Mr. Chairman, the first matter I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister this afternoon concerns the building of the new airport at George. I see from the annual report of the department that the George airport does not rank very high in the list detailing the number of passengers making use of airports. It is something in the region of just more than 20 000 passengers per annum. One cannot help wondering therefore whether or not the money spent on this new airport is really justified in view of the low traffic density involved.

We are at a stage where the airport is just about to be opened. Although a little late, I still would like the hon. the Minister’s view on this. Does he think that his department was justified in spending this amount of money on a new airport for George? I would have said that the old facilities appeared to be quite adequate for the very limited number of flights in and out. Or does the hon. the Minister feel that there is going to be a large increase in activities in the area and that that necessitates the extended facilities? A very rough analysis of the position indicates that there appears to be a maximum of two flights each way up and down the coast—these are commercial flights—on most days, and on Sundays only one flight in each direction. For each flight—if one analyses the statistics—there is an approximate average of 20 persons going on board or disembarking. Surely, this does not justify the expense of a brand new airport. Obviously, we would all like to see better infrastructure being built all over the country, and the new airport at George is obviously going to be a very nice one. However, should it really have this priority? I would be most interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s comment.

The next matter which I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister, concerns road safety. According to the report of the Department of Statistics, last year 8 012 people died on our roads, 20 709 were seriously injured and 48 808 lightly injured. The total number of accidents amounted to 270 082. This is a frightening figure. It is one of the highest—if not the highest—accident rate in the world. There was a definite improvement when speed restrictions were introduced, but the figure has climbed again. I see, from the report of the Road Safety Association, that they expect the graph to come in line again during the first part of this year, the upward trend to continue overall. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has made any further progress with the proposed legislation for making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. Perhaps he could tell us about this. Also, he may know that in some European countries it is illegal for children under a certain age to sit in the front seat of a car. This, I believe, should be investigated here as well.

I know that traffic regulations are largely the responsibility of the provincial authorities. However, one sometimes wonders whether it would not be advisable to furnish the National Road Safety Council with teeth when they act in an advisory capacity to traffic authorities, although I must admit that it is difficult to suggest how this could be done. Certainly, the question of a lower speed limit for heavy goods motor vehicles needs to be widely canvassed. Another suggestion is that greater use should be made of the medium of television by the publicity wing of the council. I regret to say that South Africa appears to produce some of the worst drivers in the world.

Finally, I would like to mention another matter, which is not really the responsibility of this hon. Minister. However, it has something to do with the Weather Bureau which falls under his department. This concerns the weather forecasts on television. These forecasts, I believe, are inadequate. These forecasts are not very well done at all. Having seen how many overseas television programmes handle weather forecasts, one realizes how unimaginative and uninformative our weather forecasts are. I know this is the responsibility of the SABC, but I would like to suggest that the Department of Transport talk to the SABC about improving the quality of the presentation of our weather forecasts. This service to the public really deserves better treatment than it is getting at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove must excuse me for not reacting to his speech, particularly since he raised quite a number of matters.

To begin with, I should like to point out that today’s consideration of the Transport Vote is the first at which Mr. Adriaan Eksteen is present in his capacity as the new Secretary for Transport. On behalf of this side of the House, I want to take this opportunity of expressing my sincere congratulations to him on his appointment to the new post. We are particularly grateful and happy to welcome someone of his exceptional experience and competence to this post. Down the years, Mr. Eksteen’s absolute uprightness, his high integrity and his humane feelings have made a very deep impression on us. I can vouch for the fact that in the short time he has been a member of the department, he has given proof of his will to co-operate. On behalf of all of us I want to wish him a pleasant, fruitful and long term of office in the post.

In the limited time at my disposal today, I should like to touch on two matters briefly. The first is the question of landing fees in respect of the air ambulance service of the S.A. Red Cross Association and the second is the report of the Commission of Inquiry into certain aspects of Motor Vehicle Insurance, that report which is generally known as the report of the Wessels Commission. The Cape regional branch of the Red Cross Association founded the air ambulance service in 1966 and since then they have made 985 flights and travelled roughly 1,5 million km to every province in the country. At least 85% of these flights were emergency flights or flights of an urgent nature. This aeroplane is equipped with life-saving apparatus which cost several thousand rands. The emergency flights are made by volunteer pilots, doctors and nurses without any remuneration whatsoever. In order to recover these costs, which amount to roughly 40 cents per mile, the provincial authority or the patient is asked to make a donation. There is a small contribution, then, from the provincial authorities, but whenever emergency flights are made at the requests of doctors on behalf of private patients, only a donation is asked for. Expenditure on fuel and landing fees for the financial year ended 31 March 1976 amounted to the tremendous figures of R13 045 and R817 respectively. Landing fees for the past 10 months already amount to R860. My request is that since the department subsidizes the National Sea Rescue Institute to a very great extent—to the tune of R40 000, I think—consideration should be given to exempting the Red Cross’s air ambulance service of the landing fees.

As far as the second matter is concerned, I just want to point out that the hon. the Minister tabled the report of the Wessels Commission earlier this year. There was a veritable explosion in the Press the next day. There were shock headlines spread across six columns. I just want to mention a few of those headlines. In The Citizen, the headline was “Car insurance shock report”; in The Star: “Car third party to soar”; in Die Hoofstad: “Derdeparty-planne gaan opslae maak”; in Die Burger, across six columns: “Derdeversekering sal dalk met 75% styg”; in the Oggendblad, across a number of columns and in letters that would make the hon. member for Bezuidenhout run at the mouth: “Derdeparty met 75% verhoog”, and, finally, in Die Beeld of 18 February: “75% hoër premie gevra—Versekering-skokverslag.” These are but a few of the headlines. The reaction of the average motorist is therefore understandable. The average motorist is that poor creature who has recently become punch-drunk under the blows of spiralling costs, and the mere suggestion of a further price increase fills him with trepidation. It is not only the prices of motor-cars that have risen. The price of fuel, too, has inevitably risen sharply, whilst licence fees have increased by approximately 50%. The cost of motor vehicle insurance has also risen. Now these headlines are creating the impression that the cost of third party insurance is going to increase by 75%, and this at a time when the motorist feels he can take no more.

There are roughly 28 well-founded recommendations in this report. It is unfortunate that the significance of the vast majority of them was actually lost in the discussions because three particular recommendations dominate the report. It was the first three recommendations that were dominant, those which really entailed financial implications. Because a great deal of worry and uncertainty exists, I wasn’t to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is yet in a position to indicate which of these recommendations are acceptable to him and which are not.

The present position is that a passenger in a motor vehicle which is insured in terms of the Act is only covered in certain cases in the event of an accident that is caused by the negligence of the driver, namely, if he is being transported for remuneration, or if he is being transported in the course of the business of the owner or the driver of the vehicle, or if he is being transported in the service of the driver or the owner of that motor vehicle. In such a case, the maximum claim that may be lodged is R12 000 per person and R60 000 in the case of an unspecified number of persons. Any person who is involved in an accident in which these qualifying factors do not apply does not have any coverage. In the case of an accident occurring as a result of the negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle other than the one in which the person concerned is a passenger, the claim that may be lodged is unlimited. The commission now recommends, firstly, that all passengers, with a few exceptions, be covered and secondly, that the limit on the amount of compensation be done away with, again with a few exceptions. The commission’s finding is that if these two recommendations are accepted—and it recommends that they be accepted—then the resultant comprehensive cover would bring about an increase of 75% in the premiums of third party insurance. The third recommendation is that such an increase in premiums should be considered justified. It is in relation to these three recommendations in particular that I am asking the hon. the Minister whether he is in a position to give us an indication. These recommendations have much merit, but if they had to be implemented at the present time, then the financial implications would cause a great deal of dissatisfaction. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we on these benches associate ourselves with the congratulations to the new Secretary of the department. We have found Mr. Eksteen to be very co-operative and helpful in our dealings with him. We wish him well in his new post.

I wish to raise two matters with the hon. the Minister, matters I also raised last year. The first is the question of the possibility of an overall maritime administration. I have referred to this matter before. I should just like to refresh the Minister’s memory by telling him that at the moment, apart from the Navy, the Department of Transport is responsible for the certification and safety regulations of larger vessels, the S.A. Railways and Harbours for commercial harbours, Commerce and Industries for fishing harbours and the administration of the Fisheries Act, while the Department of Sport and Recreation is apparently the body which in future will be responsible for providing small-boat harbours. In addition to that—I added up at random which other Government departments are involved—one also has the Department of Agriculture in so far the seashore is concerned, the Department of Community Development responsible for control over the use of the seashore by the various race groups and the Department of Mines in so far as the exploitation of minerals and the wealth of the sea is concerned. The provinces and the municipalities also come into the picture in so far as the seashore as far as the high-water mark, the estuaries and the control of tidal rivers are concerned. In Natal there is in addition the Natal’s Parks Board, which, in recent months at any rate, has also laid claim to control the fish resources off the Natal coast. I think the time has come for a commission of inquiry to be appointed to go into the various Government bodies which have jurisdiction of one kind or another over the seashore and the waters around our coast with a view to centralization of their functions.

A very important part of the future of South Africa—the hon. the Minister is also involved in this—lies in the exploitation and the proper utilization of the resources of the sea. Some people say that we shall not be able to provide all the foodstuff required for an expanding population from our land resources, and it might well be that sea farming is the answer for the future. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to investigate the matter.

I now want to deal with something even more apposite and perhaps more urgent. I have referred to the fact that the hon. the Minister’s department is responsible for the qualification, the certification and the competency of larger vessels and their skippers. As I have said before, smaller craft do not fall under the jurisdiction of the department or under the provisions of the Merchants’ Shipping Act. Thousands of small craft go to sea without any supervision by any authority. There are no safety regulations applicable and enforceable on the thousands of amateur and part-time small-boat owners. As far as I am aware there are no standard safety requirements for either the boats or for their crews. There is no standard equipment and no enforcement or authority. I understand that in the USA no boats can be sold without specified safety equipment being provided with the boat by the manufacturer of the boat and that safety equipment has to be passed by an enforcement authority.

It seems to me as if here in South Africa anybody can buy a boat—anything from a canoe to a largish yacht or a pleasure craft with an engine—without any safety equipment. Regardless of its own safety the proud owner can put his craft to sea and as a result there are very many fatalities along our coast each year, as the hon. the Minister will know. What is even worse is that the safety of the people who have to do the rescue work is also endangered. In his reply to me last year the hon. the Minister indicated that in Natal there were something like 2 500 ski-boats of which only 150 were licensed in terms of the Act of 1971. The hon. the Minister also said that the department was investigating the question of sea safety and that it would take another three months before he received a reply from the department. The hon. the Minister was also considering the possibility of ascertaining which bodies were actually responsible for enforcement measures. That was some time ago. In view of what has happened since then and the fact that the stormy winter months lie ahead of us, I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he would give consideration this afternoon to the appointment of a special commission of enquiry, with the widest terms of reference possible, to go into the whole question of safety at sea, the registration and the control of all craft, at least in terms similar to those applicable to the larger vessels in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act.

This is a very important issue, because there are thousands and thousands of small boats that go to sea ill-equipped and without proper supervision. They do not only cause trouble for themselves, and loss of life, but also cause all sorts of trouble to those organizations which have to go out and rescue them, and to the State itself, quite apart from the expenditure of vast sums of money. I believe a much more appropriate system can be devised and that an investigation of the kind I have asked for into the launching of small boats, the requirement they should carry, at least minimum forms of safety equipment, and the general administration of our coast line as far as smaller vessels are concerned, is a fit subject for an inquiry, and I should ask the hon. the Minister to give his closest attention to this request.

Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the fact that South Africa has the highest road accident rate of all the countries in the Western World. This is a very important subject, and that is why I am not going to comment on what was said by the hon. member who spoke before me. The hon. Minister will reply to his arguments in any case. I know hon. members share my concern about the road accident rate. The question which occurs to all of us is: What can be done and what should be done to stop the carnage on our roads?

What are the alarming facts with which we are faced? In 1975, 8 124 people died on our roads, i.e. 22 lives per day, every day of the year. Over the past decade, 73 000 people have died on our roads, i.e. three times more than the number of South African soldiers who died during the 10 years of the First and Second World Wars. Furthermore, 68 295 people were injured on our roads in 1975. That means an average of 187 people per day. Before the fuel crisis forced us to drive more slowly, our accident figure was six times higher than that of any other comparable country in the world. These figures are rising again. Every 20 minutes there is a motor accident in which people are maimed. The question is whether South Africa can afford this loss of manpower. If we consider the loss in terms of production, damage to property, medical and administrative costs and legal costs, it works out at a global sum of approximately R400 million, which I believe South Africa can no longer afford.

Today I want to draw attention to only one aspect. Against this background, I want to make a plea for the compulsory use of seat belts as one of the priorities for saving lives and reducing mutilating injuries. Research has already indicated what we should do. The time has come to implement its findings. This improvement will only come about by means of legislation. Based on results obtained in Australia, we can make the following calculations: Of the annual death toll of 8 000 on our roads, we would have saved 500 lives if these people had all worn seat belts. A further 5 000 of those mutilated for life would not have been seriously injured. In the light of this alone it is amazing that South Africans are so indifferent to the use of seat belts.

Since 1965 it has been compulsory for all motor-cars to have seat belts for the front seats. The Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut has calculated that from 1965 to 1972, it cost us more than R12 million to install those belts. However, all the propaganda campaigns and the large amounts of money which are spent in promoting their use have not yet had the desired effect. The National Road Safety Council spends an average of R100 000 per year in publicizing this aspect. As a result, the ratio of users increased from 5,4% to 8,6% in the urban areas in the period between 1974 and 1976. During the same period, the increase in the rural areas was from 5,0% to 10,6% and in the case of freeways from 9,5% to 12,4%. In other words, after an intensive campaign, seat belts were still being used by fewer than two out of every 20 people.

Findings abroad are very interesting. Research in the USA found amongst other things that the use of seat belts had caused a decrease of 35% in serious or fatal injuries. The compulsory use of seat belts reduced the occurrence of such injuries in Melbourne by 21%, and in New South Wales by 25%. In Sweden 28 000 accidents were analysed and it was found that no passengers wearing belts were fatally injured in collisions in the case of speeds of up to 95 km per hour. In New Zealand studies proved that, in the first year after the use of seat belts had been made compulsory, there was an increase of only 3% in the number of deaths compared to the previous year, while there was an increase of 40% with regard to all other road users.

In the light of these research findings I want to plead today for the compulsory use of seat belts. In making this plea, I find myself in good company. The use of seat belts is already compulsory in 23 countries, including Australia, France, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Japan. Many more are presently considering legislation in this respect. Since legislation was introduced in these countries, the use of seat belts has increased from 30% to 80%, with a considerable decrease in the number of casualties. The mutilation of motorists is so terrible that that alone is sufficient reason to make the use of seat belts compulsory. One has only to visit the casualty section of a hospital to experience it. One of the doctors of the Groote Schuur Hospital recently said—

The National Road Safety Council also recommends it. As I said, I am therefore in good company. Every week that we postpone the compulsory use of seat belts, at least ten more people die on our roads. The South African Motorist has made a plea in this regard, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut supports it and the AA, with its half a million members, also advocates it. Rondalia and the S.A. Motor Sport Club also support their use. Insurers and medical practitioners lend their support too. If I had the time, I could give hon. members a great deal of information in this regard. Many other bodies and persons have also spoken out in favour of the use of seat belts at one stage or another. I have tried to advance arguments and furnish proof to justify the compulsory use of seat belts. Of course I know that there are objections which can be raised against it. However, I do not have the time to elaborate on that. The existing objections can be removed very easily, and if we tackle the matter in all seriousness, I am convinced that those objections will disappear.

I still want to mention in this respect that I do not believe that the use of seat belts should be a further source of income to the municipalities and other bodies. What I am pleading for is that fines should not be made so high that that aspect will again play an important role. It is clear that in countries where the use of seat belts was made compulsory, their use spontaneously increased from 30% to 80%. Marketing research here has proved to us that approximately 66% of our people are in favour of the compulsory use of seat belts. Only 16% were undecided and only 18% were against it. It is sometimes argued that it is not necessary to wear seat belts in cities. However, fifty per cent of the fatal accidents which took place in 1975, and 75% of the accidents in which people were seriously injured, took place in cities. In other words, most accidents take place at a low speed, and that is when the seat belt is most efficient. All things considered, it is clear that there is irrefutable proof that seat belts save lives and prevent serious injuries. Everything should be done to reduce the reckless carnage on our roads. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on 15 April of this year South Africa came very close to a major air disaster when a near collision took place at Jan Smuts airport.

I should like to speak directly to the hon. the Minister concerned and say that I believe—and I think that the public also believes—that there has apparently been an attempt to minimize the seriousness of this event. On that day two large aircraft, one an SAA Airbus and the other a Boeing belonging to Quantas, together carrying 512 people and 81 700 kg fuel, had what I believe was a near collision at Jan Smuts airport when the Boeing apparently ignored certain instructions and the Airbus, which was coming in to land, were on a collision course. I put a question on the Order Paper by means of which I questioned some of the facts relating to this event, and the hon. the Minister replied that it was not considered to be a near collision. I spoke to a senior member of the staff of the S.A. Airways and I asked him what the circumstances of those events constituted. He told me that if it was not a near collision, then certainly it came very close to a near collision. One must appreciate that less than a minute, in fact, only seconds, separated 512 people from a disaster of catastrophic proportions, because if there had been a collision, those people certainly would have been killed in the collision mainly as a result of the vast volume of fuel that was being carried on the two aircraft. [Interjections.] If the hon. member who has interrupted had been on that plane, the staff on board the plane would have had to contend with an excess moisture problem as well.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that far from minimizing the seriousness of this event, the hon. the Minister should realize, that the public deserve to know what the situation is. The public deserve to know what rules have been transgressed and the public deserve to know that steps have been taken to avoid a recurrence of such a situation in the future.

I can remember that in December 1974 when an airline crash occurred in the USA, there was at a later stage a public debate in the course of which it was revealed that a simple communication between control staff and airline staff was interpreted in two entirely different ways. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that this is an opportunity he must take in order to check all control procedures once again to ensure that occurrences of this nature cannot take place, because it will be too late if we were to wait until there is a recurrence before we react effectively. So far there have been a number of charges and countercharges and a number of admissions and denials, but the public do not know who is at fault, they do not know whether our control procedures are effective and satisfactory and they do not know whether effective steps are being taken to avoid a recurrence of this nature in the future.

I should like to make these very urgent representations to the hon. the Minister. It is essential that he clear the matter once and for all and that he satisfy the fears and doubts of the South African public as a result of the way in which this matter was handled. In so far as the public are concerned, there has been an apparent attempt to minimize the seriousness of this event.

Mr. Chairman, the tenor of the entire debate, so far has in fact been the matter of road safety. It is my pleasant privilege to express a few ideas this afternoon on this extremely important matter too. Everyone in this House as well as everyone outside is concerned from time to time about the serious proportions which accidents on our roads are assuming. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kempton Park who spoke just before the hon. member for Bryanston on his reference to certain aspects concerning this extremely important matter.

In dealing with this matter, I do not want to suggest for a single moment that I am an authority in this field. I do know, however, that the causes of road accidents and of the slaughter on our roads are legion and in view of that I want to point out once again that I do not profess to be an authority in this field. I think it is imperative for me to quote a few figures at the outset. From 1 January 1976 to 31 December 1976 there were 270 082 accidents in the Republic of South Africa as a result of which 8 012 people were killed and 69 517 were injured and maimed. For the first time since 1944, except for the year just after the introduction of the fuel restrictions in November 1973, the death toll on South African roads was lower than that of the previous year, i.e. 1975. The independence of the Transkei cannot be regarded as the reason for this encouraging sign because 207 deaths which occurred in the Transkei from January 1976 up to the time of its independence on 26 October 1976, are in fact included in this figure. Without the deaths in the Transkei the South African figure would have been lower, i.e. 7 805.

I find these figures informative as they illustrate to me that the National Road Safety Council, our various provinces as well as the Government, and this hon. Minister in particular, have made real attempts to reduce the death toll. In spite of the fact that the number of vehicles in South Africa increased by 21% over the past three years, from 1974 to 1976, that the number of accidents increased by 22% and that the number of kilometres travelled increased by approximately 6%, there was nevertheless a decrease of 7% in the death rate, as well as a decrease of 6% in the number of people killed per 100 million kilometres travelled. These figures speak volumes. Thanks to the real attempts made by the people whom I mentioned earlier on, we have now made a considerable breakthrough. I accept that this may be attributed to the lower speed limits; it may be attributed to many other things, but the fact of the matter is—I want to underline this—that the death rate in South Africa has shown a decrease for the first time since 1944 and I am grateful, together with everyone sitting in this House, that this is the case.

The hon. member for Kempton Park referred to seat belts. I also referred to this last year during the discussion of this Vote, and I want to dwell on this very briefly once again. Studies carried out at the University of Cologne have shown that there is no counter with a better cost-benefit ratio than the wearing of an effective, installed, combined shoulder and lap belt. I want to add to this that at least 22 countries of the world have already made the wearing of seat belts compulsory. If the actual results of the compulsory wearing of seat belts over the past four years in Australia could be applied to the South African situation, an estimated number of 500 lives could be saved every year and injuries could be decreased by 5 000 per year. In spite of the expenditure of approximately R100 000 per year by the National Road Safety Council on publicity to encourage the wearing of seat belts, the present figure of people wearing seat belts in South Africa is still very low.

In this regard, too, we have interesting figures, according to the National Road Safety Council. On our urban roads 8,6% of the people use seat belts; 10,6% on our rural roads and 12,4% on our throughways. However, a recent country-wide survey which was conducted on behalf of the NRSC by the Bureau for Market Research at the University of South Africa, revealed that 72% of White South Africans were in favour of wearing seat belts. Sixteen per cent were undecided and 12% were opposed to it Similar results were recorded in other surveys conducted in France, West Germany and in Belgium, where the wearing of seat belts has since been made compulsory. I accept that this is a subject one can discuss all day long. There are many people who are opposed to this and there may possibly be many good reasons for their opposition. However, I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister that there are bodies and persons who deal with the problems of road safety from day to day and that those bodies and persons are in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. Therefore I associate myself with the hon. member for Kempton Park in asking the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of what the Government’s opinion is in this regard.

In the short time which I still have at my disposal, I should also like to break a lance today for the traffic officers in South Africa. In addition to the role played by the National Road Safety Council, the various provinces and South West Africa, as well as the separate municipalities, have traffic officers who are responsible for implementing traffic legislation. Traffic officers receive a thorough training before they are allowed to operate. They are made to understand very clearly that legislation must be applied judiciously. Their basic task is the promotion of road safety in a manner so as to gain the co-operation of the travelling public. In cases where motorists do not want to co-operate, it is the duty of the traffic officer to take action.

