take a 747. The 747s were purchased with the specific idea of using them on overseas flights. After we had already made considerable progress with the planning, the South African Airways, after a very proper and thorough analysis of the circumstances and the growth rate of the passengers, etc.—if members would like it I could mention the growth rate to them—made a projection and found that from 1973 onwards 19 aircraft would leave D. F. Malan daily, bound for the north, in other words, a 707, a 727 or a 737 would leave every 20 minutes. On the basis of that projection it was then found and decided that there would be an extremely big saving if we also used a few 747s on the flight to convey those passengers, instead of using so many aircraft. This would be a saving in flight staff, fuel and in various other respects. That is why the 747 has been commissioned. I want to admit candidly that at Louis Botha our department is not yet prepared to accommodate 747s. It is a question of finances etc. The growth rate in air traffic in South Africa was three times greater than our ordinary economic growth rate; it was more than 12,7 per cent. The growth rate in our air traffic was also greater than our population growth rate. People have become air travel-conscious, and it is for that reason that we have a backlog. At the same time we must take into account the fact that we experienced many problems as a result of the building alterations at D. F. Malan. I therefore want to ask hon. members to exercise a little patience in this regard. D F. Malan will be in full use by the end of the year, with all the new facilities, and then we will no longer have these problems.

The hon. member asked me what our altitude is in regard to the motor industry and the motor-car owner. He even asked whether we regard motorists as a burden. He mentioned very interesting figures here, which indicated that the increase in the number of motor-cars in South Africa has been 12 per cent per annum over the past four years. The hon. member also said that there is no country in the world, apart from the United States of America, which may be compared to South Africa in this respect. Sir, if that is true, is that not an admission of South Africa’s high standard of living? We must not claim today that the standard of living in South Africa is low, and then contradict this statement tomorrow with figures such as these. I call the hon. member to witness that with the exception of the United States of America the annual increase in the number of motor-cars in South Africa, as a percentage is greater than in any other country in the world. Here we have proof of the high standard of living of our people in South Africa, and of our economic welfare. In this respect we surpass the rest of the world.

I warned here that the non-White owners of motor-cars had not been included.

Even if they are included, our standard of living is still high. Sir, I want to tell the hon. member that it is not the policy of this Government to regard the motor industry as a burden. The hon. member said that as a result of the local content of motor-cars, motor-cars in South Africa were more expensive; but we are giving the necessary impetus to the motor-car industry, and giving the necessary infrastructure a shot in the arm wherever we are able to do so, precisely because we regard the motor industry as industrial development not only to provide the Whites with labour, but to provide all sectors in South Africa with labour. The policy of the National Party Government is to encourage industrial development in South Africa, and we are spening millions on constructing as many safe roads as possible, precisely in order to lend further assistance to the motor industry.

†The hon. member also referred to taxation and costs, the excess profit on the transport of oil and petrol, motor vehicle insurance and the larger local content of motor vehicles. Sir, those items can be discussed when we deal with the Department of Commerce.

That was just to illustrate my point.

Yes, I accept that. But if the hon. member has any problems in regard to these items, he can raise the matter when we deal with the Department of Commerce.

*The hon. member for Kimberley North made a very fine plea here in regard to the sea rescue organization. I am pleased that the hon. member raised this matter here. We have a search and rescue organization, in which the following departments are involved: The Department of Transport; the South African Police; the South African Railways, which includes harbour services and lighthouses; the S.A. Airways; the main Post Office; and the Department of Defence, which includes the South African Air Force, and the South African Navy. This organization, which is known as Tekstar, deals with the calls, for assistance etc. of the Sea Rescue Institute, the people who do the searching. At the moment, as the hon. member was quite right in saying, this organization, for which he made a plea here, is being subsidized. In 1970-’71 it asked for R48 000 and only received R24 000. In the 1971-’72 financial year it asked for R50 000 and again received only R24 000. In 1972-’73 it pointed out that it had to acquire new vessels; that its vessels were too small to cope with certain ocean conditions and it asked for R44 500, or approximately R50 000. I just want to tell the hon. member that we are aware of the altered circumstances, and that Tekstar is investigating the matter all over again to determine to what extent the patrol boats of the Department of Industries can be involved in rescue work and what the future responsibility for rescue work of the vessels of its organization, the N.S.R.I., the Department of Industries, the South African Navy and the harbour tug boats should be. After this investigation they will make recommendations in regard to this 1973-’74 subsidy. We shall consider the plea made here by the hon. member carefully, and I hope that we may perhaps be able to help. Sir, I am very pleased that we have people who, out of love for their fellow-men, make their own time available free of charge to do this good work.