The fact of the matter is that the endeavour of traffic officers, and, of every hon. member in this House, is to decrease the extremely high accident rate on our roads, and to save at least a percentage of the nearly 8 000 people who die on South Africa’s roads annually. I consider it my duty today to argue for understanding of the difficult task of law enforcement in general. I realize that injudicious actions are in fact taken at times. However, all of us are only human. However, we must also guard against generalization, especially as regards branding the entire traffic force. I believe that the larger percentage of South Africa’s traffic officers perform their task with dedication and responsibility.

At the present time the task of the traffic officer is not being made any easier by legislation, for example the legislation concerning fuel and saving fuel; legislation which the traffic officer applies on behalf of the Central Government. Traffic officers experience problems, inter alia, with the apparatus which they have to use in the various provinces from day to day, the apparatus by means of which transgressors of traffic laws are brought to justice. Another stumbling block in the way of the traffic officer is the public’s lack of understanding of the necessity of the measures which must be applied, especially the measures concerning the saving of fuel.

We are aware of the fact that the Department of Justice and the S.A. Bureau of Standards is testing the apparatus, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister—since I am aware of the fact that the apparatus used in the Free State had to be withdrawn during the past three or four months—whether any progress has been made in developing reliable apparatus for testing speed on South African roads. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me as though the hon. the Minister and his department are so successful in performing that task that the official Opposition has been struck dumb in this debate. I should like to refer to a new facet of the activities of this department. With the gruesome occurrences in Belgrade and the Canary Islands still fresh in our memories, I want to move the scene and take a look at our own civil aviation. When we think of the incidents involving military aircraft at Harrismith and Vrede, where there were near accidents, and when we think of the incident at Jan Smuts Airport, we in South Africa are filled with gratitude because we have not yet experienced in our modern civil aviation industry gruesome accidents such as those to which I have already referred.

However, when we consider the light aircraft industry in South Africa, and we realize that light aircraft, and air transport as such, are probably the most modern means of transport in the world, and when we have regard to the fact that light aircraft are flying to and from virtually every town in the Republic, as well as to and from every holiday resort and between hundreds of farms in the country, and when we further have regard to the a fact that light aircraft do not use air corridors—specific lanes indicated by certain beacons—we become truly concerned about this industry. Furthermore, when we have regard to the fact that there would be 2 440 light aircraft in South Africa in 1970, that there are 4 000 at present and that it is estimated that there will be more than 5 000 by the year 1980, and if we accept that there are 5 000 registered, trained pilots in South Africa at the moment and that it is estimated that there will be 8 000 in the year 1980, one is shocked to realize that we are dealing here with the most modern 20th century aircraft industry, and one asks oneself whether the methods we are using and the facilities which are available for assisting this industry, comply with modern requirements. We can ask ourselves in all seriousness whether the time is not ripe for us in South Africa to take a very close look at our veteran methods as well as to the lack of facilities and to investigate the full spectrum of the aviation industry so as to see what can be done to assist these people.

Without my creating a sensation, I should like to mention three examples briefly. It happened last year that a pilot took off with an aircraft full of passengers in favourable weather conditions but flew into a thunderstorm with fatal results without his having had any means at his disposal for monitoring it so as to obtain assistance in this way to escape from the stricken area. There is another case of a pilot who was lost in very bad weather with absolutely no method, no instrumentation, for giving any direction or distance to the nearest safe airport. A third example is the case of a pilot taking off in an aircraft which is apparently in a good condition, but which loses some of the most important control mechanisms after the aircraft has covered a short distance and crashes as a result. Therefore, one may ask oneself what can be done in order to introduce modern techniques. In the short time at my disposal I should like to mention four things which should be done. Firstly, should we not take a look at the maintenance of light aircraft in South Africa? At the moment the position is that every engineer or technician can rent a workshop and undertake repairs to aircraft with the absolute minimum of, usually inadequate, facilities. I do not have time to elaborate on this, but on the basis of this the question arises whether the time has not arrived when maintenance organizations working on light aircraft in South Africa should be registered.

A second aspect is refresher courses for technicians. New technology is always being introduced, so a tremendous need does exist for courses of this nature. If an investigation is conducted, means of creating better facilities for refresher course purposes ought to be considered. Hon. members know that Atlas has excellent facilities and I should like to know whether there is any possibility of making use of those facilities for this purpose. I do not want to play politics with this, but even today consideration is being given to training Coloureds and Indians as ground maintenance staff, and the question is whether, in view of the shortage, we should not take a look at this as well.

The second matter to which I should like to refer, is the question of radar control. This is a highly technical subject and I shall not venture to deal with it on a technical basis. The position is, however, that if a pilot is flying in difficult conditions, there is no method in South Africa of assisting, guiding and monitoring him. In conducting an investigation we must have regard to the fact that the Transvaal has the best radar coverage in South Africa, because of the radar network of the northern air defence sector. This information is available and pilots can be monitored. The only question is whether it is possible for the information to be made available to Civil Aviation in some way.

A third matter to which I should like to refer, is the question of navigation. This has a far-reaching implication. The question is whether we should not provide selected airports with strategic situations in South Africa with—I might as well mention the technical names—VOR, or the Vortac beacon systems—which are not very expensive, so that when pilots of light aircraft are flying in difficult weather conditions they may at least have a bearing and at least determine distance with the instrumentation in their aircraft to enable them in this way to reach a safe airport. This implies that all light aircraft will have to be equipped with some type of navigation equipment. This also implies that all pilots will have to be trained to fly with instrumentation. This is not the case at the moment.

I should like to refer to a final matter. This is the question of the control of airports. At the moment all private airports, like the one at Wonderboom in my constituency, are controlled by local authorities. It is an expensive undertaking to control these airports. Now we find that the rates charged by the local authorities for leasing these airports are so high that the local maintenance people have to increase their tariffs accordingly, with the result that people who have to maintain private aircraft, simply have the absolute minimum of maintenance work done to that aircraft.

I could still refer to several matters which ought to receive attention, for example the decentralization of the inspectorate, the laying down of specific standards for maintenance, training, etc. I should like to conclude by asking that, if at all possible, this matter of civil aviation be investigated and modernized in its entirety so as to render it possible to provide a service to the light aircraft industry of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that I stand up in the House and ask for legislation. Most of the times I speak I ask for the repeal of legislation. However, on this occasion I want to identify myself with the pleas that have been made by the hon. members for Kempton Park, Orange Grove and Welkom on the question of the wearing of seat belts being made compulsory in South Africa. I know this is not an easy thing to do. I know it is very difficult to educate the public in this matter. However, I think that in those countries where the wearing of seat belts in motor vehicles has been made compulsory—as one hon. member has pointed out, in 22 countries throughout the world, including most of the countries in Western Europe—it has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt that lives have been saved by the hundreds and that thousands of serious injuries have been avoided. In view of the horrendous death rate we have on our roads, I think South Africa must now consider doing the same thing. I myself was converted to this point of view when I visited Australia in 1975, where, after four years of experience, they have found a remarkable drop in the death rate in most car accidents and in serious injury since the wearing of seat belts became compulsory. It takes a little time to get used to it, but one learns it soon enough if one knows there is a fine of $50 if one is found driving in a motor-car, either as a driver or a passenger in the front seat, without one’s seat belt being fastened. I think a very special public relations exercise will have to be undertaken in South Africa before a law can in fact be promulgated.

I know that the National Road Safety Council has spent R100 000 per annum in trying to get this idea across to the public with rather negligible results. I think about 10% of all passengers were found to be wearing seat belts at any one time of investigation. All of us appear to have read the same articles in the Reader’s Digest, The Motorist and in various other magazines, but that does not make the arguments any the less valid. I think that in South Africa there ought to be an all-out effort, not only by the National Road Safety Council, but also by the provincial and national authorities using all the media, not only the Press, but also the radio, Radio Bantu in particular, and of course television, in order to impress upon the public the need for this. If one simply goes ahead, passes the law and imposes heavy fines, there is going to be a wail of protest from everybody. The important thing is to remove many of the fallacious ideas about seat belts, such as that they are a cause of danger because people might get trapped in a car which is either burning or sinking. Statistics should be accentuated which indicate that less than 1% of deaths or serious injuries are caused by accidents in cars that are either on fire or in the process of being submerged. Various other fallacies of that kind will have to be completely discounted in the public mind before the law can be enforced.

In the few minutes left to me I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what progress, if any, he is making towards thinking of amending the third party insurance Act in order to cover the passenger in the car of the driver at fault. As far as I know, third party insurance does not cover the passenger. It covers only the passenger in the other car and the driver of the other car or any pedestrian or cyclist who might be involved. Many of the serious accidents, fatalities and injuries are caused to the passenger of the car at fault. This person is not covered by third party insurance. This was also the case in Great Britain until about 1972, when the law was changed and the passengers in the car of the driver at fault were also included in the compulsory third party insurance. I might add that the whole idea of “no fault” is also gaining considerable favour in other countries. This is, in other words, the removal of the whole question of whose negligence it was that caused the accident, because a person who is injured in an accident really does not care who the negligent party was. What he needs is compensation or, if he happens to have been killed, his dependants need compensation. The hon. the Minister should consider these two aspects and perhaps he could tell the House whether he is bearing this in mind as far as third party insurance is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Transport probably is one of the biggest Government departments and it has a budget of R150 million for this year. The function of the department penetrates into all facets of our economy and contributes to all aspects of our infrastructure. The department exercises control over many divisions, such as national roads, civil aviation, airports, shipping, third party insurance, road safety, oil pollution, Government vehicles and meteorological information. We have the position today that the official Opposition has nothing to say. To me this is indicative of a division in their ranks or, as we have noticed the last few weeks, that furtive courting and political adultery is taking place again and that this is distracting their attention completely from such an important department as this.

I want to associate myself with some thoughts expressed in connection with road safety. In the first place I should like to express, on behalf of this side of the House, our highest praise and appreciation to the National Road Safety Council for the research which they have done, for the guidance which they have given and for everything involved in promoting road safety. I also want to congratulate the council on its fine annual report.

The hon. member for Welkom furnished certain statistics concerning the number of accidents and people killed on our roads. It is shocking if one considers that during the past year an average of 22 persons per day were killed and an average of 190 per day were injured in road accidents. It is calculated that loss of production, damage to property, medical costs and legal costs amount to an aggregate loss of approximately R400 million per year. What is even more shocking is that of all developed countries, the number of people killed per 100 million vehicle kilometres is the highest in South Africa. In 1971 the figure in South Africa was 23 as against only 3 in the USA, where this figure is the lowest. One asks oneself why this figure is the highest in South Africa while it is the lowest in America. It may possibly be said that this is so because of the good roads they have in the U.S.A., but from an investigation made by the CSIR in Pretoria, Durban and Cape Town, it appears that the construction of roads is responsible for only 14% of the accidents. From this investigation it further appears that the human factor is responsible for 77% of the accidents. In the remaining 9% it was the vehicle itself which was responsible for the accidents. The biggest scapegoat therefore remains the human factor.

As I have said, the figure in this regard is 77%. A great deal is already being done by the NRSC for the better training of our drivers. There are for example handbooks for learner drivers published by them, and the standardization of a test for a driver’s licence, but the fact remains that if a driver’s licence is issued to a person, a dangerous weapon is placed in the hands of that person, a potential murder weapon, a weapon which he can handle as he pleases, regardless of his feelings for law-abidance and regardless of whether he has any feeling for the other road users. A possible aspect which can therefore be examined by the NRSC, is the question of which age groups are responsible for the largest number of accidents on our roads. The statistics of the Rondalia Insurance Company show that drivers between the ages of 18 and 25 years are the most dangerous road users. Of the insured in that age group 51,6% were involved in accidents in 1975. In the age groups above 25 years that figure drops dramatically, until a stage is reached where it remains constant. For example, between the ages of 26 and 30 years that figure is only 6,9%. It drops even further until it is only 2,7% in the case of the age group 61 to 66 years. This proves to us that the older a person is, the more safely he drives. If these statistics are correct, I think consideration should be given to issuing driver’s licences conditionally to persons under the age of 25 years. I should think that an effective condition would be that a person’s licence be withdrawn at his first serious traffic offence before he is 25 years old. I do not know whether a study has already been made of accidents in the various age groups, but I think that it would be very useful.

The next human factor is that of the use of alcohol. It has been proved that the use of alcohol, not only in South Africa, but all over the world, is the biggest cause of accidents. From the inquiry conducted by the CSIR in the three major cities, Durban, Pretoria and Cape Town, it became apparent that 42,4% of the drivers involved in accidents at night, had taken alcohol. I do not want to express an opinion on the penalties, because I think penalties are relatively severe. But I do think that the sooner we can make use of the breathalyzer, the easier it will be to apprehend those offenders; a lot of inconvenience, cost and humiliation can also be avoided with regard to those who are apprehended innocently and are suspected of having driven under the influence of liquor.

Another very important aspect which in my opinion should receive attention, arises from the fact that 44% of the victims of road accidents are pedestrians. We are aware of the fact that the NRSC is also doing a great deal in respect of the Black men who represent a large percentage of those victims. From the investigation of the CSIR in the three major cities it is however also apparent that 21% of the pedestrians who were involved in accidents during the day and 53% of the pedestrians who were involved in accidents at night time had taken alcohol. At the moment there is no regulation or law applicable to drunken pedestrians. I wonder, therefore, whether the time has not arrived for acting against them as well. If a pedestrian is hit by a motorist, it is usually the motorist who has to account for that accident. That is why, in my opinion, it is high time that the law, as in the case of the driver, should apply to the drunken pedestrian as well.

Mr. Chairman, since the Department of Transport commenced its so-called weather modification project in the district of Bethlehem in 1972, it has been as much a topic of conversation during the past few weeks in my constituency as has been the defence bonds. There has been the same division between those who are in favour of it and those who object to it in principle. Many arguments can be advanced to win people’s favour for so-called weather modification. On the other hand, there are people who say they prefer their consciences to guide them and who consequently object to it in principle. Therefore, it is my opinion that as is the case in any operation, we shall simply have to expect that as long as defence bonds are sold and weather modifications are made, these matters will be controversial. As in the case of defence bonds, the opposition apparently stemmed from the unfortunate terminology—in the case of defence bonds, for example—from the term “lottery”. As far as weather modification is concerned, my opinion is that the opposition gained momentum as a direct result of the term “weather modification” or “weather alteration”. That is why I think that the time may have arrived to take another look at what to call this study or research in the vicinity of Bethlehem. Recently the department released publication on this matter.

According to this, the purpose of the project is to determine experimentally whether favourable conditions exist in the atmosphere for increasing rainfall over strategic catchment areas and to determine experimentally what increase in rainfall and, as a by-product, hail damage can be obtained under pressure under given favourable conditions by seeding clouds. Secondly, there is the contribution the project is making to the public good, and that is to apply the results of the research, after they have stabilized, on a country-wide basis in the interest of all. Thirdly, in broad outline the project, as in other rainfall-dependant countries such as the USA, Russia and even Israel, is aimed at making a study of the physics of clouds in South Africa with a view to stimulating rainfall, for the present, over the upper reaches of the Wilge River in the vicinity of Bethlehem. I think we should place the emphasis on the research the department is doing in Bethlehem at the moment. This is research that may lead not only to the stimulation of the extent of the down-pour, but also to the stimulation of a down-pour from clouds that are formed naturally and which are in fact available. As a by-product there is, of course, research with a view to reducing hail damage as well. In colloquial language, the expression “weather modification” has given rise to such expressions as “rain-making” and “hail prevention”. These expressions are incorrect; in fact, it is not possible to make rain or to prevent hail. For that reason, I should like to advocate that this project be called what it in fact is. We have in mind a name like “weather research”, “Climatological research” and possibly the most suitable one of all, “meteorological research”.

Then consideration could also be given, when the necessary funds are available, to extending the research in Bethlehem so as to form a basis which could give rise to the emergence of a meteorological research institute which would receive international recognition if and when we are readmitted to the International Meteorological Organization. When such a research institute wants to come into its own, then, in my opinion, consideration will also have to be given to the necessary building complexes and the runways that are used by aircraft at Bethlehem.

At this stage they are still ordinary veld runways which are unsafe, particularly during the rainy season. I want to advocate, too, that the research institute in Bethlehem be developed into a centre in which it will be possible to do research in line with what is actually implied by the name.

I think we in South Africa have arrived at a stage where we have to obtain optimal utilization from all endeavours in South Africa. Perhaps we could also use this field to obtain further data for ourselves and to process such data with a view to implementing such data in practice. In this regard, I am thinking of the requirements of the Department of Defence. I should like to ask that the department investigate the possibility of conducting research in Bethlehem in conjunction with the Department of Defence in an attempt to determine whether or not we can make optimal use of nature in our defence, as we did earlier in our history. I think that the clouds, the distribution of clouds and the location of clouds lend themselves to effective harnessing and utilization by the Department of Defence, particularly in view of the fact that our borders are very long and pass through areas which are very inhospitable. Could the department not consider using this research strategically as well in the interests of our country?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the various subjects raised. I shall begin with the hon. member for Orange Grove who referred to the George airport and expressed doubts about whether it was justified. Firstly I think that George is the most suitable spot for an airport in that area and, secondly, I believe that that part of our country does indeed need a good airport. Hence the fact that my predecessor, years ago, already decided that an airport should be set up for the South-Western Districts, an airport which could then also serve as an alternate airport as far as Cape Town and probably also Port Elizabeth was concerned. After investigations were instituted, George was decided upon, and as a result the airport was built there. The runways, ground works and a loading strip were built by the Department of Defence, and this is in accordance with the scheme in terms of which the Department of Defence wants airports at various places for strategic purposes. Hence the fact that a runway has been built at Margate, at Elliot and also at other places in the country. The hon. member must consequently not see the justification for the airport at George merely in terms of the number of passengers making use of that airport. I think the hon. member will also agree with me that this embodies many benefits for those people in and around Johannesburg and Pretoria who can now fly on a more direct route to the George area via Port Elizabeth or Cape Town. The buildings and other equipment are, of course, financed from funds provided by the department. Bearing all this in mind, I do not want to elaborate any further. I think that there is justification for building an airport there, and I say this for the reasons I have just mentioned.

Like several other members, the hon. member spoke about road safety, more specifically about seat belts, a matter about which the hon. member for Kempton Park and the hon. member for Houghton spoke at very great length. I therefore think it would be a very good thing if I now discussed that question. There are many arguments involving the wearing of seat belts. As has been pointed out, there are circumstances in which one can specifically lose one’s life because one is wearing a seat belt. On the other hand, there are also circumstances in which one can specifically lose one’s life because one fails to wear a seat belt. The National Road Safety Council made a very probing study of the matter, apart from looking at examples in the rest of the world as well. It is indeed true that in numerous countries—I think in 22 countries of the world—it is compulsory to wear seat belts. I am not prepared to argue that point, but I am prepared to accept—in fact I am quite convinced that it is so—that on balance the wearing of seat belts does have its benefits and does save lives. That is a fact. However, making the wearing of seat belts compulsory would, as hon. members can understand, give rise to many problems. Apart from the fact that the composition of the population in South Africa is not altogether comparable with that in West Germany, Belgium or the other countries where the wearing of seat belts is compulsory—because of the composition of our population, the degree of laxity in respect of the way in which people are transported, in open lorries and on panel vans, etc.—one asks oneself whether it would be quite consistent to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. There are many factors that could be mentioned. One very important factor is that when it is made compulsory, one must decide whether it should be made compulsory in all cases of moving vehicles with passengers in the front seat. This means that even if one only moves a few hundred yards in a city, from one place to another, it must also be compulsory to wear a seat belt.

I made a suggestion to the National Road Safety Council about whether we should not consider only making it applicable initially to outlying roads, i.e. roads on which the 90 km per hour speed limit is applicable. I was then told, and I think quite rightly too, that the majority of accidents occur in the cities. According to statistics, the majority of accidents occur in the cities, but I also think it is correct to say that 42%—I speak under correction—of deaths occur in the case of pedestrians. One would expect the majority to take place in the urban areas. Whatever the case may be, on balance I have come to the conclusion that we should begin and continue making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. At this stage, however, I am not clear about how this should be introduced or implemented. I should like to submit it to the National Road Safety Council for them to determine in depth how it should be implemented and, in particular, how it should be enforced. I should not like to see the compulsory wearing of seat belts labelled as a new source of revenue for the local authorities. Therefore, although it must, to a certain extent, be made compulsory, it must not be seen in the same light as offences committed when people, who should be travelling at 90 km per hour in the interests of the country, actually travel at 120 km per hour. From the nature of things, however, if it has to be enforced, then it must very definitely be enforced. Those people who do not want to knuckle down must then be fined. That is consequently my reply to the arguments concerning the wearing of seat belts. In principle this is accepted. I shall request the National Road Safety Council to work out particulars about how this can be put into effect. If they find an acceptable and viable method, we shall negotiate with the provinces. It is inevitably the provincial administrations that must push through the necessary legislation by way of ordinances.

It is, after all, the provincial administrations that arrange matters in connection with traffic. I hope that with this answer I have satisfied those hon. members who advocated the wearing of seat belts. The fact that the hon. member for Houghton has requested legislation in this connection—something she does not often do—has also influenced me. I therefore know that I shall have the hon. member for Houghton on my side, at least as far as the wearing of seat belts is concerned. I have never had her on my side before. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove said he did not like the way in which the weather reports were presented on television. I must agree with the hon. member. I do not like it either. He asked me to ask the hon. the Minister of National Education to try to have it changed.

What is that all about?

About weather reports on television. On several occasions I have watched the weather reports on television overseas. The maps which we see from time to time—maps we know—and which are based on the photographs of South Africa and its environs, taken every day by weather satellites, are much more meaningful to me than the little clouds and the balls of sunshine and so on …

And the little umbrellas.

… and the little umbrellas and things that are shown on television. [Interjections.] I have thus complied with the hon. member for Orange Grove’s request that I ask the hon. the Minister of National Education to give attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Tygervallei asked me to give attention to the possibility of exempting Red Cross aircraft from the payment of landing fees. There, I feel, the hon. member must exercise a little patience. We shall have another look at that matter. At the moment, however, regulations make it compulsory that levies be imposed. I consequently have no choice. Landing fees are imposed in terms of the regulations. The hon. member may say that the regulations can surely be amended. That is, of course, also true. However, we would not like to make an exception. That sort of thing can be dangerous. As soon as a single exception is made, one could find that there are other bodies who have equally good claims to such exemption. We shall nevertheless re-examine the matter and try to determine if something cannot be done.