The hon. member for Durban Point objected very strongly to the fact that the report of the Department was only laid upon the Table today. I think he has reason to object, but let us consider what the position is. The report was completed by my department in October, 1971. My department made the report available to the Government Printer in 1971 already, but the printing was delayed as a result of an accumulation of printing work. My department had to return this report three times to have printing errors in the translation and in the data corrected, so that hon. members may rely upon it that the data as published is the correct data. This report could have been Tabled three days ago, but then we found further errors, in the English version only, which had to be rectified by means of an errata list. This, unfortunately resulted in a further delay of two days, and I am apologizing for that, but my department is not to blame for the delay. We shall in future see to what extent we can expedite the report. It is not a question of contempt for hon. members of this House. If hon. members had wanted any information, on the basis of the previous year’s report, they could at any time have received that information by way of questions on the Order Paper, or by contacting the department directly. They could have done so if they had wanted information on which to base a case they may have wanted to make out in this debate.

The hon. member has stated in regard to the Louis Botha Airport that he sees there is only R50 for the building in the Estimates. Firstly, I want to make it very clear that the Department of Transport is not constructing the buildings. That is the task of Public Works. The Department of Transport has already asked for the money and that this should be regarded as a priority service, as priority No. 1, because Louis Botha is also an emergency airport for the 747s. My department is only constructing the runways and the apron. It is merely a question of finances. That is the only problem.

The hon. member also put a question in regard to La Mercy. There is a Cabinet committee of finances which has approved an initial amount of R100 000 appearing in the Estimates. This is in the Loan Estimates, and is in respect of La Mercy airport. But now our department has also instructed the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to institute an investigation, and to submit a comprehensive memorandum, in conjunction with the Department of Public Works, on what the costs there will be. This Department is proceeding with its planning in regard to the airport. We are not putting a stop to it. The planning is proceeding in conjunction with the Department of Public Works and the South African Airways. It is a question of finances. But hon. members who know Natal know what the topography of Natal is like. We had to investigate the whole of Natal for the best airport which could serve Durban. We cannot build an airport which could serve Durban and Richard’s Bay. We cannot build an airport which is further from Jan Smuts than La Mercy, for then one would have administrative costs in regard to management and transport, and these would be so high that it would be uneconomic. I think my department has made a very thorough and comprehensive investigation, and this is the only place. La Mercy has not been shelved. Now there is still the investigation in regard to costs, etc., which has to be done.

But has no final decision been taken yet?

A final decision has been taken that the airport which has to be constructed for Durban will be at La Mercy. But the purchase of land has not been finalized because a submission has to be made to the Cabinet as to what the costs of the entire undertaking would be.

The hon. member for Parow raised one matter, which I just want to mention briefly. I think we must consider this, for what he said is something revolutionary. He said that for the sake of road safety we should consider whether it is not necessary for us to take over the traffic system. I want to tell you that we should rather think along the lines that we have provincial councils and local authorities in South Africa which are a political forum, but also an administratively essential unit in the control of the whole of South Africa. I am stating this quite candidly. We can utilize this, without taking it over into the Central Government, by simply compiling a co-ordinating and unifying action, and by infusing the correct guidance from our National Road Safety Council so as to provide activation. I believe we should think along those lines. Only if we do not succeed could we possibly consider the other aspect, but the accusation is frequently made that the Government may possibly want to abolish the provincial councils and the local authorities. Personally I see them as being not only an essential political forum, but in our present setup and in the structure of South Africa, as an essential administrative unit as well for every locality, for all circumstances and areas. We must simply see to what extent we can establish cohesion and coordination there, so that the work can be done. In respect of the other matters which he raised, i.e. that the licences should be provisional and that the drivers and the employers should have a sense of responsibility, I must tell him that I think that these are very important matters which we should take into consideration. The hon. member for Salt River also discussed road safety; he also discussed the airports, and I think that I have furnished a thorough reply in this regard.

†The hon. member asked the question why the Public Works Department should build for the Department of Transport. I shall convey his request to the Cabinet.