The hon. member also asked me what recommendations of the Wessels Commission I accept. The report of the Wessels Commission contains many recommendations. The hon. member for Houghton would also do well to listen as well. She was the one who also put the questions to me in this connection. She asked, inter alia, whether any progress was being made with the inquiry into the possibility of all passengers being covered by third party insurance. The first terms of reference of the Wessels Commission was, and I quote—

In connection with what the hon. member for Tygervallei asked, I do not want to indicate which of the recommendations I accept because I accept too many of them and it would take up too much time to cover the whole field. I should rather like to mention a few that I cannot accept. He will then know that I have accepted the others.

The first recommendation is not acceptable to me. The foremost reason is that it seeks to increase third party insurance premiums by about 75%. That is not my finding; it is the finding of the Wessels Commission, and on those grounds I cannot see my way clear, at this point in time, to going ahead with an arrangement which requires that an additional 75% must be added to the premium for all motor vehicle owners, many of whom can hardly afford the third party insurance. The second term of reference deals with the question of—

The commission’s recommendation in that connection I am not prepared to accept either because it goes without saying that if one does away with the limitation of R12 000 per person and R60 000 per accident, this would mean a tremendous increase in claims, the result being that premiums would also increase. I am therefore not prepared to accept that recommendation either. The third recommendation is a consequential recommendation and I shall therefore not deal with it.

The fifth recommendation deals with the term of reference covering the determination of—

The commission’s recommendation that special tariffs for medical practitioners and attorneys should not be fixed is acceptable. In this regard, however, the commission also recommended that “Tariffs for counsel ought to be laid down on the same basis as those for attorneys” and that—

That is also part of the recommendation, but those are inevitably matters which we cannot simply decide about. In that connection, particularly as far as the second portion is concerned, it will be necessary to conduct negotiations with the General Bar Council. I think the time is slowly coming for us to move in that direction. The General Bar Council stands firm that a senior advocate must be assisted by a junior advocate. However, this entails tremendous costs. We shall nevertheless conduct the negotiations and see how far we can get with these two recommendations by the commission. As they stand, however, I cannot accept them and say that they will be implemented because they still require negotiation.

The commission’s next term of reference was to determine—

We are going ahead with the commission’s recommendation that the right to institute and enforce third party claims is the province of the legal profession. I therefore agree with the recommendation that the legal profession should handle third party claims. However, I disagree with the recommendation in the sense that various departments, for example the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the Department of Bantu Education can look after the interests of the Bantu living in the homelands better than anyone else can. The opinion is therefore held that, in addition to the legal profession, the right of handling claims must be retained by the central Government and the local authorities which deal with the interests of the various population groups. I think it is fair that it should remain their province.

The next matter concerns the validity of MVA-13 claim forms. What is at issue here is the period of 90 days that must elapse before a summons can be issued. At present the Act provides that a claimant may not summons an authorized insurer before a period of 90 days has elapsed after the MVA-13 claim form has been furnished to the authorized insurer. This requirement gives rise to delays in finalizaing claims in the sense that in many cases authorized insurers wait until the 90-day period has virtually lapsed before they inform the claimant about mistakes in the claim form. The commission’s recommendation in this connection will help to speed up the finalizing of claims, but it is felt that the period ought to be extended from 30 days to 60 days to give those authorized insurers who handle claims on a centralized basis enough time to get in touch with their branch offices which furnished the insurance.

In other words, we accept this, subject to the amendment that the 30 days be extended to 60 days. The necessary amendments to the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, and the regulations promulgated in terms of that Act, will receive immediate attention with a view to giving the quickest possible effect to the recommendations of the commission. This means that I accept the balance of the recommendations, apart from those I do not accept and those which I have indicated that I partially accept.

The hon. member for Simonstown spoke about such a great diversity of departments which, in one form or another, exercise control over the sea-coast. He went on to request that an investigation be instituted. We take note of his ideas. Those matters can be looked at. He then spoke about small craft and said that he was concerned about them. I should like to make a statement about that.

For several years now representations have been made to my department to exercise some or other form of control over the smaller craft which are not in commercial use. The representations chiefly concerned safety measures—the hon. member chiefly spoke about that today—that must be instituted for the vessels themselves or in the training of those on board. It is estimated that during holiday periods there are up to 12 400 of these vessels that head for the open sea from the South African coast. My department investigated the matter and recommendations have now been received. After consideration of those recommendations, it would appear that a need does exist to impose some or other form of control, on a national basis, on these small craft. Some people are apparently indifferent to the dangers of the sea. They head for the open sea without the necessary training and with poorly equipped craft, thereby not only placing their own lives and the lives of those on board in danger, but also the lives of those people who must go out to help them, not to mention the considerable expense incurred in this connection by the State and voluntary organizations in the establishment of an organization and the means to grant the necessary help. Such an organization does exist, and is known as the “Permanent Committee for Search and Rescue”, with its secretariat in my department. The investigation also brought to light the fact that at present there are numerous diverse bodies each individually endeavouring to lay down safety measures without achieving much success. I have consequently instructed that the matter be properly investigated and that a report be published. For that purpose it will be necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry, and the necessary machinery has already been set in motion for that purpose. The envisaged commission’s terms of reference are the following: To carry out an investigation, with due regard for the requirements of the Sea-shore Act, the Merchant Shipping Act, the Water Act, the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act and any concomitant regulations and other similar measures, into the desirability of laying down safety standards in legislation, and/or introducing them by way of training programmes, in connection with smaller vessels which are not in commercial use but which sail out from any part of the South African coast or the sea and, if so, to make recommendations, in the first place, about the nature of such measures and the bodies which will have to be responsible for their implementation and, in the second place, the desirablity or not of extending such measures to vessels used on inland waters.

I envisage appointing persons to the commission who represent the following bodies: In the first place there is the Maritime Law Association of the Republic of South Africa. Mr. Bob Reineke, who is connected with that body, has agreed to act as chairman. In the second place there is the Society of Master Mariners of South Africa; thirdly an ex-magistrate of the Department of Justice; fourthly the Department of Sport and Recreation and lastly a representative of the Department of Transport. The secretarial duties of the commission will be handled by the Department of Transport. The hon. member for Simonstown will probably be very happy about the announcement I have just made.

The hon. member for Kempton Park referred, for the most part, to seat belts. I have already discussed that matter. The hon. member for Bryanston, as one expects from him and his party, made statements about something he does not know very much about. The hon. member has previously asked a question about the so-called near-collision that took place. Today the hon. member stated that we have minimized the incident, that it was a much more serious accident than we tried to make out and that there are differences of opinion about what actually happened. I have consequently thought fit to inform the Committee of the exact discussion that took place, as recorded on tape. I am doing this specifically because of the uncertainty that prevails as a result of remarks that have been made from time to time in that connection. There are usually two parties giving instructions to aircraft. The procedure adopted is slightly complicated, but I shall try to simplify it as much as possible. The two parties I refer to are “Ground movement control”, i.e. ground control, and the tower. The following discussion took place. At 14:40:30 the following information came from the Qantas aircraft, QF24. It informed ground control of the following: “Taxi please.” Ground control replied: “Taxi, holding point runway 21.” I should like hon. members to take very careful note of this. The “holding point” is the line where the aircraft must stop before taxi-ing onto the runway from which it must take off. This was acknowledged by QF24. At 14:16:30 the call from QF24 was “Requesting clearance”. Ground control: “Stand by. Your clearance.” The call from QF24: “Go ahead, Sir.” Ground control replied: “Clear to Mauritius. Runway 21. Runway heading to 7 000 feet, then a left-hand turn out heading 120 degrees. Clear to 2 000 feet, level and heading change.” QF24 replied: “Clear to Mauritius. Runway 21. For take-off straight ahead to 7 000 feet, then a left turn to pick up a heading of 120 degrees. Climb to 8 000, expect further on en route.”

Ground control then replied: “QF24, advise tower of persons on board. Contact tower at 118,1. Cheerio.” Then ground control had done with QF24. Qantas then switched over to another frequency for contact with the control tower. At 14h25 the Qantas aircraft sent the following message: “Qantas 24 is ready and we have 251 on board.” The control tower’s reply to this was: “Hold at the holding point. Confirm that you are at the holding point. In fact, you have gone past.” The reply from the Qantas aircraft was: “We were cleared into the runway, Sir.” The control tower then gave the following instruction: “SA324 overshoot.” At that stage the control tower told SA324, the Airbus, to “overshoot” and not to come in to land; it was to fly over the airfield. I shall come back to the Airbus in a moment. The reply from the Airbus was as follows: “SA324 is now overshooting.” The control tower then told the Qantas aircraft: “I do not know who cleared you on the runway, but it was not tower here.” The reply from the Qantas aircraft was: “Apparently the ground control cleared us into the runway. I am sorry about that.” Let me quote further from the report: “After this conversation QF24 was given take-off clearance and handed over to approach control on 1245 after passing 7 000 feet. Although mentioned on all further frequencies, the incident was not mentioned by either Air Traffic Control or QF24. The incident happened before SA324 checked on final approach and he was not given clearance to land.” I want the hon. member for Bryanston, who is so worried about the fact that we are supposedly indifferent to a near-collision, to understand that the Airbus was between 6 km and 7 km further and that the Airbus was 1 500 ft up in the air, i.e. so far up that it had not yet requested instructions to land, and instructions had not yet been issued. Lastly I want to quote the following: “The clearance given to QF24 by GMC—in other words, ground control—at 14h21 is a standard en route clearance given to indicate to the pilot the route and altitude to be complied with after take-off. Entry to runway and take-off clearance is only given by the tower controller. It goes without saying that only the control tower can give an aircraft permission to enter the runway. The tower can see where the aircraft is. Ground control cannot see where the aircraft is and can only give the aircraft particulars for take-off, but not permission to enter the runway. That permission can only be given by the control tower, and in this case permission had not been obtained from the control tower.

The fact of the matter is, however, that we did not regard it as a near-collision because the Airbus was so far away that there was no sign of danger at that stage, when the position was brought under control. I think it was uncalled for that the hon. member should have made such statements in the House alleging that we are indifferent to safety.

The hon. member for Welkom spoke about road safety, and I merely want to confirm that the National Road Safety Council, which has been functioning for several years, does very valuable work. Unfortunately the control officers, about whom the hon. member spoke, are not under my control. He also asked questions about apparatus that is used. Because it is apparatus that is used by traffic officers who are obviously employed by the provincial administrations or the local authorities, I can unfortunately not answer his questions.

The hon. member for Wonderboom spoke about civil aviation, and I should like to make a short statement about that.

Hon. members are undoubtedly aware of the fact that there are phenomenal developments taking place in the sphere of civil aviation, not only in South Africa, but also throughout the world. As far as that is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member’s views. To keep pace with this development one must make the necessary adjustments from time to time. The large number of aircraft accidents have raised the following question: Is there sufficient control over civil aviation or are improvements necessary? With this in view I decided to appoint a commission to make a proper investigation of the matter and to issue a report. The terms of reference will be comprehensive and will include the following: (1) The Administration’s control of civil aviation and related activities, including access control at State airports; (2) the licensing of airlines; (3) the adequacy and efficiency of scheduled and non-scheduled international regional and internal services; (4) the adequacy and efficiency of general aeronautical services; (5) safety requirements and the prevention of accidents, with specific reference to the standards of flight training, licensing and flight crews, the operation of aircraft and air traffic control—the matters about which the hon. member had so many doubts; (6) the operation of State airports on a sound economic basis; (7) search and rescue, including preventive measures against occurrences of a serious nature; and (8) the use of sources, equipment and trained personnel. Mr. Justice C. S. Margo has already agreed to act as chairman, and I plan to appoint to the commission persons representing the following bodies: (1) the South African Airways; (2) The Commercial Pilots’ Association; (3) the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut; (4) the Associated Chambers of Commerce; (5) the Federated Chamber of Industries; (6) the Aero Club of South Africa, and (7) a person who has a broad general knowledge of commercial aviation. Provision will also be made for the co-opting of members of an ad hoc basis and for the appointment of subcommittees of experts in connection with any aspect which the commission can investigate in accordance with its terms of reference.

We came to the conclusion that a need exists, particularly with a view to the numerous accidents we have had in recent times and with a view to related matters. Therefore we feel that we should institute such an investigation at this stage. The committee will therefore begin with its work one of these days.

The hon. member for Boksburg also spoke about road safety. I just want to express my appreciation to all the hon. members who expressed their concern about all our traffic accidents. I do not want to debate the points that have been raised, but I do want to give hon. members the assurance that we have taken due note of the suggestions made here and that attention will consequently be given to those matters.

The hon. member for Bethlehem spoke about weather modification. He actually advocated a change in the term “weather modification”. If I understood him correctly, he wants the emphasis placed on research. His argument is based on the fact that although one speaks of “rain-making” and “hail prevention”, the weather modification project at Bethlehem cannot, in point of fact, achieve those aims. One cannot make rain if the circumstances are not favourable. However, if the circumstances are favourable, one can encourage rainfall. I read through the relevant documents with a view to the debate this afternoon, and it was interesting to see that in favourable circumstances an acre-foot of water can perhaps be produced in this way at a cost of anything from R1 to R11. An acre-foot of water is, of course, 270 000 gallons. If one can produce 270 000 gallons of water at a cost of between R1 and R11, this is, of course, a very good proposition. However, the project is still in the experimental stage. In the past the problem has been one of manpower, the necessary trained people and finance, but since September of this year the project has been going ahead full-steam. I hope most sincerely that all the doubts, which some people have about the project, will be dispelled in the course of time.

Finally I want to make an announcement in connection with the National Marine Advisory Council. Hon. members will remember that we amended the relevant Act last year. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, as amended, make provision for the institution of a National Marine Advisory Council to advise the Minister of Transport on commercial shipping in the Republic and commercial shipping in general. The provision for the institution of such a council has already existed for a number of years, but the composition of the council had to be such that it was not thought desirable to establish it. Although the Marine Advisory Council never functioned in practice, I now regard it as essential that such an advisory council be instituted, particularly in the light of the fact that great strides are being made in merchant shipping in the Republic.

Regulations in connection with the Marine Advisory Council were promulgated as far back as 25 March 1977, and the necessary recognition must now be given to bodies and associations which can be regarded as representative of commercial shipping in the Republic. I have approved the recognition of the following bodies: (1) The S.A. Shipowners’ Association, Cape Town, as representing the owners of South African ships, excluding fishing boats; (2) the Society of Master Mariners, S.A., Cape Town, as representing captains and deck officers; (3) the S.A. Institute of Marine Engineers and Naval Architects, Cape Town, as representing engineering officers; (4) the Association of Marine Underwriters in South Africa, Johannesburg, as representing marine underwriters; (5) the Maritime Law Association of the Republic of South Africa, Cape Town, as representing maritime legal interests; and (6) the Association of Ships’ Agents and Brokers of South Africa, Durban, as representing shipping agents and brokers. The said bodies have already nominated persons to represent them, and I have subsequently approved the appointment of the nominees. In addition the Department of Transport, which will provide the chairman, the Department of National Education, the Department of Customs and Excise and the S.A. Railways Administration will be represented in the Marine Advisory Council.

There are no bodies which I regard as representing the interests of the owners of fishing boats and sailors serving on South African ships and the interests of the captains and crews of fishing boats. In consequence there will be two vacancies in the advisory council which I shall find as soon as the relevant representative bodies are, in fact, established.

This ends my participation in this debate, and I should like to thank hon. members for the constructive discussions.

Votes agreed to.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I were to give due credit today to everyone who contributed to this legislation, I would probably have to devote my whole speech to these acknowledgments, which you will not allow me to do. On Friday afternoon the hon. member for Durban Point expressed some very kind thoughts which I sincerely appreciate, not only because he addressed them to me personally, but because I found it so characteristic of the whole spirit which had prevailed in the commission, a spirit to which the hon. member had contributed enormously as the senior Opposition member. I want to thank him very sincerely for that. I say without fear of contradiction that each commission member contributed something to this Bill, because everyone was so completely involved in the legislation. I honestly think the composition of the commission was a very fortunate one and I want to express my thanks for that. I should like to thank each Government member individually for the way in which they facilitated my task, for their personal support and for their valuable contributions. I can honestly say that I gained a new insight into each one of these hon. members. I hope I shall be forgiven if, as a Whip, I show a little partiality for them in the future. As far as the Opposition members are concerned, I shall come to them one by one in the course of my speech. I cannot omit to convey my sincere thanks to the Department of Transport and its officials as well, for a very solid foundation on which the legislation could be based, and also for the great assistance and guidance we received from them during the proceedings. There were officials from other departments as well who rendered special assistance to us, and to them, too, we want to convey our thanks. In particular, there was one person from another department whose contribution was really invaluable to the activities of the commission.

Furthermore, we were privileged to have a wealth of knowledge and practical experience available to us, supplied by persons and bodies that submitted memoranda and gave evidence before the commission. Those who have had a brief look at the commission’s report will have seen how many there were. I feel greatly honoured by the fact that the commission has been able to publish a unanimous report, regardless of party lines, and that we have been able to submit legislation of this magnitude to Parliament, except for just one political aspect which was involved, which I shall return to in dealing with the minority reports and with amendments which may be moved in this House.

I think I am correct in saying that it was our common purpose to revise the old Act, the Motor Carrier Transportation Act of 1930, which is even older than I, so as to lay a foundation for a new road transportation policy for the future, with free competition between the various transportation media, without unnecessary restrictive control measures. Although this Bill probably does not come up to the expectations of many individuals, for reasons indicated by the hon. member for Durban Point on Friday, I nevertheless believe that it provides a basis for a gradual movement towards a situation of freer competition between transportation media.

Much will depend on the interpretation given to the Act by the various road transportation boards and by the National Transport Commission. For this reason I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister today to ensure that road transportation boards in particular be properly informed by his department concerning the implementation and spirit of this Act. Even if central conferences have to be held in this connection, it will be worthwhile. It is of the greatest importance to us that this legislation be applied on a uniform basis by all road transportation boards and by the commission. I think it is very important that the confidence of the public be gained from the outset regarding the interpretation of the legislation. Where we have also recommended the provision of a telex system in this connection, I trust that the department will be able to provide this in order to bring about the essential communication between the various road transportation boards.

Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member is very well acquainted with transport matters and the commission was able to draw freely upon his intimate knowledge and experience in this respect. I have only the greatest appreciation for that and the best testimonial I can give the hon. member today is to indicate that his contribution to the activities of the commission can also be read in this Bill. I believe that the hon. member made an excellent speech on Friday. It is a pity that it took place on a Friday afternoon and was therefore largely wasted. The same applies to the speech made by the hon. the Minister; a speech which was quite informative and illuminating.

Now I want to refer to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. I believe that the hon. member will forgive me for saying that I was really surprised to learn about that amendment. When one reads the amendment correctly, it appears that it is very strongly worded, strongly worded in the sense that—

When one reads this amendment, one would think that this matter was thoroughly canvassed in the course of the commission’s activities. One would think that if the hon. member had not been satisfied then, it would have featured prominently in the minority report drawn up by him and his party. Now the hon. member for Durban Point will concede to me that neither he nor his party put in any plea for this requirement at any stage of the commission’s activities and that it was not a request which was addressed to the commission by any other person or body either. What the hon. the Minister has added to the Bill he received from the commission provides for exactly the same things as the hon. member is requesting in his amendment.

The hon. member knows my methods of working, I believe, and I should now like to read to him what I wrote next to clause 4(4)(a), even before I had seen his amendment. This is what I wrote—

and/or Asian to be co-opted in order to have a say in matters affecting the interests of his group.

But then you can accept my amendment.

In other words, it means that the need for the hon. member’s amendment falls away; that the provision he is pleading for is already contained in the legislation.

So you accept my amendment?

Mr. Speaker, how can we accept the hon. member’s amendment? Exactly the same provision that he is asking for is already contained in the Bill. How can he now expect support for his amendment if he wants to introduce something that has already been accepted?

Just give me the assurance that it will be written into the Act in these terms; then I shall withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, that assurance I give to the hon. member, in so far as I am able to do so. I hope that the hon. the Minister will also give him that assurance.

As regards the composition of road transportation boards, surely the hon. member knows that there is no impediment to the appointment of people of colour. He is obviously thinking of something of this kind.

Just give me the assurance!

Now we come to his party’s minority report. In discussing this minority report, one asks oneself whether a measure which is designed to bring about separation in order to prevent racial friction is a discriminatory measure. My reply on this point is quite clear, but I did not consider it to be within the terms of reference of the commission to give an opinion on this matter. I think the commission refrained from debating this matter at all because we knew each hon. member’s political standpoint and we knew that for this reason, no progress could be made. This gave rise to the minority reports. The one was drawn up by the hon. member for Durban Point and his colleague, and the other by the hon. member for Orange Grove, who went a good deal further. I want to go so far as to say, as regards the minority report, that no representations were submitted to the commission concerning the question of the creation of separate facilities, although the draft Bill was circulated in the Departments of Indian Affairs and Coloured Affairs. In all the arguments before the commission, this was only commented on in passing by the witness of City Tramways. Surely the hon. member for Durban Point does not mean to suggest now that he is really opposed to this provision which brings about separation of the races on public buses. I want to read to him from a piece of copy which was published as an advertisement in The Citizen of 28 February. The hon. members probably know it. It is a large advertisement with the heading: “UP we are alive and well and winning …” and so forth. Under “UP Policy,” as far as transport is concerned, it says—

1. (1) Whites, Coloureds and Indians make use of the same buses on some routes in the city. Blacks have their own municipal buses and on some routes have in fact better service. Blacks pay only reduced fares.
2. (2) All buses are full during peak periods, including the Putco service which complements the council’s bus service for Blacks.
3. (3) To open all buses to all races would upset the delicate balance during peak periods and drive motorists back to their cars causing greater congestion on already overloaded roads and the central city area. It is therefore clear that there are real and practical difficulties in opening all buses to all races.

The advertisement continues in this vein and concludes: “Vote UP. There is only one ‘gevaar’ and that is ‘Prog-gevaar’ ” [Interjections.] In his minority report and amendment, the hon. member says that the city councils and the bus operators should decide about the matter and that this is not the function of the National Transport Commission or the road transportation boards. Suppose the PRP were in control of the Johannesburg city council. If I am not mistaken, this would have been the case if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had had everything his way. In such a case, would the hon. member for Durban Point have expected the PRP to implement the declared UP policy as I have just read it? The hon. member cannot have the best of both worlds with fine-sounding formulas. The only time the hon. member failed as a commissioner was in fact when he began to play politics. It would be a good thing for the hon. member for Maitland, who made a very valuable contribution to the commission’s activities, always asking very penetrating questions, and who also subscribed to that minority report, to state his point of view now that he finds himself in a new political dispensation.

The minority report of the hon. member for Orange Grove goes further than this. I want to say at once that where no political considerations were at issue, this hon. member, too, made a very constructive contribution to the activities of the commission. However, as in the case of the hon. member for Durban Point, his problem, too, was that the moment he had to act according to his party’s ideology, he lost his sure footing.

I just want to make a brief quotation to show the essence of the minority report drawn up by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He refers here to the question of a person’s population group being taken into consideration in the definition of class. He says: “I do not believe that any consideration should necessarily be given to the population group of any applicant.” The hon. member is completely opposed to the use of the concept of “race” in this entire Bill, in other words, even if all things were equal in an application, whether it be an application for passenger transportation or for goods transportation, and that service were chiefly intended for Coloured people, this hon. member would not be prepared to allow Coloured people to have the benefit of the service. The Theron report is constantly being held up to us as a blueprint. I now want to quote exactly what was said in the report of the Theron Commission in this particular connection, on page 129-

It goes to say—

This gives rise to the commission’s recommendation No. 53. Unfortunately I do not have the time now to quote it in full. However, the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Orange Grove in his minority report is diametrically opposed to the recommendation of the Theron report. He says that under no circumstances should colour play a part and that economic considerations should be decisive. This in spite of the fact that, on the one hand, it is spelt out in the Theron Report and, on the other hand, that philosophy underlies the Act to which the Theron Commission objects, i.e. that there is excessive protection. However, that is something which is being removed by this very Bill. I refer the hon. member to clause 15(1)(j), regarding matters to be taken into consideration by the commission or by a road transportation board in disposing of such applications. It provides that the commission or a board shall take into consideration—

In other words, the beneficial connotation is removed by the hon. member’s minority report. The moment the hon. member for Orange Grove began to play politics, he lost his footing and failed. I may have spent too much time on these minority reports, but is was perhaps necessary for the sake of perspective.

Another matter mentioned in the report of the Theron Commission which I should not like to omit is the charge that existing transport services in the Cape Peninsula form part of an octopus organization, a hypermonolopy, and that those people are able, by means of manipulation, to create certain shortages which may cause the travelling public to be exploited. In other words, people who have no say are prejudiced in such a way that the law does not afford them any real protection.

The report of the Theron Commission contains a very serious insinuation in this connection. The commission then attempted, not by way of implementing the Theron Commission’s report, but on the basis of other evidence, to cover the situation to some extent. In my opinion, we have in fact covered it by imposing restrictions upon the hyper-monopolies, if these exist, and the commission and the road transportation boards have now been given the right, in terms of clause 3(1)(g), when the holder of a permit applies for an adjustment to his tariffs, to refer the application and its particulars to a firm of auditors and to have them examine its merit. Quite recently there was an application for an increase in the tariffs to which serious objections were raised, and I remember that on that occasion, the National Transport Commission decided to appoint a firm of auditors to ascertain, on the one hand, whether the State subsidy was being restricted to a minimum and, on the other hand, whether tariff increases were not being brought about unnecessarily by means of manipulation. Since the hon. the Minister has indicated that he would be prepared to make public some of these findings, I want to ask today, in all fairness to the travelling public and also to the company which renders the public service, whether the hon. the Minister would not consider making known the findings of the commission. We would not like the private affairs of a company to be publicized, but those findings can be reassuring.

To come back to our own commission, apart from the attempts to establish free traffic, of which the hon. the Minister mentioned several examples, an attempt was also made to make the legislation more streamlined and to minimize administrative red tape. However, I suppose that other hon. members on this side of the House will elaborate on this. We struggled, for example, with the position of decentralized industries, because we wanted to give active encouragement to the Government’s attempts at decentralization. Where we have introduced restrictive measures in this connection into the legislation, I really trust that in considering the applications of decentralized industries, the commission and the road transportation boards will take the spirit of the legislation into consideration without delay and that they will consider applications in this connection in that light.

A matter which caused a whole polemic when the commission was announced was the question of empty-leg traffic. Allegations were made to the effect that 45% of all traffic was inefficient and empty traffic, and that the loss amounted to something like R100 million a year. Inevitably, a large part of the traffic is empty traffic. A good example of this is the ore-trucks of the Railways which go from Sishen to Saldanha, and which have nothing to convey on their way back. The empty-leg traffic is in fact caused by a multiplication of temporary permits which are granted. In other words, a special consignment is conveyed to a remote point, and the carrier is unable to find anything there to convey back. We try in the report to spell out the total lack of co-ordination and we put certain questions in this connection.

The request is that the Government should take the initiative in establishing such a co-ordinated body. However, I want to say at once that the time has come for the road transportation industry in South Africa to put its own house in order, so that they may agree to some measure of co-ordination amongst themselves, because there is a great deal of waste going on in the industry today, especially when one considers the amount of capital invested in the industry and when one takes note of the fuel account of the private transportation industry. If these things are taken into account, it is necessary for them to come to an agreement. Even if organizations were to arise which could bring about this co-ordination with an eye to gain, it remains very important.

Another aspect which we found very troublesome was the fact that there is a critical shortage of statistics relating to transportation. In this way, witnesses kept alleging that approximately 22% of all carriers in the Republic of South Africa go bankrupt every year. However, no statistics are available to prove this.

No one asked for complete freedom of transport, however. At most, they requested more freedom to compete with the Railways, as pointed out by the hon. member for Durban Point. However, the general feeling was that complete freedom would lead to absolute chaos in the industry. In fact, requests were received from all quarters to the effect that more restrictions should be imposed upon those who are involved in the industry. I just want to read one paragraph that was written to me by a representative association after the Bill had been published—

It is obvious that the industry feels a very great need to co-ordinate and to acquire greater status, and one can understand that it is necessary in this case. However, what we shall have to guard against at all times is the forming of monopolies.

As regards the co-ordination of the industry, I think that this can be undertaken by the industry itself, although they are fragmented into very small sections at this stage because every section looks after the interests of its members in a specialized direction. In this way, the tanker industry is only concerned with the interests of the tanker owner. There is no central body which is able to take the lead, because everyone has a different objective and because everyone feels that he ought to be at the head of such a co-ordinated body. For this reason we express the hope that the commission’s recommendation that the State should provide some guidance will eventually be acceptable to the Government as well.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill comes before us after nearly two years of consideration, first by a Select Committee and then by a commission appointed by the State President to consider and report. As someone who served on both the Select Committee and the commission, I should like to say that throughout the proceedings I was very grateful to the chairman, the hon. member for Tygervallei, for allowing full and free discussion on every matter under consideration. He allowed me, as a representative of a minority party, the opportunity to state my case in full whenever it was necessary for me to do so even though on occasions the discussions became somewhat heated to say the least. Having said that, I turn to the Bill, the product of these lengthy discussions. I should like to say that we in these benches consider the Bill that we have before us to be an improvement, certainly, on the existing Act and also on the original Bill that came before this House two years ago. Basically it is concerned with the control and regulation of road transportation, as others have said, and of course with the protection of the S.A. Railways. In addition to this, however, it contains certain extremely undesirable features which I shall deal with later in my speech. I think that I would be correct in saying that this Bill is a compromise, in fact a temporary compromise. I say this because I believe that it will be necessary to review the situation within the next four or five years. Road transportation is moving into a situation of even freer competition with the Railways. This is a step in the right direction, and certainly a step which has our full support. However, this must be a continuing process. We must finally reach a situation where it is not necessary to protect the Railways at all and where they are in a position to face up to free competition, with no protective mechanism being necessary. The Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, No. 32 of 1961, provides that the Railways shall be run on business principles. At present, however, the Railways has to carry certain additional responsibilities and costs which are really social in nature. The Railways has to provide services which are uneconomic in terms of business principles but which have to be kept in operation in the public interest. It is not reimbursed for this as it should be in terms of section 105(3) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. Therefore many aspects of its operations, including higher tariffs, have to be protected at present to ensure that competition does not severely prejudice its financial position. This protection is not healthy. I think that the commission was at one in believing that such competition should be phased out.

This is why I say that this Bill is a temporary compromise which must be reviewed before too many years have passed. There is no doubt at all that gradual deregulation is desirable, but quite understandably the Railways Administration feels that it should be relieved of the financial burden of these social costs so that it can face competition on an equal footing. Certainly this Bill before us has taken several steps towards freer competition. Firstly, the fact that any business may, without authorization, convey its own goods anywhere in the country in a goods vehicle of which the carrying capacity does not exceed 1 000 kg, and within a radius of 80 km in a vehicle with a greater carrying capacity, is a big improvement and will do away with a lot of red tape. That is not all, however. Carriers are also placed in a better position. They will be able to undertake the conveyance of goods without authorization in certain declared areas which will be regarded as exempted areas, including the larger urban areas and areas within radius of 40 km in the rural areas. This will also do away with a considerable amount of red tape, and very sensibly, will take away from the Railways a good percentage of short-distance traffic which is, for the most part, uneconomic. It has been my impression, in the past, that the Railways Administration has tended to retain for itself traffic which was not profitable. This is a very cogent reason why unprofitable business should be given to private enterprise and taken off the hands of the Railways. This is a good reason why short-distance haulage by private enterprise carriers should be unrestricted. Also the Minister, acting on the recommendation of the National Transport Commission, may declare any goods which can already be conveyed freely by road, but are nevertheless subject to control measures under the Act, as exempted goods which can be carried without authorization.

This does away with considerable administrative work which is at present being carried out unnecessarily. We also welcome the concessions which will be given to decentralized industries. All these new provisions dealing with the transportation of goods are to be welcomed. However, it has been my feeling right through that it ought to have been possible to go further and that it certainly will be necessary to go further, before too many years have passed, in order to ensure that South Africa is provided with the most efficient and economic transport service possible.

There is one question—the hon. member for Tygervallei has also referred to it—in regard to goods with which I do not think we deal adequately in the Bill. It has to do with the so-called “empty-leg traffic”. Although some of the evidence submitted on this aspect was exaggerated, there is no doubt at all in my mind that a greater degree of coordination is highly desirable to eliminate as far as possible a wasteful aspect of our present control system. This co-ordination should not only apply to all private enterprise undertakings, but also to the road transportation industry in its relations with the S.A. Railways. Possibly the answer might lie in the establishment of a national body which will represent the interest of private enterprise and the road transportation industry, although I can foresee considerable difficulties in ever getting a body of this nature off the ground. Such a body, though, would be useful also because it would be in a position to cooperate and co-ordinate the services of its members in its negotiations with the S.A. Railways. This I think is very important indeed.

When one moves away from goods and comes to the provisions of the Bill which relate to passenger services, one finds one principle which deserves and has our support. I refer to clause 3(1)(g) which provides for expert cost investigations when tariff increases in bus services are requested. This gives the National Transport Commission the opportunity to assess whether or not such applications for tariff increases are justified. An example of the possible operation of this new provision is the dispute of just over a year ago when Cape Tramways requested an increase of fares in the Cape Town area. Such an investigation in terms of the Bill is not mandatory, but I would urge the hon. the Minister to ensure that the policy adopted by the National Transport Commission should be to institute such an enquiry on each and every occasion where public opinion is not convinced that the tariff increases are either warranted or reasonable.

There is another definition to which I should like to draw attention. I see that the definition of “motor-car” is amended to mean “a motor vehicle designed or adapted for the conveyance of not more than nine persons”. This is an improvement and it means that combis will now fall under the definition of motor-car.

The machinery set down in the Bill for the granting of private permits, temporary permits and public permits has been tidied up. There is no doubt, however, that the machinery which remains is still cumbersome and somewhat unwieldy, but I think that the Bill is a marked improvement compared with the existing Act.

I now come to what I regard as a highly undesirable aspect of the Bill. This was the subject of the minority report which I submitted and to which the hon. member for Tygervallei has referred. I should like to quote—

I think it should be made clear that membership of the commission or boards has no provisions for expertise on racial matters. Members are in no way specially qualified to handle the very delicate matter of race relations in a community. It is the contention of members in these benches, firstly, that it is necessary to start bringing about a greater degree of racial integration on public transport and that the local authorities are the people concerned who are best able to bring this about and, where it is possible to do so, with a minimum of racial friction.

I believe that, for example, if the Cape Town or Johannesburg city councils decided to bring about a further measure of integration on buses the councils themselves would be better qualified than anybody else to carry this out. I do not believe that the commission or boards should have veto power or the power to dictate how it should be done. Of course, the Government is petrified that if it was left to the city council they would go too far, but, with respect, I do not know what “too far” is. At any rate, this is absolute nonsense, because city councils represent the people of the city and they are not likely to force an unwilling electorate to do something they do not wish to do. The hon. member for Durban Point says that because in my minority report I suggested that all reference to population groups should be removed, what I was in fact doing was rejecting the recognition of different groups and the recognition of different communities with their different problems, needs and circumstances. This, of course, is nonsense. What the hon. member was doing, was putting up his own skittles, ascribing them to us, and knocking them down. Of course we recognize that there are different groups and communities in South Africa. However, we do not believe that legislation should be passed that enshrines group differences and by implication would require the perpetuation of such unpleasant statutory provisions as race classification, for example. The hon. member for Durban Point knows perfectly well that our policy is designed to protect different groups and individual interests, and I wish that he would not misstate and misrepresent our attitude. What we do believe is that the recognition of the necessity to give members of a disadvantaged community an opportunity to serve their own community is adequately covered already in the Bill before us in clause 15(1)(m) which states that the commission or a board, in deciding on an application for a permit—

This clause is all that is required to deal with the problem raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. On listening to the viewpoints he expressed, one could not blame the hon. member for Vereeniging when he interjected to the effect that the reactionary and racialistic viewpoints being expressed by the hon. member for Durban Point would not necessarily have to support of the hon. members of his party. I was somewhat surprised to hear that viewpoint.

The point that I have been making, is that it would be sensible for economic reasons, as well as other reasons, to see a greater degree of integration on public transport and that local authorities are best qualified to bring this about. Neither of these beliefs are accepted in the Bill before us. I do not know what the Government is frightened of. I do not know whether they feel that their identity as Whites will be threatened if they sit next to a Black person on a bus. Must we continue to saddle ourselves with the ridiculous expense of duplication which costs South Africa millions of rand each year? It does cost us millions and we cannot afford it. It has been said on several occasions that public transport facilities are potential areas for racial friction. This I believe is nonsense. For years Cape Town had an integrated bus service which operated with a minimum of friction. Now Cape Town city council, for example, has asked to have that situation restored. I do not know what this hon. Minister and the Government are frightened of. Why can they not take a logical and sensible approach and start a process of mixing transport facilities on a greater scale? In Johannesburg, for example, I have time and again seen buses 75% empty, restricted to one race group or another, sailing past potential passengers of another race group who are left standing. This is economic nonsense. Money and precious fuel are being wasted for ideological reasons. It is an unnecessary waste.

On top of this, the Bill gives power to the commission and boards to enforce this, to be the watchdogs of Government policy, something which I do not believe is their real function at all. Looking at these provisions, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has stated quite categorically that he would not be prepared to die for a sign in a lift—for petty apartheid—would support this sort of legislation.

You will not get away with that one.

Does he think that his idendity as an Afrikaner is threatened by mixed buses? I would just like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Information and the Interior, who is making such a noise, whether he thinks that his identity would be threatened.

You ask the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that question!

Well, I am now asking the hon. the Deputy Minister of Information and of the Interior that question. Does he feel that his identity will be threatened by sitting next to a Black man on a bus?

Do not ask me that! I am not falling for that one!

Now the hon. the Deputy Minister says he is not falling into that one. Obviously, he does not have an answer. He just has no answer at all.

Look for another sucker! I am not falling for that one!

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to be practical and sensible and to accept that mixed transport facilities must come in South Africa. In fact, we have already accepted it in principle. Black people, for example, can travel on the Blue Train. I know the rationalization for this is that the Blue Train is an international train. However, there has been an acceptance in principle that transport facilities can be shared. Our refusal to carry this on all down the line—something we should be doing—is the sort of stupidity which is adversely affecting us economically, and which is having a serious effect on each and every one of us.

Assessing this Bill in very general terms, we believe that most of the provisions are an improvement over the existing Act. It is our intention to move some amendments during the Committee Stage, but we find ourselves unable to vote for the Bill because of the provisions which are based on racial ideology. These, unfortunately, are basic principles which we cannot, under any circumstances, support. I therefore would like to move an amendment, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, the first part of the speech by the hon. member for Orange Grove was sound. He began by referring to the issue of empty-leg traffic. I want to tell the hon. member that according to the evidence before us there is also an onus on the operators and the people in the industry themselves. The hon. member will recall the evidence submitted to the commission by the S.A. Furniture Removers Association. According to this evidence this industry co-ordinates itself very well and there is a real need among other operators and industries to apply co-ordination.

In the second part of his speech the hon. member spoke in accordance with his minority report. In point of fact, the hon. member for Tygervallei furnished the hon. member for Orange Grove with a good basis on which to make his speech when he referred him to the recommendations and specific provisions of the Theron Report in this connection. However, it is very interesting that the minority report and the amendment to that effect of the hon. member for Orange Grove were in fact in conflict with the findings of the Theron Commission. It is also of interest that the hon. member said nothing in that connection. Basically, there was no evidence before the commission to justify recommending what the hon. member for Orange Grove is asking this afternoon, or incorporating it in the Bill. Basically, therefore, it is only the hon. member’s standpoint and that of his party which they want to impose on society. The hon. member’s party is not comprised of people who make use of public bus transport. They are wealthy people and will never travel in buses in any event. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove, in a case where there are two applicants and all other factors are equal and one of the applicants wants to serve his people, on what grounds he and his party would not award that applicant such a permit? Nowhere is it stated here that where there are unequal factors in economic and other spheres, and the inability of an applicant to provide a service has been taken into account, priority should still be given in regard to the question of the class of the applicant, but all things being equal, the standpoint is adopted that specific circumstances should be considered. The hon. member and his party now want to keep people of colour out of the industry in a subtle way. That is the impression the hon. member is creating.

I want to say that it was a privilege for me to be able to serve on the commission under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Tygervallei. I should like to associate myself with the words of appreciation addressed to this hon. member. We who served on the commission have only the highest appreciation for the able way in which the hon. member led the commission and also for the immense task he carried out in this regard. We are proud of the chairman of the commission. I should also like to associate myself with what was said in respect of the officials of the department.

What I found striking about evidence submitted to the commission by various bodies and persons in the industry was that it was aimed throughout at enchancing the standard and status of the industry. I believe that this is praiseworthy, particularly if one sees in how serious a spirit these people approached this industry.

I believe that the commission consistently endeavoured to maintain a balance in so far as the interests of the industry, the consumer and the S.A. Railways were concerned. The commission endeavoured—and, I believe, succeeded—in affording people in the industry and those concerned with road transport in general, greater security of justice. In the first place, I should like to say that basically, all principles have been incorporated in the Bill, so that regulations promulgated in terms thereof need only be of an administrative nature. I believe that this will be welcomed in the industry to an increasing extent. I want to substantiate the statement I have made, namely that this Bill promotes security of justice. Clause 8 provides that within 21 days after any act, direction or decision of a road transport board, any interested party can appeal to the National Transport Commission. It goes so far as to provide that a late appeal may be condoned, provided an appellant lodges his appeal within 42 days after a decision. It is important that an applicant for a permit should know where he stands, he has to start the service and often he also has to make major investments in his undertaking. The old review procedure is not incorporated in the Bill.

At present, a ban is also placed on the granting of a new permit if the existing transport facilities are deemed to be adequate, satisfactory and are provided at a reasonable tariff. In terms of clause 15(2) the applicant now knows exactly what facts he has to take into account and submit in order to succeed with his application. In brief, he has to prove that the existing transport facilities are not adequate or satisfactory or are not operated at a reasonable tariff. In this way, too, a greater degree of certainty is established. Clause 16 deals with the term of a public permit which the National Transport Commission or the road transport board may grant or renew for an indefinite or fixed period. This promotes security because the term is particularly important for the holder of the permit, since in point of fact, the permit is the major asset for anyone in this industry. Formerly the term for such a permit was 12 months. As regards the temporary permits, too, it is now provided that they can be granted for a maximum period of 14 days. In the original Bill the term was 60 days. I believe that the special reason for this is that a person should not obtain a right to a permit under temporary permits which he in fact retains for indefinite periods. This provision also affords operators in possession of so-called permanent permits greater certainty that those permits will not expire.

In clause 7 of the report reference is made to certain new principles. I should like to refer to one new principle that is incorporated in clause 26 of the Bill. This clause provides for when the necessity arises to introduce a rail transport service for the conveyance of people and where the public permits are therefore either withdrawn or amended. I should like to deal with this new principle together with other related clauses in order to indicate that the commission did its best to place the whole issue of the introduction of a railway service replacing existing road transport services for passengers, on a sound basis which promotes security of justice. The background to this can be found in paragraph 7.4 of the report. When we analyse clause 26 we find that in the first place it concerns the introduction of a new railway service for passengers, viz. there is already a road transport service for which a public permit has been granted for the conveyance of passengers between specific points. This permit may be withdrawn or amended by the National Transport Commission with the approval of the Minister, but with effect from a date not earlier than six months after the railway service comes into operation. The permit holder has to be notified in writing by registered post. The notification—I think this is important—must include a request that the permit holder submit his claim for compensation to the National Transport Commission, setting out in detail how the amount claimed is made up, and substantiate it by three separate sworn appraisements, not later than 90 days after the date on which the withdrawal or amendment of his permit becomes effective. In terms of this the permit holder is therefore entitled to compensation for the loss he will suffer due to the withdrawal of the permit. This compensation does not include an amount for the loss of putative profits for more than one year after the date on which the permit has been withdrawn or amended.

Another important provision of the Bill is that interest on the compensation is payable with effect from the date of withdrawal or amendment of the permit at a rate applicable at that date on a loan as provided in the Exchequer and Audit Act. When this compensation is not accepted, it is provided that it be determined by arbitration in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Another important insertion is clause 27 which will facilitate the change-over to rail transport. In terms of clause 27 the committee appointed specifically for this purpose may negotiate in advance—before the introduction of a railway service and the withdrawal of the permit—with a view to the orderly running of affairs and the continuation of its services at the time of the change-over of the transfer of its services elsewhere. The provisions I have mentioned here relate to the introduction of a new railway service where there is an existing public permit holder for the conveyance of passengers. With reference to this matter I want to show how the Bill makes provision, on the other hand, for the possible introduction of a railway service where an application is made for a public permit for the conveyance of passengers where there is not as yet any permit holder. Clause 14(4) basically provides that before granting a public permit for the conveyance of people or an amendment of the route in regard to a public permit, the National Transport Commission or the road transport commission must afford the Railway Administration the opportunity to furnish information in regard to any new railway service being planned or envisaged in the area. When the Commission or the road transport board is giving consideration to disposing of an application, clause 15(d) provides that it should also take into consideration—

If the permit is therefore granted to such an applicant, he knows exactly where he stands with regard to the planning and/or the introduction of a railway service or the planned date on which such service is to be introduced.