*I am very pleased that the hon. member for Bethlehem raised the matter of whether modification or the removal of water from clouds so clearly. I think that in the past we knew very little about this subject. Firstly, I want to make it very clear that the Department of Transport, the only department undertaking weather modification and research in regard to weather modification has, of necessity, always had to deal with this matter, and will have to continue to do so in future. The department regards this entire undertaking as a research project. Personally I am very sorry that that corporation failed to do so because they wanted to commercialize it. They thought that making rain for people was a money-making project. We have already made R200 000 available for research in that sphere and we proceed from the assumption that it is a research project. However, we are still in the very initial stages of this development. I am pleased that the hon. member paid such a fine tribute to Mr. Du Toit, who in my opinion is one of the best officials in our department. Not only is he a very humble and modest person, but also a person who tackles a matter with religious conviction in recognition of the Creation and the natural conditions in the Creation. It was a fine testimonial the hon. member gave him.

In regard to the question of a glider, I shall have the matter investigated, and I shall see what we can do in this regard.

Louis is just as modest.

Modesty is a wonderful character trait, and I am sorry that there are not more people who have it.

†The hon. member for Kensington mentioned the question of the subsidization of non-White road services. I do not know what the question was, because he only mentioned a figure.

I was just replying to an hon. member who had spoken previously.

Well, if he was replying to another hon. member, that is all right. Then he asked me why there was a delay in the building of the road from Johannesburg to the south. There was no delay; it was only a question of financing. There was no delay whatsoever in the planning of that road. The planning is up to date.

He also mentioned the question of road safety and he asked whether the Act will be applied in the Bantu territories. I may reply to him that this was taken up by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and that the law advisers have also been approached. According to the law advisers and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, the Bill will apply in the Bantu areas and in the Transkei as well.

*I think that with this I have replied fully to hon. members. I want to thank them all for the way in which they participated in this debate. I want to mention that the Department of Transport is perhaps one of these departments with the most differing functions. It has perhaps more functions than any other department. It is an extremely large department. We in the Department of Transport believe that the entire industrial development is constructed on the correct communication system, whether it is by road, or by air through the establishment of various airports, or by whatever other means. I think that up to now this department has performed a very good task in this respect.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 6.—“Treasury,” R11 684 000, and 7.—“Public Debt,” R227 544 000, Loan Vote A.—“Miscellaneous Loans and Services,” R346 110 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 2.—“Miscellaneous Services,” R909 000 :

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister of Finance replied to the Budget debate, he took me to task and suggested that I had insinuated that the bankers of South Africa were operating dishonourably during the month of March. He also accused the hon. member for Constantia of a similar thing. The basis of the accusation was that I had said that I had been told that the lifting of the credit ceiling by some R140 million merely gave effect to an existing situation. The hon. the Minister then went on to say that the Treasury and the Reserve Bank knew nothing about this. They only had figures up to the end of February. He said that these figures showed that the banks were then R7 million to R8 million over their credit celings. I can only repeat today what I said then, namely that I was told that the lifting of the ceiling will in fact merely give effect and legal recognition to an existing situation. Most banks are above prescribed ceilings. The hon. the Minister is well aware of what has been going on. He knows how the banks have been operating. The hon. the Minister knows about repaying loans on the 29th or the 30th of the month and reborrowing on the 1st of the following month. I do not have to tell the hon. the Minister what has been happening. The hon. the Minister will also know that when you discuss this matter with bankers, nearly all of them acknowledge quite freely that they have been overextended, if I can use that phrase to describe the situation. They really are not very excited with supposedly R140 million that has been put into the economy.

The hon. the Minister wants to know from me whether the insinuation is that the banks operated dishonestly. I made no such insinuation, but I say that the hon. the Minister made a direct accusation, because he said that the banks had exceeded their credit limits by a R7 million to R8 million as at the end of February. If banks being over-lent is regarded as being dishonest, as it apparently is by the hon. the Minister, then it is the hon. the Minister who has not only insinuated that the banks have been dishonest, but who has also made a direct accusation. He has put on record that they were over-lent. The hon. the Minister must not accuse me of insinuations.