I refer to these provisions in detail because there were a number of appeals and a great deal of evidence before the commission opposing the provisions of clause 28 (now 26) of the Bill which was the subject of the investigation. Grave concern was expressed as to the implications of the provisions of clause 26 for existing operators in the industry or prospective operators. I refer briefly to the evidence submitted to the commission by the Bus Owners’ Association in connection with this specific provision. They said inter alia—

I shall only quote one of them—

It is interesting to note that in the course of the oral evidence submitted before the commission, the witness who gave evidence on behalf of this association did not or could not give an indication of what he proposed in regard to compensation. He merely adopted the standpoint that that provision should be deleted. Another interesting aspect is that the witness was examined so that the commission could be clear in regard to the possibilities relating to the issue of compensation. Among other things, a question was asked in order to ascertain as to what period a bus would normally be written off for income tax purposes. The reply was five years. Arising out of this it was asked whether this meant that a bus had paid for itself in the five years if it was written off for tax purposes after five years. The reply to the question was: “Yes, but I must add that a bus very seldom runs more than five years. A bus is sometimes finished after four years.” A little later the chairman asked for the following question: “According to your evidence a bus is written off in a period of five years, but surely the operating life of such a bus cannot be limited to five years?” The reply to this was: “No, it lasts longer than that. Some buses run anything up to eight years. In certain areas the roads are flat and the buses last up to 10 years or even more, and I myself had certain buses lasting 13 years.” This is an illustration that the witness and the association were in fact divided among themselves as regards the operating life of the buses. We also had evidence from City Tramways concerning the clause in question. They said that they felt very strongly on the matter, and I quote—

They add the following—

There is not the slightest intention of acting in the way suggested by the witness—to prove this I gave full details of the clauses to hon. members. For example, they say—

I should like to state here this afternoon in the strongest possible terms that this is not so, in view of the provisions I have put to hon. members.

As far as the Urban Passenger Transport Association is concerned, they refer to the introduction of a railway service over a period of possibly seven to eight years. The company states—

It was in view of this that I put the provisions of clause 27 to hon. members, so that the people who gave the evidence could see that the commission sought to make provision for this practical problem. I want to quote briefly from evidence which was submitted to the commission by the Transport Consultative Committee and which, I believe, laid the foundation, in a certain sense, for the decision taken on the terms of the profit/loss calculation. This consultative committee has member organizations such as the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Assocom, the Building Industries Federation, the Chamber of Mines, the Road Transport Federation, the Motor Industries Federation, the S.A. Federated Chambers of Industries, the S.A. Road Federation, the S.A. Furniture Removers Organization and the Steel and Engineers Industry. I should like to refer to one paragraph of their representations. Their proposal was not that clause 28, the present clause 26, should be deleted, but that provision be made, inter alia, for “the loss of profits is limited to only one year”. They wanted this to be amended. I believe that this body, too, submitted very sound evidence. The chairman of the organization was asked—as I have already said, it is a representative organization—what his point of view was about the period of notice of one year provided when the permit was withdrawn. He said—

He was then asked—

To this the chairman of the consultative committee replied—

Later in the evidence the same person also said in respect of the issue of the term of the changeover—

He proposed that a man could have a depreciation fund if he knew that the Railways was going to take over after a specific number of years as I put it to hon. members. When it was put to him that the issue was more one of loss of profit, rather than the other factors, the chairman of the consultative committee conceded this and said—

He then said—

He then concluded by saying that he was of the opinion that it would then be a fair clause.

These people are throughout most concerned about the idea than an operator will forfeit his livelihood if the provisions of clause 26 are applied to him, and in view of what I have put to the House, I want to say that in my opinion some of the statements were a little exaggerated. In my opinion the existing road transport operator will be fully consulted and compensated when a railway service is introduced in terms of clause 26.

In conclusion, I just want to refer to the impression being created that the Railways is sometimes simply desirous of introducing railway services for the conveyance of passengers without taking into account the interests of the people in the industry. However, I do not believe that it is their wish to introduce such services. These are services on which the Railways suffered a loss of close to R206 million last year. I want to refer to the interdepartmental committee which also gave evidence. The Railways, with the General Manager as chairman, the Department of Transport, the Department of Finance, the Department of Community Development, the Treasury, the Department of Planning, the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Bantu Administration are all represented on this committee. The witness specifically stated—

The commission sought to deal incisively with the evidence and I believe that they succeeded in adopting a properly balanced approach to the problem of the operators, the consumer and the Railways as regards this specific aspect.

Mr. Speaker, just before I turn to the Bill itself I should first like to deal with the two amendments at present before the House. Firstly, I refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I want to say at once that his amendment is clear to me. His amendment reflects perfectly the attitude he adopted throughout in the commission. As far as he is concerned I have no difficulty whatsoever in this regard. What this amounts to is that the Bill should afford no recognition or take no notice whatsoever of the existence of various population groups in South Africa. However, we hold the opposite point of view.

We believe that in this vast transport industry we are concerned with, in which tens of thousands of non-Whites are involved, the non-White in South Africa should also acquire some share in this industry. However, if the non-White should always come before the board on an equal footing in all respects, in competition with the Whites who have been making progress for years, it would only be with the greatest difficulty that the non-Whites would ever obtain any transport permit. We therefore believe that one should swing discrimination in favour of the non-White. We believe that he should be singled out and afforded the necessary opportunity to participate, too, in the transport industry of South Africa. I therefore cannot go along with my hon. friend over there.

However, it is interesting to speculate on what the UP is going to do in this connection.

We put it very clearly.

If they support the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove, that means that they are turning their back on the very decisions they helped to take in the commission. However, I leave the matter at that. I now want to turn to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. I fear that that amendment is less clear to me. I really cannot understand what the hon. member had in mind in this regard. The hon. member was in a position to lead me and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti as part of the Opposition team on the commission. He gave us good leadership, outstanding leadership! However, I regret that in my humble opinion the hon. member showed, as the hon. member for Tygervallei indicated, that he was somewhat off-side. He said that he wanted an undertaking from the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport had to undertake to do something specific. I want to remind the hon. member, as a matter of interest, that the hon. the Minister of Community Development made various undertakings to the Opposition last Friday, but at that point no undertaking was acceptable. Now, however, they are all good enough. It seems to me that what the official Opposition says before the weekend and what it says afterwards does not tally.

As usual.

I do not know what the hon. the Minister is going to do, but let us take it for argument’s sake that he is going to say that he does not intend to give the undertaking. Does the hon. gentleman really want to tell me that he will vote against the Bill at this stage in spite of the fact that while serving on the commission for months on end, he assisted in drafting the Bill? Furthermore, the hon. member knows full well that by way of a special provision, it has been provided that what the hon. member wants, may take place. What is the hon. member going to do if the hon. the Minister says that he does not intend to give the undertaking? No, I really do no know how the hon. member’s mind worked. I leave it to him. However, I think I know what he wanted to achieve.

Do you believe in White supremacy?

No, I do not believe in White supremacy and I hope the hon. young man does not believe in it either.

As I said, I think I know what the hon. member for Durban Point wanted to achieve. He had a suspicion that this kind of proposal might come from a different quarter. The hon. gentleman then had the other privilege, viz. to be able to speak first and it appears to me that this may have formed part of a “hidden working arrangement”—an effort, perhaps, to show how verlig the hon. gentleman is. I know the hon. member as an outstanding politician, but I do want to tell him that he need not try to compete. I have an idea that they could have written him off a long time ago. I want to leave it at that; I do not know what the hon. member is going to do.

I now turn to another matter, viz. the minority report which we saw fit to submit. The minority report deals with two points. In it we adopt the approach, in the first place, that as far as a bus driver is concerned, neither the National Transport Commission nor a road transport board should have the say as to who should drive the bus. We are of the opinion that this should be left to a different authority. In the second place, we also felt that as regards the allocation of separate seats in buses or the allocation of separate buses, it should not be the Minister who should do the allocation; this, too, should come from a different quarter. Our standpoint is very clear. We say that a labour matter is the primary concern of the Department of Labour. I want to say here and now that the drivers of nearly all the bus companies belong to very large workers’ unions. There is the closest liaison between those workers’ or trade unions and the Department of Labour. I should be quite satisfied if the question of who was to drive specific buses could be arranged between those trade unions and the Department of Labour.

As far as the issue of separate buses is concerned, I must say that the hon. gentleman for Tygervallei addressed a challenge to me which I want to deal with at once. The hon. member quoted from a very interesting pamphlet known as the Obie pamphlet—not the O.B. pamphlet—which was issued during a recent municipal election. I think that the hon. member made a tactical error by quoting from that pamphlet. That pamphlet was drafted by the municipal authorities of Johannesburg and incidentally, my colleagues and I who sit in these benches feel that the local authorities should decide whether a bus should transport non-Whites or Whites or whether the seats thereon should be divided in such a way that they can convey both groups. Then we need not go to Pretoria for that. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member states that I should support the amendment. Has he not read the amendment? And that from the hon. member for Durban Central, an educated young man. Our standpoint is clear. We are in full agreement with the Obie pamphlet. As regards buses and the conveyance of passengers by buses, it is the local authority who should make those arrangements in the first instance. Now we are asked the question: “How can we allow a local authority to run counter to the ideological point of view of the State? If the PRP had taken over in Johannesburg, I would have challenged them to change the method of transport of passengers in Johannesburg. The passenger transport in Johannesburg, White and non-White, was not established by the State; it was established by a United Party city council. As far as transport in the Cape Peninsula is concerned, here too there are separate buses. These buses do not only serve Cape Town Central; they serve all the other municipalities up to Bellville and Kraaifontein. If all the municipalities agree that we should keep the buses as they are now, then we keep them that way. Now, I say that here, at the level of the expression of a local feeling, of people who are close to the source of the problem, the policy of the Government is in no way affected. Why are these people squealing? What are they complaining about? Why do they force us to submit a minority report? Why do they not agree? I do not understand it. I say that our minority report is right. The hon. member for Tyger-vallei is showing me that he, too, agrees. I am satisfied that our minority report is correct. I do not want to take it any further than that. I do not think we made any mistake there.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister devoted a few paragraphs to the concept “motor-car” and “motor vehicle”. He referred in particular to clause 1(2)(k) which deals with the use of a motor vehicle in the course of any industry or trade without reward. According to the speech of the hon. the Minister he wanted to indicate that the commission had supposedly made a mistake in this connection. For the sake of clarity I just want to point out that the commission was quite correct and that the Bill attached to the commission’s report used the word “motor-car” which is quite correct, and that the mistake appears to have slipped into the Bill at present before the House, a mistake which the Minister now seeks to rectify. I just want to get that point straight. This was not a mistake on the part of the commission or its Bill; it was a mistake which must have slipped in subsequently.

I want to come back to the commission and its work and refer briefly to the Bill. Like my colleagues, I found it a pleasure and an education to serve on the commission. I also want to associate myself with those people who have said that the chairmanship was not only pleasant and outstanding, but also human. In this regard I think the hon. member for Tygervallei deserves all the honour attaching to the position he occupied in this regard. Apart from the Bill, it was a pleasure for me, as one interested in transport, to hear the point of view of people who have made their mark in the transport industry of South Africa. Our people who are interested in transport are so inclined to be obsessed by an extremely important organization, namely the Railways, with all its ramifications. However, it is not the only organization. In fact, this day ushers in an era in which road transport—which the Bill deals with—is to an increasing extent becoming the medium of transport in South Africa, and in which there is in fact a slow decline as regards the Railways which has served South Africa so wonderfully well for so many years.

The other lesson I learnt, looking at the Bill, was the fine work, the fine foundations which our predecessors who dealt with this matter, provided for us to build on. The machinery established at that time, 40 years ago, the commissions which served before us, the basic objectives set by those people, are still followed by us, and I think that it can be said, in all honesty, that those people deserved all the honour for their great task, a task which has crystallized into the legislation we have before us at present. The aims they wanted to achieve were to control and regulate road transport. In the meantime, however, times have changed; it is no longer 1930, 1940 or 1960. Throughout the world there has been a trend towards deregulation of transport. Competition has steadily become freer and the first question the commission had to consider was: Must we continue to control and if so, to what extent? The commission came to the conclusion that we should have to continue to control, although to a steadily decreasing extent. We should also have to continue to bring about freer competition in South Africa. Such a situation cannot, of course, be established immediately. This is something that will take time.

There was general agreement as regards the question of control and regulation. It is true that extreme opinions were expressed. On the one hand there were those who advocated the abolition of control; on the other there were those who advocated total control. The vast majority of the evidence, however, followed the middle path and indicated indisputably that control and regulation was essential. It is essential not only in order to protect the Railways, but also for innumerable other reasons. As I see it, we shall never get away from total regulation and control. Even though at a later stage it may exist for social reasons only, our transport industry in South Africa would have to continue to be controlled. I believe that those who provide transport services would be the first to agree with me on this score.

The Bill before the House therefore constitutes a blueprint for a gradual process of deregulation. As the transport pattern in South Africa changes, the legislation will have to be adapted to provide for the changes. At this stage we have already opened the door a great deal wider, particularly as far as competition is concerned. In certain spheres that door has been thrown wide open. If the hon. the Minister wants to act in a spirit of freer competition, he is already in a position to extend the exempted areas from time to time and even to extend the list of exempted goods from time to time.

Now I come to the board itself. It seems to me that we have here a matter of vital importance. In my humble opinion, clause 15 of the Bill lies at the heart of the entire regulatory machine. Clause 15 stipulates 13 factors—quite an interesting figure—which the commission or the road transport board must always take into account when dealing with an application. A common theme runs through those 13 factors like a golden thread. It is the service to the public interest; that undefinable term: the public interest. It is my point of view—and I believe that it was also the point of view of the commission—that in future the public interest will to an increasing extent insist that a freer situation as regards competition be established.

It seems to me that eventually we shall have to rely on the way in which the transport commission and the transport boards are going to implement clause 15; to what extent they will leave the door open or closed. If they want to act in an enlightened fashion—as an enlightened commission or road transport board—then they will certainly have to keep to the spirit of the commission’s report. If they want to act in a “verkrampte” fashion, they will have to close the door more and more tightly.

As I see it, the entire future demands a freer situation. Not so free, of course, that the carrier is totally free, but free within the bounds of sound control. I have every confidence that the machinery made available to us by the Bill will afford the transport industry in South Africa the freedom.

Furthermore, I believe that the transport industry in South Africa—the road transport industry in particular—has one major shortcoming. This is a lack of internal organization. Some years ago I tried, off my own bat, to combine a group of carriers into one corporate body. I went out of my way to do so. The interests of all these people were identical. I found, however, that it was virtually an impossible task. Now it seems to me that an orderly road transport industry of this nature is only possible if a proper system of co-ordination among the various people can be brought about, a system such as that suggested to us by the hon. member for Tygervallei. I believe that although this is essential for a sound policy, it will not come about unless the Department of Transport comes forward and requests the people, in the interests of the transport industry in South Africa, to come forward to find a sound means of co-ordination with each other so that a healthy road transport industry can be created in South Africa which could also liaise with the Railways to allow sound co-ordination between the Railways on the one hand and the private road transport industry on the other. If this could be brought about, I have no doubt that the wheels of the transport industry in South Africa would spin more smoothly and rapidly in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we have just had the privilege of listening to quite a responsible speech from the hon. member for Maitland. I wondered how he was going to get around the fact that he had signed the minority report. However, he did do so and he did it most effectively. Of course, I do not agree with the hon. member that we are to leave these matters to the various local authorities. He himself mentioned the example of Cape Town with its large number of municipalities. What would become of the implementation of our policy if each of these various municipalities were to introduce a different policy and enforce a variety of regulations on their buses?

The hon. member for Durban Point gave us a big surprise on Friday evening, of course, when he moved his amendment and made his rejection of this Bill evident. He began by saying that he agreed with two aspects. First he dealt with the regulating aspect. He said the Bill was “a tremendous improvement”, but then he approached the Bill from a political angle and said; “I am going to have an extremely different approach”. The hon. member has really altered his approach from what it was in the Select Committee and in the commission. I, for one, have always believed in the system of Select Committees. I have always thought this to be one of the best institutions and one of the best methods Parliament has of studying an Act in detail. I must say the hon. member for Durban Point shocked me in that he could serve as a member of such a body for two years and agree on most of the matters, that he could help improve the Bill and then reject it in the end. This is, in fact, a rejection of the entire system of Select Committees.

It is only so that you may implement your stated policy. [Interjections.]

It is all the more extraordinary since the hon. the Minister has made provision in clause 4 of the Bill for the amendment the hon. member wants.

I should like to say a few words about the Act. I find it interesting because my father was the man who passed the Act in 1930. He had to do it at that time for the protection of the Railways and in view of that the Act has certainly been necessary down the years. That is why my first question when I was appointed to the Select Committee was: Is this protection of the Railways really still necessary? As a result of studies and evidence given by the Railways, I am convinced that the Act is still necessary. The Minister of Transport said in his Second Reading speech that the Bill introduced a large number of new principles. I should just like to bring a few of these to hon. members’ attention.

The Bill certainly makes a contribution to promoting co-ordination. However, there are other things of importance in the Bill as well. Certain concessions could be made, inter alia, to rural retailers, and moreover, the farmers could retain the privileges they had.

The first matter I want to deal with, is whether the Railways do still need protection. It is true that the Railways like to operate on a cost basis. We had the Schumann Commission which recommended that the rates be equalized to a greater extent. We know this is the direction they are working in because the Railways Administration told the Commission that they hoped to change the rate structure in such a way that within 10 years the Railways would need far less protection. It is also interesting that protection has to be afforded to private industry as well. We specifically asked various witnesses whether they still wanted protection. Every time the answer was “yes”, because the Act affords them a measure of protection as well and they did not see their way clear to managing without it.

It is undoubtedly true that there are such things as the empty-leg traffic, which surely consumes millions of gallons of fuel. Now one wonders whether it is not possible to have more effective co-ordination. Various hon. members have already discussed this. The question arises as to who is to undertake the co-ordination. One may expect an important industry such as the transport industry to see to its own co-ordination. I am afraid, however, that if this is left to them, this will not come about easily as so many interests are involved in the matter. Proper planning is needed. I have been wondering whether the time has not arrived for the State to take the initiative and establish a statutory body over the various organizations using road transportation. It is only when there is a statutory body with the power of the law behind it, that one can accomplish something of this kind successfully.

There are many advantages in the Bill. I should like to point out the great advantages it has for the rural retailer. We received no less than 20 memoranda from rural retailers concerning the disadvantages suffered by them because they could not compete with the person falling just inside the 80 km limit. We went into the matter very thoroughly and various concessions were made, concessions which afford them the necessary advantages. The fact that they will now be able to transport their own goods in a light truck of up to 1 000 kg—which is quite a large truck—will, in my opinion, solve their problems, to a large extent. Their problem is that they have to go to the city to do their shopping and drive back with an empty vehicle. If they can load 1 000 kg, this is going to mean a lot to them.

I believe that because this Bill makes transport more liberal and because it makes things easier for border industries as well, it will greatly benefit this country.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the commission, I too should at the outset, like to say a few words to the hon. member for Tygervallei, the chairman of the commission. I should like to record my sincerest appreciation and thanks to him for the way in which he handled all the meetings and for the courteous way in which he handled me in particular. I want to tell him that I appreciate it very much indeed. I also should like to say how much we appreciated the tremendous assistance the various officials gave us during the long period we were in the Select Committee and were performing our duties as members of the commission. As has already been said, I want to say that all our meetings were conducted in a very harmonious manner, in a manner conducive to looking at the problem under review and trying to arrive at a Bill which would eventually become an Act which would be in the interests of the country. It is for that reason that I wondered why the hon. member for Maitland had to adopt the approach which he took—I do not see the hon. member here at the moment—in the rather hard manner in which he attacked the hon. member for Durban Point in respect of his amendment. The hon. member for Maitland, the hon. member for Durban Point and myself were party to the minority report which the hon. member for Maitland referred to so much in endeavouring to support it. I sincerely hope that he has not changed his point of view. In fact, I do not think he has. At the time that we moved the minority report in the commission, our prime concern and motivation was to endeavour to ensure that in no way at all could the Act be criticized as being discriminatory in any way. That is why we moved our minority report, in order to ensure that aspects such as job reservation and others, which had been referred to, were not entrenched in this Act. I should like to remind the hon. member that we were defeated and that the hon. member for Durban Point, after looking again at the Bill after it had been presented, felt that the one way in which we could achieve the objective which we had originally set out to achieve, was to move the amendment which now appears on the Order Paper. All the amendment actually means is that we appeal to the hon. the Minister to use a clause which is already in existence in the Bill in order to ensure that people of all population groups can serve in the boards and in the commission and in such a way act in unison and arrive at decisions which will ensure that the boards or the commission cannot be accused of racial discrimination.

I was pleased that the hon. member for Tygervallei referred to this clause and said that the hon. the Minister would refer to it later and that he might be able to give as that assurance. If the hon. the Minister gives us the assurance that he will appoint to these boards and to the commission people of all population groups in the areas concerned, we will be prepared to withdraw the amendment. I appeal to the hon. the Minister now, in order to perpetuate the mood of co-operation and harmony which existed in the commission, that he considers giving us that assurance.

My experience in the commission was that all members were most concerned—I think that I have already mentioned this—that we should not be accused of being guilty of discrimination in any way at all. I believe we all felt that as responsible legislators, we had to accept that in a plural society, such as South Africa is, we cannot wish away the fact that we have people belonging to different ethnic groups and to different communities. It was the hon. member for Orange Grove himself who said that we had to accept that race relations are delicate matters. Therefore I would like to think that he must agree with us and realize that in dealing with such sensitive matters as the issuing of a transport permit, there is a great need for consultation between the various groups in South Africa so that the people concerned with the administering of the Bill cannot be accused of being guilty of being either biased or of acting in a discriminatory manner. The issuing of a transport permit, after all, can affect a man’s livelihood, and there are also other sensitive areas, such as one might find in the closed confines of crowded passenger transport media. The situation should exist where nobody can point a finger at the department in regard to the way in which they administer the Bill. Therefore, I would have thought that hon. members would have considered the merits of the hon. member for Durban Point’s amendment, because it does recognize and protect the different groups. During his speech the hon. member for Orange Grove in fact said that. I do not have his Hansard, but he did say that the policy of his party was to recognize and to protect the different groups. How does he do that without having some of the provisions which exist in the Bill at the present moment? I should like to suggest that he and his party are even going against the recommendations of the Theron Commission, because there we find the Coloureds themselves asking for the powers to run their own transport operations and services. That is exactly what this Bill does. It does provide for such things to happen. I think that the hon. member is guilty of putting across two points of view. He said, by way of interjection, while the hon. member for Durban Point was speaking on 29 April 1977—

In his minority report he said—

Yet at the same time he said that he wanted to protect them. I want to ask the hon. member, in the practical process of administering an Act and getting on with the issuing of a permit, how he can arrive at a point where he can protect them if he does not have the provisions in this Bill which he now objects to.