The next matter I want to raise is the question of borrowing abroad by the private sector, again something which has been in fairly common usage, I think, now for some six or seven months. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether any guide-lines have been set, so that the private sector will know under what conditions they can approach the Treasury or the Reserve Bank or whoever is concerned, for permission to do deals with overseas countries. I should imagine that the banks may have some knowledge of what the requirements are, but I think it is important in matters of this sort, that the business community either direct or through the financial institutions, should have guidelines as to what the thinking the Government is in the introduction of further overseas capital into the private sector.

The next item is the question of Sidarel. This company is in liquidation and there may be investigations going on. I therefore do not want to discuss this company per se; I am only interested in what evolves around this company. I had a question on the Question Paper, which was very fully answered by the hon. the Minister saying that the Registrar of Financial Institutions did not investigate the position because Sidarel was not a registered financial institution, that there were investigations going on and that there were no obvious steps which could be taken where these companies appeared to be getting into trouble. What is of interest about this situation is that when a collapse of this kind takes place, it is always preceded by rumours for weeks and weeks and sometimes for months and certain indicators become apparent, particularly in the case of these institutions which are borrowing from the public. The two main indicators are, firstly, that you get a company which suddenly appears on the financial scene and within a very short period, perhaps a year or two, it has grown to enormous proportions. The second indicator is that these companies, as the hon. the Minister rightly said, offer excessively high rates of interest. When these two things happen, namely an enormous expansion of a company and high rates of interest being offered, those of us who have had anything to do with the financial market place, immediately see the red light and if people consult us, as they sometimes do, we usually tell them to leave these companies severely alone. We have had such cases in the past and we are going to have them in the future, because you can never stop people being dishonest. It is not possible. However, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not, through his committee which deals with this matter particularly, give some consideration to the Registrar of Financial Institutions keeping a watchful eye on these aspects of these companies, so that irrespective of what rights the registrar has in terms of specific Acts, if he feels that a company, and a financial company in particular, is operating in a way where the red light is shining, he shall have the right to take a look at the company. I know that we have to be careful in this regard. I know that we do not want to have continuous interference by the State in the running of private enterprise, but there have been a lot of these cases and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would give some consideration to this matter.

The next item I want to raise comes under the question of public dept. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister, he furnished figures which show that the bulk of our borrowings from overseas were from Europe; in Deutsche Marks particularly and in Swiss francs, and that these loans, if they run to full maturity, are going to cost us something of the order of R53 million in capital and R22.5 million in interest more than we anticipated, as a result of the realignment of currencies. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister whether he was interested in borrowing in Euro-dollars, and he said yes. One of the reasons he gave for saying yes, was this possibility of the revaluation of currencies. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why we are so heavily committed in our overseas borrowing in these European currencies which, we knew, were those which were likely to rise most because, they were the most undervalued. Why did we not borrow more in dollars or Euro dollars, when, as the hon. the Minister explained to us, we knew the currency was weak? It is going to cost us an awful lot of money. It is true that it is over a fixed period of time and rates of exchange may obviously differ. We may find that these currencies will come down and ours will go up, although I think it is doubtful.

There is one other question here and that is in relation to the loans of Iscor and Escom. It would seem from the figures which the hon. the Minister gave me in reply to a question that practically all, if not all of the Iscor and Escom loans, are guaranteed by the Reserve Bank or the Government against any losses. In other words, they covered forward for them. This means that when Escom or Iscor go to the market they are not really concerned where they are going to borrow from, except that I presume they do it in consultation with the hon. the Minister. It seems that we are subsidising Iscor and Escom against any losses which they may suffer as a result of devaluation and revaluation. This brings me to another question. We have given forward guarantees to financial institutions against currency losses. Is there any way that the Reserve Bank in turn can cover itself? In other words, it has bought forward for the private sector, and is there any way it can buy forward to protect its own position in relation to the forward guarantees and the forward underwritings it has given to the financial sector?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown put a few technical questions to the Minister, to which, I am certain, he will reply. But he also made a few statements which are not clear to me, and which I find strange. He said here that the R140 million by which the credit ceiling has now been lifted, and which will now come into circulation, was in fact only a rectification of the present position. Then he explained that the banks had been lending money, and that this had been paid back on the 29th or 30th of the month. That is a very serious statement the hon. member made here. I can understand, and I do think that there are certain banks which perhaps lent a little more than they were supposed to, but made certain that that money was returned at that juncture, a day before the end of the month, in order to? set the books straight. But I want to dispute very strongly the statement that this could have amounted to the entire total of R140 million. A total of R140 million is a tremendous amount of money. If it is as the hon. member for Parktown stated, this provision which is being made in the Estimates to lift the ceiling and to inject an amount of R140 million into the economy will be of no value whatsoever. According to the hon. member it is already there. I want to inform the hon. member that I was in the company of one of our major bankers the evening after the Budget. I then asked him specifically how much additional money this lifting of the ceiling would now inject into the economy, for I myself am not all that conversant with what the precise position in regard to the banks is. He then tried to calculate it, and said that he estimated that an additional R120 million would now be injected into the economy. I therefore beg to differ with the hon. member, for I think he made a very serious statement. There may perhaps be a very small amount, but I think he was exaggerating it tremendously.