I do not intend to go into this Bill in any great depth, but there is one clause I would like to refer to and that is clause 26. This clause concerns the withdrawal or amendment of a public permit on the establishment of a railway service. History has shown in South Africa in recent years that we have had very unfortunate experiences where this has, in fact, happened. I would like to refer to the case of Chats worth. This is a case where a massive new city was virtually being developed from scratch and where it was absolutely necessary that transportation be provided to take people to and from work. Because a rail system was not completed at the time people started moving into Chatsworth, private bus operators came in to fill the gap. In fact, I would say that they were invited in to provide a much needed service. I believe that these people fulfilled an extremely important role, only to be told some years later, once the railway had been completed, that they now had to move out and that they could no longer conduct their business in that area. One can imagine the effect that this must have had on these businessmen and on their lives and those of their families. During the commission’s hearings we had representatives from this area come and speak to us. They explained to us that a lot of them operated just one or two buses. One can imagine just how bitter some of these people may have felt, and it was also inevitable that they should go to court over this issue. Clauses 26 and 27, and especially clause 27, now overcome this problem. Clause 27 provides for a consultative committee which will ensure that in the development of a new city there will be a phasing out of any road transport in favour of rail transport should this be required, and that should any road transporters suffer any losses, there will be adequate compensation to meet their losses. I therefore feel that these two clauses are going to be very warmly received in certain quarters.

I would like to refer for a few moments to the role which the transport industry pays in the South African economy as a whole. I believe that it must be accepted that the role of the transport industry in South Africa is essentially that of a service to commerce and industry. It is also true that when one pays for such a service one does not receive any asset of any tangible worth in return. I am prepared to concede that the service in itself does have some value, but this value must be related to the degree of importance, or to the absolute need of having to move either people or goods from where they are presently located to the point where they are needed or in demand. Therefore, there is value to be derived from transporting people to and from work or in moving goods from an area of little demand to an area of greater demand. I believe, however, that it must be accepted that this value is related to the work being performed by the commuter and to the demand for the goods being transported and not to the cost of the transportation service. This means that this value is not increased by an increase in the cost of the transportation service. In fact, the exact opposite is true. An increase in the cost of transportation devalues the worth of both the worker and the goods being transported to whomever is paying for the service. Therefore, because I believe that these considerations form an extremely important part of the economic facts of South Africa, I do feel that it is essential that transportation costs should be kept at a minimum today, and especially so today, when we have an energy crisis with limited fuel resources and the cost of petroleum sky-rocketing beyond all proportions. There is, of course, also the extremely high capital cost of heavy vehicles, most of which are imported. I therefore feel that we as legislators, and the people responsible for these things, must ensure that we are not having transportation merely for the sake of transportation.

In this regard I feel that we can learn from others who have made mistakes. There is the case of the railroads in the USA and also in Great Britain. Over the past century there were large transportation organizations which built themselves into great empires. In the case of the United States we often heard of railroad barons, etc. Those people, however, had an inflexible approach both towards the management of their transportation organizations and in respect of the attitude of labour towards the work and the jobs concerned. In many instances they refused to adapt to economic changes and to changes in technology—aspects that have changed very rapidly in recent years. One had cases where labour covered its own interests by practising what was called “feather-bedding”. The results of this were tremendous bankruptcies in certain areas or, alternatively, drastic changes which had to be made throughout the railway transportation system, for example the closing down of certain services and the introduction of new techniques.

It is not only in the railroads that we saw this happening. It also happened in respect of the private motor-car. The American motor car, as we all know, is an extremely large machine as compared to some of those we see in South Africa. Some of them have five-litre to six-litre engines with a tremendous number of power-operated attachments such as air-conditioning, etc. All this results in a fuel consumption as low as 12 to 15 miles per US gallon. In the United States President Carter has realized the critical stage which this form of transportation has now reached and he has proposed placing a heavy purchase tax on large motor-cars and, at the same time, subsidizing the purchase of small motor-cars. Here we see an instance of a country, through legislation such as the legislation we are here debating, trying to force a radical change on the motoring style and habits of the people in that country. Having referred to those two cases, the point I want to make is that if this has happened to railroads, and also in respect of private motor-cars, it can also happen in respect of heavy duty transporters. I believe that there is a great risk, in the transport business, of over-capitalizing, of building up very large organizations with very large overheads. In so doing we find that this type of development starts affecting the economy of the whole road transportation system, and it therefore eventually affects the economy of the nation as a whole. In the case of the Railways, I believe it also affects the costs of the social services which the Railways is, in fact, forced to operate at the present time. These dangers are especially real in large transport organizations where, in the case of railroads, they have a heavy investment in such things as the railroad bed, stations, etc., and where, in the road transportation industry, there is a heavy investment in workshops, office blocks, administrative services, staff, etc. These heavy investments can place such an organization at an economic disadvantage because it is too inflexible to meet the changing conditions of the day. It is regrettable to find, usually, that the larger the organization, the more likelihood there is of it becoming a holy cow, a holy cow which results in demand for protection of its vested interests. Mr. Speaker, we debated this subject at length in the commission and I am happy to say that some of the railway officials to whom we spoke stated that they had taken cognizance of these facts. In fact, Sir, you will notice in the commission’s report that there was a recommendation that a further study should be undertaken into this subject in order that South Africa does keep up with the times. However, in speaking to large transport companies, they in fact made an appeal to the commission to protect their vested interests. This they did indirectly by saying that this Bill should limit or control the growth of smaller operators. There were accusations that many of these small transport operators were fly-by-night operators who wanted to get rich quickly and who did not really have the technical or financial muscle to prevent themselves going insolvent. They said that insolvencies among small operators were giving the industry a bad name. While there is no doubt that there is some truth in this, we could—and in fact some of us did—interpret these appeals as a desire for a closed shop and a desire for a monopolitistic situation. On the other hand, it could be that these larger operators were feeling the competition from the smaller operators.

In this particular connection I should like to recall a case of not so long ago. A person whom I know got a quote to move some furniture from Pretoria to Durban. He was given a quote from the biggest and one of the most respected transport firms in the country. That quote was for an amount of just under R250. He eventually got a smaller operator to do the job for just under R100. Although that man himself drove his own truck and took his young son down to the coast for a holiday while doing the job, I want to ask where the value was in the additional R150 which the large operator was asking. Was it in order to pay for more elaborate equipment or for more extravagant vehicles? Was it to pay bigger directors’ fees or beautiful offices? Was it simply to make a bigger profit? Mr. Speaker, we on this side have over and over again said that we stand for the free enterprise system. We believe in the profit motive, but at the same time we do not believe that there should be monopolistic or closed shop conditions in a free enterprise system. For this reason the commission, I think wisely, decided not to accede to these pleas from these operators. While we accepted that there would be chancers and that there would be failures among the smaller operators—even although it is not only the small men who fail financially—we did believe that this Bill should ensure that the basic principles of the free enterprise system should be entrenched. In other words, we felt that there should not be any inhibiting factor upon the free enterprise principle that there should be competition in the road transport industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone who had the privilege of serving on this commission, will agree with me that it was an interesting field of study. Moreover, everyone will agree that we witnessed an interesting approach to the commission’s report and the Bill before us this afternoon. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, said inter alia in his defence of the minority report that “in no way at all” did they want to be accused of making discriminating measures possible. I find a very interesting difference of emphasis between the statements made by the hon. members for Durban Point and Amanzimtoti. The hon. member for Durban Point did not put it as strongly; he did not say “in no way at all.” He said (Hansard, 19 April)—

On the other hand, the hon. member also said that as far as they were concerned, there were certain forms of discrimination that he did not regard as “unfair”. I find it interesting that we on this side of the House, never had discrimination in mind. I think it is unfortunate that hon. members of the Opposition found it necessary to use the expression “discrimination” in discussing this Bill. We on this side of the House believed that there should be well-ordered separation, where necessary, and we believed—as we still do—that there should also be orderliness in decision-making as far as the employment of certain persons was concerned and that there should also be orderliness in the location of persons making use of transport, but I think it is unfortunate that deliberate use was made of the words “discrimination” and “discriminatory measures” in the discussion.

I want to associate myself with those people who expressed their appreciation to our chairman as well as to those people in the department who were of assistance in this task of the commission. We are all grateful to the hon. member for Tygervallei for his guidance. I should like to say that it was not difficult for us to work together under the objective guidance of a man like him. I also think that his example of intensive study, his capacity for work and his persuasive powers were an example to all of us, who are just a little younger than he is. We want to thank the hon. member for Tygervallei very much for that.

I think I am correct in saying that this is the first amending legislation that directly involves the new Secretary for Transport, Mr. Eksteen, in his official capacity. We should like to express the hope that as Secretary for Transport, he will find joy in discharging his responsibilities, also where he is called upon to do so by this Bill.

Various hon. members have referred to the reason why we have not moved towards free competition, but towards freer competition. I think it would perhaps be a good thing to bring together a few ideas as to why we could go no further than what we recommended in the legislation. I think one would agree that the objectives of the ordering of the transport of any country should be to meet the total transport demand and to do so in such a way that the total costs involved in providing the transport services would be kept to a minimum. The costs in question are the total costs of transport and these comprise a few components such as, inter alia, the costs of the transport operator in providing the transport service and the costs of using transport—i.e. the costs the user of transport incurs by making use of transport service. These flow from the quality of the transport service, for example, its speed, its record as regards damages, its reliability and other factors. Thirdly, there are the social costs involved in transport. Examples of these costs are environmental damage, pollution of the environment and the social disruption which goes hand in hand with high-density traffic.

For the total costs of transport to be kept at a minimum, transport has to be undertaken in such a way that the total of these three cost items is minimal. This means the country’s total transport should be divided amongst the various transport media in such a way that the three cost items are a minimum for the country as a whole. Therefore the objective of the ordering of transport in any country should be to divide transport between the various transport media in such a way that the total costs are kept to a minimum.

It is impossible to divide the transport in such a way that the total costs are kept to a minimum by way of a system of total transport regulation in which the user of transport is allowed little freedom of choice between the transport media. In the first place, there is no general pattern as regards the relative costs of transport by various transport media over various distances. Although transport over shorter distances can normally be done at a lower cost by road than by rail, the the opposite holds good for longer distances where it can be done cheaper by rail. Therefore, there are too many departures from this pattern for us to use distances as the only basis to effect a division of transport between various transport media. One must also have regard to the fact that the nature of the product, or of a specific consignment, has an influence on the relative costs of transport by the various transport media. In addition there are also factors such as the existing traffic density of a transport medium over a specific transport section and the nature of the territory and the consequential traffic routes which the transport media have to follow, factors which also have a decisive influence on the relative costs of transport by the various transport media. No system of transport regulation can fully accommodate all these variations in consumer costs. These variations are brought about by factors such as distances, the nature of the products, consignments, transport sections, traffic density, and so on. Therefore, what we have to strive for is not a system of more and greater regulation of transport in South Africa. Rather, we should strive for a situation of freer competition in the long term. In a system of freer competition it is essential that the various tariffs of transport services be in line with the transport costs. This entails that the users of transport can limit the transport costs as well as the costs of using transport by way of rational decisions concerning transport media. It is very difficult, however, to incorporate the social costs involved in the provision of the transport service into a price structure. Therefore, a system of totally free competition cannot guarantee that all cost items mentioned at the outset, can be limited. In order to make provision for this, a certain measure of regulation remains essential.

Totally free competition is, in any event, not to the advantage of a country. In a system of totally free competition there is normally an over-supply of transport in certain areas and over certain sections, whilst in other areas there may be an under-supply. Moreover, cut-throat competition usually occurs in such situations.

Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, inter alia, one could not but arrive at the conclusion that we should move not towards a situation of total free competition but rather one of freer competition in the longer term. However, it is necessary to take cognizance of certain priorities in every country and in every area. In this case it was necessary for us, too, to take a penetrating look at the decentralized areas. From the very outset, industrialists who have established themselves in decentralized areas have been experiencing problems in obtaining exemption to transport their products to the major markets. The problems they have been experiencing in obtaining exemption may be attributed to the provisions of the old Road Transportation Act. This has placed them at a considerable disadvantage in the field of competition against the factories in large exempted areas in the major markets; factories to which exemption has been granted. This relates to the Pretoria-Wit-watersrand-Vereeniging area in particular.

It is interesting to note that the normal exemption granted in such areas, is limited to a radius of 48 km but that exemption has been granted to those people going beyond the aforementioned radius of 48 km. On the other hand, the decentralized industrialist enjoys statutory exemption only within a radius of 48 km from where he is located. As far back as 1971 the Riekert Committee reported as follows. I am referring to paragraph 135—

Experience has also taught us that industrialists who have considered the possibility of decentralization—because of the attractive inducements or because of pressing labour problems—have found the uncertainty about road transportation exemption one of the major stumbling blocks in their attempts at decentralization. In the field of the delivery of supplies, clients placing small orders or non-standard orders or orders for goods that are easily damaged, have always been a headache to the decentralized industrialist. One of the easiest ways to lose a person’s order is to fail to get the goods to the client on time. Therefore, I think it is in the interests of the decentralization campaign that the commission has recommended and that the Bill provides that a decentralized industry as defined in clause 1(1)(ix) may without authorization convey its own goods anywhere in the country in one of its own goods vehicles of which the carrying capacity does not exceed 8 000 kg. There is also a further concession that any business may without authorization convey its own goods anywhere in the country in a goods vehicle of which the carrying capacity does not exceed 1 000 kg. In the same way, clauses 1(2)(b) and 1(2)(y) provide that a business may without authorization convey its own goods in its own vehicles within an exempted area and within a radius of 80 km from its place of business. One of the great advantages for the decentralized industrialist is that goods tendered for conveyance by rail may be conveyed by road by the S.A. Railways at rail rates from the station of dispatch to the station of destination. Clause 1(2)(q) makes provision for this and in this case the rebate on rail rates granted to decentralized industries will also apply. I trust that these industrialists will make use of the amendments to accelerate the decentralization campaign.

I think it was necessary to look at this legislation and I think it is going to be necessary to look at it once again in eight or nine years’ time. I think that if this commission had been appointed in 1985, there would have been wider recommendations. I also believe that the Bill now before us would have been a completely different one. However, I believe that for the present, the commission has succeeded in submitting a realistic and a balanced Bill to this House. The objective of every one of us was to provide everyone active in this sphere with a livelihood; a good one, depending on the initiative. I think we are in agreement that the objective was that if a person was denied his livelihood, he would not be left helpless or beyond help. The hon. member for Klerksdorp explained it in that way. We want to express the hope and confidence that the Bill will contribute to the smooth operation of transport in South Africa. Our wish is that transportation and the transport system should not be a hindrance to the development of South Africa but that the system will do its share to ensure that there will be joy in life for everyone in the country every day. I am pleased to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the commission, and I shall concern myself mainly with the amendments proposed and with the somewhat ambiguous attitude of the hon. member for Maitland. In the first place I want to say to the hon. member that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point is very clear and positive. With his amendment that hon. member wants to achieve one objective, to make one basic correction to the legislation. That basic correction will remove opposition to the legislation and many of the other problems relating to communities. The object of the amendment is to ensure that local road transportation boards are as representative as possible of the communities which they serve. Surely that is a clear, positive point.

What are communities?

The hon. member apparently does not know the difference between various communities. When the business of the House is resumed after dinner, I shall explain to the hon. member that in Durban one has communities which differ greatly from one another. That is a fact and a reality which one cannot wish away.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before dinner I was indicating to the hon. member that the positive amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point was actually aimed at ensuring that the local road transportation boards are as representative as possible. Then the hon. member for Tygervallei—I do not see him in the House at the moment—asked what I meant by “various communities”. I want to tell him that in Durban we have various communities, e.g. an Indian community in Chatsworth, a Zulu community in KwaMashu and White communities in Durban as well as Pinetown. That is what I meant. During his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister told us—and this is important—that the Bill is an attempt to adjust the legislation to changing circumstances and to present needs. We agree with this whole-heartedly. That is why we are moving the amendment.

The true reason behind the whole Bill is to satisfy this desire, isn’t it? However, what is one of the realities which we have to deal with today, and to which not only this Bill, but all legislation must be adopted? It is a fact that decision-taking no longer rests with only one community when it comes to matters which affect the individuals of other communities, especially not when it concerns intimate matters, matters which are handled at the local level. Therefore, joint decision-taking is one of the greatest needs of today. [Interjections.] The Bill is of prime importance to many individuals, regardless of the community to which they belong. It is of importance to those individuals because they make a living from the road transportation industry. It is also of vital importance to communities as such. The local road transportation boards …

Why camouflage it?

No, I shall expose everything for the former chairman of the commission. [Interjections.] After all, the local road transportation boards hold the key to the progress of and participation in the industry. [Interjections.] If that hon. Whip speaks up, I may be able to hear his interjections. Individuals of other communities also want to participate in the industry. Do hon. members consider it right that individuals from other communities, other than Whites, should always be content to let others take the decisions and to be excluded from the process? We certainly cannot continue along these lines in South Africa.

Is there a difference between the concepts of “community” and “class” as defined in the Bill?

I am speaking of specific communities. Sometimes communities can consist of various race groups. These are sometimes different communities amongst the Whites as well. In the White community, too, there are different local councils, etc. I shall explain that with reference to a local example, the Indian community in Durban. I believe that I am not mistaken if I state that with the exception of Putco and the municipal bus service, the Indian community completely dominates the local passenger road transportation service. I am not prepared to accept that there are no individual Indians qualified to be appointed to local transportation boards. That is the problem I have with the hon. member for Orange Grove. I do not know whether I shall be able to explain to them that the hon. member does not agree to an amendment such as the one moved by the hon. member for Durban Point, or that he does not want them to be appointed or co-opted. Do the hon. members on the other side, who are unanimously opposed to the amendment, mean to say that they feel that there are, for example, no Indians who have wide experience of transport and who have—in the words of the Bill—shown ability in industrial and financial matters? The hon. member for Maitland says that the amendment is not clear. In my opinion the amendment is not unclear. It only provides that a local road transportation board should be as representative as possible of the communities falling under its jurisdiction. [Interjections.] Of course it has to be. Unlike the hon. members on my left, we believe that such people do exist. We also feel that in this respect there is a deficiency in the existing legislation, and to pretend otherwise would be totally wrong.

Read the legislation!

The hon. member for Albany says I must read the Bill, but I have read it already. The hon. member for Durban Point has pointed out that one of the main differences between the existing Act and the Bill is a different approach in spirit. The Act was characterized by a total prohibition on participation in the transport system by anyone outside the Railways. The only means of participation by others was by means of an exemption. In terms of the Bill we find that people have rights as individuals. They have the right to transport their own goods under certain circumstances and also the right to a permit, as the hon. member for Durban Point pointed out. This is a necessary change. I think the hon. members who served on the commission and on the Select Committee did a good job of work. Let us, however, also make this necessary change in respect of participation in the vital matter of decision-making, as is the case on a local transportation board where there are various communities represented. It is in this regard that I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Orange Grove, that he is not prepared to put the other communities, which happen to be non-White, in a position where they can also share in the decision-making. It is quite clear to me that hon. members on that side of the House are prepared to consult other communities only perhaps on an ad hoc basis. They are therefore prepared to perpetuate the system of exemption as opposed to the system where communities have definite rights. This is not good enough. I believe that all communities must have a definite right to participate in the process of decision-making, not on the basis of exemption, but permanently. There can be no valid excuse why this cannot be done.

Sometimes one reads of hon. members in the NP who are being described as “verlig”. [Interjections.] But when will those hon. members deliver the goods? When will they stand up and be counted? For how long can the so-called “verligte” Nationalists reconcile their consciences in regard to Bills such as the one in front of us, without at least making use of the opportunity to fight for what many people believe they believe in? Must it be taken that the non-participation of some of those so-called verligte members is really an indication of their dissatisfaction? They cannot continue on this basis. Through their silence, they will lose their credibility.

Are you speaking to the Bill or are you not speaking to the Bill?

Their intellectual integrity will also be affected. I wish to come back to the hon. member for Maitland. He showed the great link that existed between himself and the PRP. He believes that the decision about the separation of these races on buses should be taken by the municipalities, by the local authorities. In that sense, he was a little Sir Echo of the hon. member for Orange Grove, as the hon. member for Orange Grove said exactly that. The hon. member for Orange Grove also says that the local authorities must decide this issue. In that respect he was also the little Sir Echo of what the hon. member for Durban Point said, and I wish to read it out. I quote from the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point as follows—

The hon. member for Maitland said that it was not really clear, but this is very clear. What I find so difficult is that while he is saying that that is his policy, he intends to vote for a Bill which does not make provision for that.

Read the Bill.

The hon. member says: “Read the Bill.” If he would read through the Bill, he would see that nowhere in the Bill is that decision placed in the hands of the local authorities. We have come with this particular amendment of ours, and they must realize that it is not only a matter of separate buses which is involved here. There are also other matters involved. One of these is the livelihood of people, and these are the reasons why we wish to introduce this principle of the representation of all the communities involved.

I wish to return to the minority report and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Orange Grove. In his minority report he describes efforts to enforce separation on buses as unnecessary and uneconomical. In his motion he speaks of the enforcement of racial separation as neither desirable nor economical. In his speech he asked that we move towards greater integration. What I find difficult to understand is that if one is against forced separation, what makes forced integration any better? I believe that if one is against the one type of enforcement, one must say loud and clear that one is also against the other kind. I cannot accept the naïve belief that the opposite of forced separation is enforced integration. What is not clear to me is why the hon. member for Orange Grove is not prepared to support our amendment, and why it was necessary for him to move a purely negative amendment when our amendment is a positive one in as far as it puts forward a positive principle concerning decision-making and the insurance that that decision-making will be in the hands of all the communities affected by a particular board. In reality it means that it will be multiracial boards. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is satisfied and contented with the fact that non-White communities will not have any representation on the transportation board. I have no fight with him when he says that the matter should be left to the local authorities. However, this is unfortunately not in the Bill. What we are seeking from the hon. the Minister is a definite commitment, unlike that stated in his Second Reading speech, and I wrote it down in Afrikaans.

*He said that it made provision for coopted members to take part in the proceedings of that board and to vote. He said the aim was to ensure that interested parties would also be represented. He spoke of “interested parties”, but he did not speak of interested communities. Therefore, when we get to the Committee Stage, where we shall deal with the composition of the local boards, he will have to accept amendments referring to the representation of the different communities. In the Committee Stage he will have to improve on this.

†I want to conclude by saying that the issues involved in this Bill are not just confined to whether or not separate buses should be used. What is involved here is the livelihood of people, belonging to different communities. That is why we are moving this particular amendment so that all the communities can jointly deal with all the problems affecting them at this tier of government. In addition I just want to say to my hon. friends in the Independent United Party that it is quite clear to me that their attitude towards the Bills is simply one of “how can we support the Bill?”. This is the one Bill which I believe they are supporting in opposition to what the hon. member for Maitland has declared to be their very policy. Their policy is that matters of as intimate a nature as this must be decided by local authorities, yet nowhere in this particular Bill do we find that that right will be granted to local authorities.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central reminded me of an auctioneer who had to take charge of the bidding between the official Opposition and the PRP. One need only consider what the hon. member for Durban Point said about the hon. member for Maitland, viz. that he acted almost like a liberal in the commission. That is why I wonder whether those people are not experiencing a state of mind from which they cannot escape.

As the last speaker on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to express my thanks as well to the chairman of the commission. He has the special ability of getting people to work and in particular to think clearly, as he does. If the official Opposition had approached him instead of Mr. Marais in order to solve their problems, I wonder whether those problems would not have been solved long ago and whether they would not all have been Nationalists a long time ago. I should also like to thank the officials who assisted this commission very sincerely. One notes from the report how much evidence there was. They had the task of presenting this evidence to us in a digestible form. They were responsible for all the arrangements and I think that particularly good arrangements were made in order to make the business of the commission possible. We are very indebted to them.

There are a few matters in the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Point on Friday which one cannot allow to pass unnoticed. I do not think there was anything in the evidence which could have led the hon. member to the conclusion that, as he put it: “The boards were a rubber stamp to meet railway objectives”. I do not think that there was any really reliable evidence to that effect. I admit that various people could probably have said that there were such allegations. However, the commission was given definite evidence that the boards acted objectively and impartially. What the hon. member said—an hon. member for whom I have a great deal of respect—was highly irresponsible. It was a reflection on boards which do not deserve it, on people who had to take decisions in terms of the old Act under difficult circumstances. We know that when the boards considered an application, they had to decide whether the existing transport facilities were adequate to undertake transport at a reasonable tariff. There were boards—evidence to this effect was given to the commission—that had to consider up to 500 temporary applications on one day. It became apparent that some carriers were occupied on a full-time basis solely with applications for temporary authorizations. They did not have any permanent certificates and then burdened the boards with applications for temporary authorizations. It was the responsibility of the existing carriers, of which the Railways is of course one of the largest, to give evidence on the question of whether the existing facilities were sufficient for undertaking the transport. It was testified before the commission that, even when they knew about existing large carriers, some of these boards undertook investigations in order to determine whether the existing transport was not sufficient before the applications were granted.

I really think that not even that hon. member can feel happy about these reflections on the boards. It was precisely as a result of this problem that the commission proposed in clause 15(2)(a) that the onus should now be on the applicant to prove that there are not sufficient or satisfactory services available to provide the service which he is applying for. I think that the hon. member is one of the people who proposed it. That is why I cannot quite understand it. There is an unfortunate deficiency in that there are no adequate statistics on our transport services. The hon. member for Tygervallei referred to this, and I think that it must be emphasized that this matter should be looked into once again, because the commission was forced to rely on the statistics obtained by private persons. For instance there was the paper on transport written by Winston J. J. Smith of RAU in 1971-’72. There were also the statistics we received from the Railways. That is what we had to work with.

Primarily as a result of differentiated rates structure, the Railways obtained 50% of its total income from 17% of its total traffic. Until such time as a change can be made to a cost rate structure, the Railways will have to keep their share in this goods transport. It has also been discovered that although the Railways conveyed only 130 million metric tons annually by rail as against the 245 million metric tons which are conveyed by road, the average distance of rail transport was 511 km as against the 37 km of road transport. It is clear from this that the ton-kilometre transport which was undertaken by the Railways, is considerably higher than that which is conveyed by road. What is also very important is that it was discovered that the conveyance of 84% of the goods which were conveyed by road in 1972, were conveyed within a radius of 48 km. In terms of clause 1(2)(x) transportation within a radius of 40 km will not constitute road transportation. That is why I think that the commission came as close as possible to free competition as regards road transportation. According to the Act as it read previously, a tractive unit as well as a trailer had to have permits and therefore a tractive unit was needed for every trailer. This caused unnecessary work for the boards and it caused the carrier in particular unnecessary expenses and bother. The tractive unit is now being excluded from the definition of a motor vehicle which has now eliminated the problem completely. These proposed amendments together with the proposed clause 1(2)(1) and (y) which allow a businessman to convey his goods free of charge or within a radius of 80 km, the work of the boards should be reduced by approximately 60%, which should enable them to exercise sound control over road transportation, which should definitely have a beneficial effect on the entire economy of the country.

It has already been mentioned by the hon. the Minister and other speakers, but I think that the concession which is being proposed for decentralized industries, should be emphasized once again. Clause 1(2)(q) authorizes the Railways to convey goods accepted for conveyance by rail by road without this constituting road transportation. Clause 1(2)(v) authorizes a decentralized industry to convey its own goods on a country-wide basis by means of one vehicle only, the carrying capacity of which does not exceed 8000 kg. In addition, if we take note of clause 1 (2)(g), which makes it possible for a person to convey goods on behalf of another when such conveyance does not constitute road transportation, this concession ought to solve the problem of transport as regards border industrialists to such an extent that this ought to encourage them to decentralize to a greater extent.

I think that there was honest co-operation on the part of all the members of the commission in giving level-headed consideration to the problems which exist in respect of our transport business, and in trying to find solutions for them. It is my honest opinion that we have succeeded, to a very great extent, in doing this. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the confidence which he placed in the work of the commission by accepting it to such an extent. It is unfortunate that there are members who also see a political aspect in the legislation. In this regard I am referring to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point as well as to the minority report. If the Opposition would only understand that moving away from discrimination of grounds of colour does not necessarily mean compulsory integration, we would make a great deal of progress on the political course we have chosen. The individuality of a people or community does exist.

Who spoke about integration? Where did I speak about integration?

I said that if the hon. member would only understand that moving away from discrimination does not necessarily mean integration, he would already understand a great deal. The hon. member admits that the hon. the Prime Minister said—

If there is anything which any hon. member in this House can tell me, it is that he can at least accept that what our hon. the Prime Minister said is his real intention. Even if one differs from him politically, if he makes a statement to one, one can accept that statement. There is nothing in the legislation which does not make provision for that.

Then you must accept the amendment!

But there is nothing in the legislation which does not make provision for that. Here is the statement which is made by the hon. member for Durban Point—

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

But, after all, there is nothing in the Bill which prohibits this. What is more, the hon. member referred to the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister said that this is the policy of the Government. What more does he want? [Interjections.]

Why do they not put it in the Bill? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker …

You may have blind faith in your “Eerste Minister”, but we have not!

Oh, be quiet! You don’t know anything.

Mr. Speaker, as regards road transportation, the Indians have a share of 6%, the Bantu a share of 7%, the Coloured have a share of 3% and the Whites have a share of 84%. Then we also have the phenomenon that 83% of the Indians who have an interest in road transportation, are situated in Natal.

You see, there you have it!

Why does the hon. member want to turn every board in the Republic into a mixed board?

No, that is not the case.

Does the hon. member not want to have the best people on every board? [Interjections.] That is precisely what the hon. the Minister said. He said that, in specific cases where other people are involved, members could even be co-opted on specific occasions. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is why even greater provision is being made for this matter in the Bill than what was proposed by the commission. In cases where a permanent board is not composed of one or more population groups, and another population group should perhaps have an interest in a specific application, there is the authorization to co-opt someone from that specific population group in order to decide on the specific matter. Provision is made for this.

Where?

Where?

Mr. Speaker, no one can understand the reason for this amendment by the hon. Opposition.

Where are you making provision for it?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that provision is being made in this Bill for every possible case which has been mentioned by the Opposition—this also goes for the PRP and the Independent UP. There is only one aspect where provision has been made in a different way. This is in regard to the minority report of the PRP. True to their nature, they do not wish to allow anyone who has the ability to enter any industry or undertaking, to do so. They want to keep it in the hands and within the power of those economists who are controlling it at the moment. Therefore, where provision is made in this Bill for those who have such a small share in our transportation industry—provision that they will be granted first choice in cases where their own group or population is involved—we therefore have the objection of the PRP now; their objection in the form of a minority report.

In view of the present circumstances I do not think that this Bill can be improved on at the moment. I think that a great deal of the red tape of the many boards has now been eliminated. I think that the boards are best equipped to decide who should be allocated a permit and who not. The fact that the official Opposition is now arguing that local authorities are actually those people who should decide, is diametrically opposed to the attitude which they adopted when the provincial council of the Cape adopted a resolution in connection with the Nico Malan theatre. At that time the hon. the Opposition said that the Provincial Council was not authorized to take such a decision, and that the matter was in the hands of the central Government. [Interjections.] I think that this legislation is also a matter where the people who are best equipped to take decisions, are those people who deal with road transportation every day. They are the people who should make decisions on every application. This legislation has my sincere support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Losberg repeated virtually exactly what the commission of inquiry had said in its recommendations, and in doing so he supported what they had said. In passing, he also dealt with the question of decentralization of industry and the rights given them in terms of the draft Bill. However, when it came to the question of the political implications and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point, he did have some difficulties. I am not surprised, because the hon. members on the other side really virtually support the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Durban Point.

You are talking nonsense; it is in the Bill.

The hon. member for Tygervallei must not worry, because although I am only one of the two speakers that have taken part in this debate tonight who were not members of the commission, I want to say that I admire the hon. member for Tygervallei. He is a very nice gentleman; he is very quiet and does not shout and scream like some other hon. members do. We appreciate that sort of approach in the House and we understand why it is that all the other members of the commission praised him as chairman of the commission. We like him. As a matter of fact, we can understand this because he is a “Kapenaar” and, in point of fact, is an ex-member of the Provincial Council. The hon. the Minister is also a “Kapenaar” and is also an ex-member of the Provincial Council. I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him straight out here and now if he is prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point.

No.

The hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept it. Now, this really is an interesting situation because the hon. member for Tygervallei and other members of the commission have all along been saying that what we are asking for in our amendment is already provided for in the Bill. I will give another reason why this is surprising to me. It is not only because hon. members say that it is exactly what we are providing for in the Bill itself, but also because of the statement which the hon. member for Losberg has just read out, namely that the hon. the Prime Minister said that in boards and bodies of this description all racial groups must be given an opportunity of participating. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister has told us. The hon. member for Losberg has just told us that this is the stance of the Government. Is that no so? I am asking the hon. member for Losberg.

So what are you worrying about?

Because the hon. the Minister will not accept the amendment which we have moved. That is the reason I am worrying. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is in disarray over this amendment. They are in complete disarray and I will read it to them again. Unfortunately, I have only got the Afrikaans version here—

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am afraid you cannot. There are millions of questions the hon. member can put to me later, but I am not prepared to answer a question now because it will only put me off. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would like to repeat that he is definitely not going to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point.

It is quite ridiculous to accept it.

Well, Sir, that is now recorded that the Government and the hon. the Minister’s approach is that it is quite ridiculous to accept something which the hon. the Prime Minister has been declaring as being the Government policy for years. [Interjections.] This is where we stand and there is no argument about it.

I just want to put in a nutshell why we in these benches are opposed to the Bill. We are opposed to it because of the fact that it fails to envisage the plurality of our society in a fair and a democratic way. It does recognize what it naively calls “class distinction”. The hon. member for Tygervallei will also listen to this rather carefully. However, what it really means by “class distinction” is racial groups. There is no doubt about it. It is not the normally interpreted distinction of what “class” really means. “Class” really means economic distinction between persons, so why does the Government not say so when it wanted to define what “class” was in terms of the Bill? Why did it only say that “class” is, in fact, members of racial groups? Clause 1(1)(vi) states that—

It puts around this word “class” a grey area, a mist, to try to disguise what it really means. What the Government really means by it, is groups, but why does it not say so? What is it frightened of?

Hon. members will note that we have not only moved this amendment to the Second Reading, but that we have certain other amendments which we have put on the Order Paper. They have been mentioned by other hon. members and are in relation to the question of class, to inspectors, and also to the amendment the hon. member for Durban Point actually moved in Second Reading, which we are now discussing. If the hon. the Minister had agreed that our amendment was a reasonable one—he said it was a rotten one—he would have realized that he would have been forced to accept the amendment we are going to move in the Committee Stage, an amendment whereby we put into effect in fact not only our request, but the factual situation of what we would like to see. This is perhaps the answer to the hon. member for Maitland, namely that in our amendment in the Committee Stage we are going to put into effect exactly what we envisage in our amendment in the Second Reading. If he had read through the amendments printed on the Order Paper this morning, he would have seen this, but obviously he does not read them. I do not know why, as he was a member of the commission. He should read it and take an intelligent interest in what is going on in this Bill. If he had read them, he would have seen that our amendment to the Second Reading is now going to be perpetuated in the Committee Stage of this Bill.

We in these benches believe that in certain areas and in certain circumstances in the Republic of South Africa today it may be necessary to provide separate passenger transport services for different racial groups. We take a practical and a realistic view of the whole situation in South Africa. However, we do not regard ourselves, i.e. this Parliament, as being the final arbiter with regard to the requirements of certain areas in our Republic. For that reason we believe that a local road transportation board must in its deliberations have members of the various groups it serves, particularly in relation to the passenger transport services.

This is where we disagree with the hon. member for Orange Grove. He wants to do away with the reference to class in clause 15(1)(j) of the Bill, whereas we believe that this requirement may be retained, provided that all groups are represented in the local road transportation boards and that there is general agreement between them. This desire of ours stems from our belief, borne out by the Driessen Commission’s report in regard to urban transport, that different urban areas have different requirements for urban passenger transport. There are areas in our large urban complexes, areas which are at the moment exclusively occupied by residents of a particular population group. I believe we will all agree that the requirements in Cape Town, in regard to their urban transport, differ completely from the requirements in regard to urban transport in Johannesburg, Durban or elsewhere. By allowing the class of an applicant to be taken into account it will, if anything, be fair and will possibly be advantageous to others than Whites. That is the reason why we are prepared to keep the requirement in the Bill to the effect that the board must take into account the race of the applicant and of the persons he is going to be serving. That is why we believe that the class of persons can be kept in the Bill, because it is going to give people of different population groups an opportunity of perhaps receiving certificates in order to run services. Who are we to allow a road transportation board, comprising of a chairman, two members appointed by the Government and a number of members co-opted by order of the Minister, to decide on the requirements of these people to be served in that area without being satisfied ourselves that all the population groups are represented? The report of the commission—I am going to call it the Van Breda Commission—is surprisingly silent in regard to this aspect. There is not a word anywhere in the report as to why the commission came to the conclusion that a local road transportation board should be so constituted. They did not at all mention the constitution of the local road transportation board in their report. The report of the Driessen Commission, however, deals specifically with urban transport problems relative to the socioeconomic situation in South Africa. I am going to quote from the report, because it is relevant in this case. In paragraph 3.4 on page 8 of the report of the Driessen Commission, they relate as follows—

It goes on to say—

This dualism in the economy arises out of what they report as follows—

Therefore there is recognition in the report of the Driessen Commission that we have in South Africa a socio-economic structure which has a co-existence between different nationalities. What is so essential and what clearly emerges from the report of the Driessen Commission, is the need for co-operation and the co-ordination of services. Further on, in paragraph 6.2.1, they discuss the question of co-operation and of co-ordination and they state the following—

1. (i) different modes of transport;
2. (ii) different companies or organizations …

This is a recognition of the fact that there will be operating in our urban areas transport systems which are disrelated not only by virtue of the ownership thereof, but also by virtue of the fact that other race groups will be operating such transport services. We believe that only the local people’s views, openly expressed in full discussion with other members of the board, will produce the best economic result and bring about an efficient service. We believe it could very well prevent an economic failure or an inefficient and unsatisfactory service. We have seen this taking place in various areas in South Africa before today where, without reference to the people who are being served, a passenger transport system is operating. With no coordination between the views and desires of the people that are utilizing this service, there has been a disaster. The service has not been able to continue and the service has been of a poor standard because of the fact that the people running it had no communication with those that were actually using the service. We believe that the Government could well bring about a change of policy in this regard and that clause 4(4)(a), which has been quoted to us on numerous occasions today in regard to our amendment, is not adequate. It does not nearly go far enough. All it relates to is that—

I believe that the hon. member for Tygervallei mentioned in his speech earlier on in the debate that he had had special consideration for the Coloured people. I am sorry the hon. member is not here at the moment to give me a reply …

I am here.

The hon. member says that that is correct. But why did he only refer to the Coloured people? This is what I cannot understand. Was that his only concern? What about the Black communities and what about the Indian communities? All that the hon. member for Tygervallei, who was the chairman of this commission, said in relation to clause 4(4)(a) is that that is there because he had a feeling that it would be good for the Coloured community.

I mentioned the Asians as well.

Well, he mentioned the Asians, Sir, but he never mentioned the Blacks. I wonder what he thinks he is doing. Can he with a wand just dismiss the Blacks as not being an integral part of our economy? No, that is not good enough.

I now want to turn to certain other aspects of this particular Bill. I firstly want to have clarification from the hon. the Minister, if he can give it to us, in respect of clause l(2)(aa) which applies to the Transkei, as well as clause 44 which also deals with the Transkei. In clause 1(2)(aa) reference is made to an agreement between the Government and the Transkei and also in clause 44 there is a statement to the effect that—

This is a matter of vital importance at this moment to people who are involved in this whole issue. We have at the moment people living in areas in the Transkei who have to cross the ground of the Republic in order to get into other areas of the Transkei and vice versa. This is where clause 1(2)(aa) comes in, because there reference is made to the fact that they are exempt from obtaining road transportation certificates provided such conveyance is undertaken in accordance with an agreement which has been entered into between the respective governments of the Republic and the Transkei. All I want to know from the hon. the Minister is this: Have there been agreements entered into? Are there going to be agreements entered into, and if so, when are they going to be entered into? I ask this so that these people will have some certainty about the future.

I then want to know from the hon. the Minister what is happening in regard to the operation of the railway services from Kei Bridge to Umtata. Are they proving economic or is there an agreement with the Republic of Transkei to protect the railway?

Order! Is the hon. member speaking on the Bill now?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member cannot discuss branch lines of the South African Railways.

Mr. Speaker, I will then go on to the next point and I will probably try to raise that other point during the Committee Stage. I want to raise the question of the exemptions granted to industrialists in a decentralized industrial area. The commission in its report refers to the problem of the decentralized areas and says in paragraph 6.2—

Clause 1(2)(v) deals with the conveyance of goods by a person who is in a decentralized area. Section 1(2)(v) reads as follows—

I presume that that applies to the transport and also, as the commission says in its recommendations, to the marketing of their products. If that is so, I must confess that I believe that it would be extremely difficult for a number of decentralized industries to market their products with only one 8 000 kg vehicle. This, I presume, is what is meant by the relevant provision. If that is not the case, however, I should like some clarification on that point. I must inform the hon. the Minister that the Chamber of Industries is pleased that this concession has” been made and that it will be possible to operate this vehicle. There is, however, some concern about the fact that the capacity of the vehicle has been restricted to 8 000 kg because certain of the industries operating in decentralized areas have goods that are bulky rather than heavy. Some difficulties are foreseen in that some people with small, intensified heavy goods will be able to move their products by means of this vehicle whilst others will not be able to do so. The Chamber of Industries is also interested in the fact that reference is made in the commission’s report to the empty-leg traffic. This is a difficulty because I believe that the empty-leg traffic does not only apply to those people who are involved commercially with the transportation of goods; it could also involve those persons who are in decentralized industrial areas. If they are allowed to use this vehicle to transport their own products from the point of production to the markets, they have an empty-leg return journey. What we should like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether it is envisaged that they will be able to transport raw materials back on the empty-leg from the area to which they have transported their products. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to keep on asking for silence.

It has always been a very sore point with the decentralized industries that they do not get any railage rebates in respect of the raw products coming down to the point of manufacture. There are also various other issues which I believe the hon. the Minister could inform us on. One example is the power of the National Transport Commission. We believe that the National Transport Commission can serve a far better purpose and function in the operation of transport by being a co-ordinating body rather than a body which dictates. Throughout the whole Bill one finds that the National Transport Commission, quite apart from the hon. the Minister, plays a very real part in the operation of the local road transportation boards. It can call for reports, it can call for all kinds of investigations, it can demand, it can instruct and it can adopt a dictatorial approach to the operation of the road transportation boards. We believe that the road transportation boards should be given more autonomy and that the National Transport Commission should operate more as a coordinating body.

Finally, I just want to state that we believe, as we always have done in the past, that we are becoming more and more bureaucratic in the operation of our normal commercial enterprises. We are becoming more and more bureaucratic by virtue of the fact that we have more and more inspectors appointed by an ever-increasing amount of legislation. We believe, however, that one aspect of the protection of the general public, in respect of the operation of these inspectors, is that we have always, in the past as in this Bill, requested such inspectors automatically, when they are making an inspection, to produce their authority to make that inspection. Many people have been involved in road transportation inquiries in the past. Innocent people, driving along the roads, have been stopped without knowing who they are being stopped by. They are then possibly investigated by people who are not able to produce the authority on which their functions are based. We believe that the hon. the Minister should have a look at this and that he should agree to the amendment we already have on the Order Paper, namely that inspectors should always produce their authority to the relevant persons before they carry out their inspections.

I want to end off by saying that I believe that the hon. the Minister will have something to answer for. I believe he was wrong in saying that he totally rejects the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. In retrospect, I am sure all the members on the other side, including the hon. member for Tygervallei, will agree that our suggestion and our amendment are reasonable ones and that the amendment we are going to move in the Committee Stage is also a very reasonable one.