In his next point the hon. member referred to the Sidarel case, and to the liquidation of this company. Immediately after he had started mentioning that, I smiled and thought of what the hon. member for Hillbrow had unburdened himself of here yesterday. He attacked us yesterday for having been taken over by socialism, and how the State was interfering in every sphere. He had berated us for having too much control, and here the hon. member for Parktown was asking the Minister whether there was no method which could make it possible to place ordinary commercial companies, for Sidarel is nothing else, under a measure of control as well. It is virtually out of the question. Only financial companies which accept deposits, and in regard to which the public has to be protected, are properly controlled. I therefore think that it is a little unreasonable to expect at this stage that the Registrar of Financial Institutions should exercise control here as well. After all, these were responsible people. They had built up a major company. But this was one of those mushroom concerns. As the hon. member was quite right in doing, he warned his people against companies which pay these tremendous rates of interest, because it is clear that these people are not taking a properly calculated risk for the future. They are gambling a little with the future. The State can do whatever it wishes, but it cannot protect a person against his own ignorance, just as it was unable to protect the individual some time ago when he lost his head and stampeded to invest on the Stock Exchange, regardless of the dividends being offered. Individuals did not exercise their discretion and ask: “I am buying a share; what are the dividends on it : going to be?” No, Sir, he purchased shares at whatever price was being asked. In this case I think the hon. member was again saying something which was in conflict with the views of one of his own financial stars, who tried to attack us by saying that we wanted to apply socialism.

I now want to return to the statement the hon. member made on Tuesday in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. I must honestly state now that I do not know where I am with the United Party. I really do not know what their financial views and policy are. Listen to what he said. Inter alia he explained that ours is a developed country, and that we have fallen behind the other countries in the world as far as our development is concerned. Then he went on to say—

He makes the statement in the first instance, that we can be completely impregnable to assaults from outside.

Not completely.

Yes, that is the implication of the statement. How can a small country such as ours ever be totally impregnable against the rest of the world? What would the United Party have done that we have not done? It would have been unable to have done anything else. They will reiterate the old labour story, but let us analyse this matter a little further. He says that when the onslaught from without was made, we were unable to with stand it. But, Sir, ours is a small country. We are developing. Our standard : of living is as good as that of any other country. We have an economic development plan according to which we plan our economic future. We are working on that basis; we are trying to keep the rate of inflation as low as possible. We have full employment in this country; we are one of the countries with the most stable price structure in the world. And then, what happened overseas? The major countries in the world devalued. There was a crisis over which we had no control.

Oh no, please!

Does the hon. member know so much about it? He shall rise to his feet after I have finished speaking and tell us a little of what he would have done. What did the Government then decide to do? The Government did not devalue unilaterally, but it devalued the rand together with the dollar. That hon. member admitted that the Government did the right thing. Let him just think for one moment, and then I should like to know what that clever hon. member on the opposite side will tell us. He would probably not have devalued. He would probably have sacrificed the gold mines. The brilliant economist on the opposite side there, who knows so much now, is, after all, contradicting his own leader.

Tell us, if you would, why we found ourselves in that position?

Sir, we would have found ourselves in that position in any case. Our gold mines would never have changed the situation. It makes no difference in what position we were. But I want to say this to hon. members: Our gold mines are still here. They have not changed. If America devalued, we would have had to devalue the rand together with the dollar. Sir, the hon. member for Parktown can understand this, but if that hon. member cannot understand it, then I throw up my hands in exasperation and I can only hope that it never happens that those hon. members should govern this country.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.