Mr. Speaker, I always listen with interest when the hon. member for East London City speaks. That also goes for the hon. member for Durban Central. It is nice to hear voices of enlightenment coming from the ranks of the UP. It is a pity that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti should have spoilt this impression with the speech that he delivered. The legislation before the House will be generally welcomed by the people who are involved in the transport industry. It will bring about a degree of clarity, it will provide guidelines, and it will provide information to many thousands of people who operate in the transport industry. From a technical point of view, this Bill will be welcomed as a step which is long overdue. Many interesting points have been raised in the course of the debate, such as the need to move the Railways more and more in the direction of an organization which operates on business lines and to move away from the social service side. Subsidies are essential in a developing country. Subsidies on, for instance, food supplies, are absolutely essential. We have a large population who cannot live healthy lives unless food supplies are subsidized. That is, however, the responsibility of the State towards the individual and not a responsibility primarily of one department of that State. It is essential that that subsidy shall be maintained, not necessarily by a department, but by the State as such. Equally it is important where underprivileged and underdeveloped sections of the public live long distances from their places of employment that the travelling expenses of those people should be subsidized, not necessarily by a single department of State, but by the State itself.

It is equally clear that whereas there was widespread agreement on the technical aspects of the Bill and differences of opinion arose where the racial aspects of the Bill came before the House. Here we had an interesting phenomenon. The NP was in a position to set out a fairly clear attitude. Likewise the IUP was in a position to set out a fairly clear attitude. It was only the UP that had some difficulty in putting forward a consistent point of view. I am not talking about some of the enlightened members who spoke on that side. They came forward with an enlightened and fairly clear point of view. The UP as a whole, however, had difficulties. They floundered a lot in their efforts to come up with a consistent approach and a consistent formulation of their standpoint.

Let us look at some of these aspects. One cannot move away from discrimination partially and one cannot remove discrimination partially. One cannot remove some forms of discrimination based on race and retain others. One cannot move away from a particular form of discrimination only part of the way.

*When one says that one is going to move away from discrimination, one cannot beat about the bush; one has to move away from discrimination consistently. It is the declared policy of the NP to move away from all forms of discrimination. However, when the Government has an opportunity to do so consistently, such as that afforded by this legislation, then it lacks the courage to do so. The same applies to the UP.

Order! The hon. member must now make his arguments applicable to the Bill.

I am speaking about the provision of transport services to the public and I am speaking about the people who provide these services. I am also talking about the circumstances in which those services are rendered. The attitude of the NP and the UP with regard to racial discrimination is very pertinent to this matter. When it is said that we should move away from discrimination, we have to move away from it completely. It may be a slow process, and the NP does say, too, that it is moving away from racial discrimination very slowly.

The legislation deals with four aspects. In the first place there are the entrepreneurs who provide the transport services to the public, in other words, the owners of the transport services. The attitude of the PRP in this respect is that all opportunities should be available to all citizens of South Africa. The hon. member for Tygervallei made an effort to use the Theron report to say that as far as the Coloureds are concerned, they are in favour of the standpoint of the Government. But the hon. member is wrong. The Theron Report is certainly opposed to having only Whites undertaking transport services for Coloureds. Of course they are opposed to that.

The Theron Report does not, however, say that there should not be an open community in South Africa where the services can be rendered by any person, regardless of race or colour, to the South African public. One cannot hide behind the Theron Report to try and propound that standpoint in this House. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti tried to repeat the same argument, but to no avail. Where entrepreneurs have to render a service to the community, it is important that we should accept that that service must be rendered by any group, by any member of the community, regardless of race or colour, to the community as a whole. It is perhaps a valid point to say that where one has a group of Coloureds, for instance, only Coloureds should provide those services, so as to give the Coloureds the opportunity to develop their abilities in this way. But I see in this an effort by the White man to retain all the opportunities in the profitable so-called White group areas, by saying, for instance, that we are not going to allow Whites to provide services in a Coloured group area. At the same time it gives the Government and the White entrepreneur the exclusive opportunity to provide services in the so-called White group areas, which are the profitable areas, where big profits can be made and where the most extensive services are needed. I do not see in this wonderful concession to the Coloured; all I see in it is an effort to retain privileges for the Whites in the so-called White group areas.

†I am referring to the second point—public passenger services—for instance in a city like Johannesburg—and I am sure it is also the case in most other cities—one will find that in the morning peak period … The argument that was raised by—I think it was—the previous chairman of the commission as to why one could not have mixed passenger services—however, it is something which is today being asked for by many authorities throughout South Africa—was, according to that hon. member, that one would have friction during peak periods. With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is utter nonsense. If one looks at most of the routes over which public passengers are carried—we take Johannesburg again as an example—during the morning peak period one will find that Black buses from town to the suburbs are full and that they return to town empty. Similarly, buses carrying White passengers are full from the suburbs to town, and run back to the suburbs empty. What one has here, is a situation in which, if one had had an integrated bus service, those buses would have run full in both directions. [Interjections.] It is a fact. It is the substance of studies which have been undertaken … [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Durban Point would only stop laughing and consult the chairman of the management committee in Johannesburg and ask him to send down a report, he will see that those studies have been undertaken. According to those studies one could have an integrated bus which could be mainly full of Blacks coming from the city to the suburbs in the morning, and returning from the suburbs to the city mainly full of Whites.

One would then avoid the situation in which one would have buses running practically empty for half their travelling time. This applies to most areas in the country. This is an economic consideration. If we provided integrated services, we would have a situation where buses would be carrying far larger numbers of passengers—would be travelling closer to full capacity more often than is the case at the moment. In doing that, one will obviously save a great deal of money, while also reducing overall costs and fares. This is just one of the many advantages. However, the argument against it, is that one would have friction. I would like to ask any hon. member in this House … We have had integrated bus services in this country. We have had them in Cape Town. We have had them in Durban. I can remember integrated services in many parts of the country 35 years ago. I would like hon. members to tell me if they are aware of a single serious incident of friction between people of different colours?

I have often travelled on integrated buses, where they have been available, and I have never once been an observer of an incident of a serious nature occurring between people of different races. What one does get is race prejudice, people who do not want to travel on the same buses with people of colour.

The hon. the Minister would be surprised to find the extent to which the public would be prepared to accept integrated bus services. It is sure to lead to improved bus services, to more economic bus services, and to more reliable bus services for commuters.

The third aspect I want to refer to, is that of people who are employed by bus service organizations. Hon. members may remember that some years ago—about 10 years ago—Johannesburg had a very bad bus service, something which was mainly due to the fact that the city council could at that stage not employ sufficient numbers of staff to operate the buses. Hon. members may also remember that there was an attempt to employ non-Whites as bus drivers and as bus conductors. Hon. members may also remember that that attempt was at that stage stopped by the Government, on behalf of the trade union concerned. That meant that, by preventing the employment of non-White personnel, the inconvenience of a bad bus service was simply perpetuated. In turn that led to a further deterioration of the bus service. It was not based on any economic consideration. It was purely and simply based on race prejudice and racial discrimination, and the country and the public had to suffer as a result of that. The Government must accept that in the provision of all transport services, in so far as the employees on those services are concerned, that should be open to all race groups in the country. If the Government really gives attention to these considerations, they will realize that in accepting these proposals they will be assisting in providing a better transport service at the various levels.

However, what is far more important is that by opening up the entrepreneural opportunities to Blacks, Coloureds and Indians—not only in their own group areas where there are limited profit opportunities, but also in the so-called White group areas where the largest profit opportunities exist—they will make a tremendous contribution to the extension of free enterprise, opportunities and business activities to other race groups in South Africa.

*One may well ask if the hon. the Minister still remembers that the Afrikaner was in the same position 30 to 40 years ago. At the time it was essential for him to find a footing in the business world of South Africa. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can remember how many people who did succeed in doing that, started by providing transport services. How many undertakings which do earthmoving work, did not start as transport organizations? A man with perhaps a single lorry …

What do you know about the Afrikaner?

That was the case in my family. How many cases were there of people who today have large building concerns and who started with one lorry? How many people running large demolition concerns today began with only one lorry? The transport industry affords people opportunity to make a breakthrough to the business world, and by extending it to the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians one also gives them the opportunity to use it to break through to the profitable White areas.

I also request the Government to keep their promise that they will move away from discrimination and to do so to such an extent that it can be seen and experienced by all the people of South Africa. They now have to undertake, for once and for all, that job opportunities in the transport industry will be open to all races and that, with regard to the provision of transport services, they will move away from discrimination as soon as possible, so that integrated services can be provided to the public of South Africa, regardless of their race or colour.

Mr. Speaker, a very interesting debate has been conducted here, particularly by those hon. members who were members of the Select Committee and subsequently of the commission. It is clear that they have a profound knowledge of the Bill before this House. Later in the debate a few hon. members who had not been members of the commission also participated. The hon. member for East London City, after all the experts, some of whom are also sitting on his side of the House, had participated in the debate, put a whole lot of questions to me. I am honest enough to admit that the hon. member for Durban Point would be better able to reply to the hon. members’ questions than I. The hon. member for Durban Point is one of the members who knows what every word in the legislation means—at least so I assume. [Interjections.] Firstly he asked me whether I supported the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. I said that it was too ridiculous for words that such a question should be put to me. My motion before this House is that this Bill be read a Second Time. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point is to omit all the words after “That”, and furthermore that this House, whilst welcoming the improvements in the system of regulation of road transportation, nevertheless declines to pass the Second Reading of the Bill.

Unless!

Yes, unless. Now the hon. member wants me to choose. Surely it is too ridiculous for words. The hon. member’s amendment is precisely the opposite of my motion.

Do you give the undertaking?

He supports everything in the Bill. He says that it is a splendid Bill, but in order to jump the gun on the Progs, he asks us first to make all kinds of promises. If that is what they are asking me to do, if they want me to make the promises I suspect they want me to make, I want to tell them that I cannot do so, and I shall tell the hon. members why I cannot make such promises. Let us set aside this issue of class matters or race matters—or communities, as the hon. member for Durban Central is fond of referring to—for a while, so that I can reply first to other less important aspects. I proceed on the assumption that, except in respect of the “classes” to which a few clauses in the Bill refer, there was unanimity on this commission and on the Select Committee on the Bill. In other words, this is an agreed measure. We have had meaningful speeches all afternoon on the Bill which has been submitted to this House. It can most certainly not be expected of me now to concern myself with an argument on the various clauses of this Bill. Therefore, I want to tell the hon. member for East London City, who asked these questions, asked for assurances and wanted to know what this, that and the other meant, that I am satisfied with this Bill. I am satisfied with the Bill as it came from the commission, except for a few departures, more specifically in clause 4(4). Apart from the few amendments which I have effected, the Bill is precisely as the commission submitted it. I am satisfied with it and I have no fault to find with it. As regards the points in issue, i.e. the references to various classes, I want to say that I am satisfied with the Bill in that respect as well. I am in agreement with it. The hon. member for East London City astonishes me. In regard to decentralized industries that are being allowed to convey their own goods, he asked inter alia, whether, if the industrialist is able to convey his own produce, he is also able to convey his raw materials. I want to ask him to read the paragraph to which he himself referred. I quote—

In other words, its own goods, goods which it produces. Surely it cannot mean anything else. This is confirmed if one reads the Afrikaans version. I quote—

As long as it is its own goods, it may convey them, not only away from it, but to it as well.

The hon. member put a question to me on an agreement with Transkei. Of course we concluded agreements with Transkei at the time. Surely this is common cause; we are all aware of this. All that we are making provision for in this regard is when goods from an area in Transkei is conveyed across an area of the Republic of South Africa to another part of Transkei. This can take place without an exemption, provided no goods are loaded or off-loaded in the area of the Republic of South Africa. That is what provision is being made for here.

I really do not think it would serve any purpose if I went further into all the particular aspects. Generally speaking, I am satisfied with the Bill as it has been submitted by the commission, with the minor changes which I effected. I now want to discuss a few of the lesser matters which were raised.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked me to ensure that clause 3(1)(g) is applied when there is any doubt in the mind of the public. That is why it is being provided that a financial investigation may be instituted into the affairs of a company. This is an aspect which is left to the discretion of the National Transport Commission, and I think it should remain that way. I take it that where it is fit and proper that it be done, the National Transport Commission, which is now acquiring powers which it did not have before, will cause the necessary investigation to be instituted. I definitely cannot give the hon. member the undertaking that an investigation will be instituted in all the cases in regard to which he wants it, or in regard to which, in his opinion, there is doubt in the minds of the public. The hon. member referred to the co-ordination of the private carriers, but surely this is a matter which they have to decide on themselves. If they are able to co-ordinate and get together, it is up to them to make the necessary representations. The initiative remains in their hands.

I should like to discuss one aspect which the hon. member for Maitland raised—and with which other hon. members agreed—with him for a moment. I am referring to the question of the discretion which is left in the hands of local boards …

They agreed with me on that score.

The hon. member for Durban Point is saying that the hon. member for Maitland agreed with him on that score.

I said it first.

I do not think that is the correct approach. A road transportation board is a tribunal, a body which meets to hear evidence, try cases and has to decide on cases on the evidence and on merit. The National Transport Commission, too, is an autonomous body, a tribunal, with the decisions of which no outsider may interfere and which has to consider matters on the evidence and on merit. This kind of matter must therefore be considered by the board. If the hon. member considers what happens in practice here in Cape Town and environs, how and under what circumstances should the local authorities get together and adopt a resolution in respect of who should travel on which buses and in what proportion? The practical circumstances simply do not exist, and the facilities to create the practical circumstance do not exist either. What does in fact happen—and I think this makes more sense—the hon. member for Losberg referred to it—is that the onus should rest with the applicant to prove in the first place that there is a need for the service which he wants to introduce and, in the second place, to prove what kind of need exists for the service that he wishes to introduce. If he is able to convince the local road transportation board that there is indeed a need for such a service, that it meets the needs of Coloureds or Whites, or whatever kind of need, the necessary permission will be granted according to the circumstances. That is why I say that he, the applicant, must do the necessary persuading. He has the evidence and the facilities and he has to submit the necessary evidence. Where is he able to submit it? To the road transportation board or to the National Transport Commission. Therefore, I think, Sir, that we should reconcile ourselves to this.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti and other hon. members referred to the interests of the Indians and the Coloureds. They referred to the extent to which the interests of the Indians are being affected by the provision I am now introducing in clause 4(4) relating to co-opting. In that respect I want to say that I referred in my speech to various parties. Because “party” is a wider concept than “a community” or “a class” as referred to in the Bill. I referred to a party—because what I envisaged was that it should not be intended solely for the Coloured population, nor solely for the Indian population, but that it may also be used by other parties, where a need for such a body exists—for example a particular industry—where there is a need for such a party to be granted representation on the board. That is why I used the wider concept of “party”. But it is also intended to a large extent, where the Coloureds as a community are affected by such application, to ensure that the facilities are there to co-opt a Coloured person to serve on a road transportation council for the purposes of that application or applications. That applies in the same sense to the Indians. But then it was asked: What about the Bantu? My reply is “no”. No provision is being made, or envisaged, for the Bantu to be co-opted in this way on the local boards. The hon. members may say if they like that they do not agree with my policy. But the policy of this side of the House is that the Bantu have their own separate geographic areas and that they should manage their own transportation within the framework of those areas and realize themselves there as far as their transport industry is concerned. It is also the policy in respect of independent territories, such as Transkei, as well as Bophuthatswana, for example—which is on the eve of independence—that the Bantu should manage their own transport in their own areas and that we should afford them the necessary protection to do so. For these obvious reasons it is not our intention to co-opt them onto these boards.

What are you going to do about the urban Bantu?

The urban Bantu have taxi services, but to such a limited extent that it is not comparable with the services of the Bantu in their own territories, as we envisage it in Transkei and Bophuthatswana. Be that as it may, Sir, I want to make it clear that this co-opting for which provision is being made in clause 4(4) is intended for the Coloureds and Indians, and not for the Bantu. I should like hon. members to understand this clearly.

The hon. member for Durban Point submitted a minority report. I read it with interest. It consisted of six lines only. He said that they did not agree with the provisions authorizing the National Transportation Council or local transportation boards to determine the class of employees who may be employed on passenger services and the allocation of specific seating to classes of persons on bus services serving more than one class. In other words, in his minority report the hon. member objects to only two aspects. The one deals with the employees, something which is determined by negotiation between the Department of Labour and the trade unions—and not so much by the Department of Transport. Secondly, he is not in favour of specific seats in the same bus. However, he has no objection to separate buses, at least, so I assume.

Seating in general where there are mixed services.

The minority reports reads: “ … and the allocation of specific seating to classes of persons on bus services serving more than one class”. Surely specific seating can only refer to one and the same bus.

In a mixed bus.

Yes, a mixed bus. If not, one is dealing with separate buses. His objection in the minority report therefore amounts … [Interjections.] If this is not the case, the hon. member has only to say so. The problem with that side of the House is that they think that they can adopt any theoretical decision here and that the general public, the consumers, simply have to subject themselves to it. This applies in particular to the PRP, which is in fact living in a fool’s paradise as far as this matter is concerned. There is something I should like to make crystal clear here.

Even Eve is also in paradise.

I am in this House—and I am not referring to hon. members on that side—in this position for the sake of the general public. They are not there for my sake.

For the sake of a small minority. [Interjections.]

I am here in this House for the sake of the general public. [Interjections.]

Order!

Whatever I do, I have to take the wishes and desires of the general public into consideration. Of course it is easy for many of them to talk because they can buy what they want, they can live where they want to live, they can open up offices where they wanted to open up offices and they can drive in their cars to the places where they want to be. But that part of the population is just a thin upper crust, and sometimes quite a burnt crust to boot. The bulk of our population is on a level lower down. I would not say that they are poor people, I would rather say that they are the non-rich, the less well-to-do. They comprise 80% or more of our population. It is in that sector of our population that one finds people who are compelled to work in Woodstock or in Salt River because that is where they can find work. They do not have cars with which they can drive home, but are compelled to catch a bus from their places of work to their homes. They are the people from whom I receive letters about the unsavoury conditions on the buses, something which they have to tolerate. [Interjections.]

Order!

According to the member we should not take those conditions into consideration. I should like to point something out to the hon. member for Durban Point. In 1975 there was an application from the Durban Transport Management Board before the road transportation board for the conveyance of Bantu, Asians and Coloured passengers together with White passengers in existing White buses subject to separate seating being allocated to the various population groups. Although there were separate buses, a request was then made for people to be allowed to travel in the same buses, but on separate, allocated seats.

On certain routes.

It was refused by the local board and was taken on appeal to the National Transport Commission. The objections of 893 bodies and individuals were submitted to the National Transport Commission.

Do you know about that, Vause?

It was in Durban, not in my constituency. That is the stamping ground of the hon. member for Durban Point.

Could you please tell me who the bodies and individuals were?

No, I cannot do that now. There were various individuals and bodies involved in this. The hon. member cannot infer that one organization was behind it. After all, Durban is UP-controlled. It is not NP-controlled. So how could we organize anything of that nature there? It was among his own people that the resistance was met with when an application was made to the National Transport Commission to the effect that there should no longer be separate buses, but separate seats in one and the same bus.

Was it in respect of particular routes or all routes?

I do not think it was in respect of all routes. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Cape Town municipality wrote to me and said that they had decided on economic grounds that the arrangements which existed in Cape Town for separate buses in certain respects and separate seating in other respects should be done away with. My standpoint in that regard is that the carrier may go to a road transportation board on an ad hoc basis in respect of certain routes. If the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Sea Point have no objection—and I take it they will not have any objection for it is they, after all, who advocate that everything should be done away with—let them apply to the road transportation board in so far as the bus service to Sea Point is concerned. The merits of the case can be submitted to the road transportation board, and afterwards to the National Transport Commission, if necessary. I must admit that as a result of altered circumstances it could be that whereas separate services were previously necessary they may perhaps no longer be so necessary today as a result of the establishment of group areas and other factors which have, in the meantime, played a part. I accept that, and one can expect to find it from place to place. However, let us do this on an ad hoc basis and not suddenly overwhelm the large numbers of lower wage earners, pensioners and the people who make use of the bus services, by effecting a change in which they have no say, i.e. by saying that it will be done whether they object or not.

The facilities are there and the various bodies can make application on an ad hoc basis in respect of each service as they prefer. I think I have said enough about this matter. I agree with the provisions in the Bill submitted by the commission, and I think they should remain there. As regards the provision which I inserted in clause 4(4), I have already given an undertaking. I said that we were to take steps according to the circumstances, whenever and wherever the interests of the Coloureds or the Indians play a role. If this is in respect of which the hon. member for Durban Point wants me to give an undertaking, then I shall give it. If that satisfies him, he ought to withdraw his amendment.

Would you accept the amendment of the clause concerned, the amendment on the Order Paper?

No, I am not prepared to accept the amendment. Clause 4(4) provides for the co-opting of these people in cases where it is justified, and I give the undertaking that the necessary co-opting will take place wherever and whenever circumstances allow.

The hon. member for Tygervallei put a question to me with reference to the investigation instituted at City Tramways. Hon. members will recall that the hon. member for Green Point asked me a question earlier this year in regard to the matter. I then told him that I did not intend tabling the report submitted to me by the firm of auditors, Theron and Van der Poel, because the report contained too many matters of a domestic nature, matters affecting the intimate business of the company. It would not serve any good purpose and it would not be correct to rake open the matter in public. I did, however, say that I would present the findings of the firm of auditors to the hon. member on a confidential basis if he would like to read it in our offices. With reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Tygervallei, I want to say that this report and its findings were in general very favourable. The specific conclusion to which the auditor arrived, was the following—

On previous occasions, when consideration was being given to increasing the tariffs, a furore was created here in the Cape. Recently there were more applications in tariffs, but nothing came of it. Why, I do not know. Last year the PRP and the UP vied with one another in stirring up feelings. In any case, this report has now demonstrated very clearly, to me at least and I hope to this entire House as well, that applications are not treated lightly by the road transportation boards and the National Transport Commission. In fact, these matters are gone into in depth, and I hope that the right decisions will be reached from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, this brings to an end my comments …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether or not he will accept the amendment on clause 4, on page 275 of the Order Paper, viz. “with due regard to the communities within its jurisdiction”?

The answer is “no”. It limits the concept of co-opting for which I am making provision, and therefore I cannot accept it.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—91: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—25: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Hughes, T. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that on 10 June last year, in introducing the Second Reading debate on the Urban Transport Bill, I dealt with the objects of the Bill in detail. As you know the debate was adjourned after my Second Reading speech, and the Bill was not proceeded with.

During the Parliamentary recess, however, various bodies availed themselves of the opportunity to address further representations to my department, and in view of the amendments which have resulted from the latter representations, and the implications which the envisaged measure has for all sectors of the urban community in the Republic, I deem it necessary to furnish an elucidation of the Bill again.

As hon. members are of course aware, the Bill has its origin in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Urban Transport Facilities in the Republic—the so-called Driessen Report—and the accompanying White Paper, which were both tabled here and in the Other Place during the 1975 session.

In pursuance of its terms of reference, i.e. to submit a report and make recommendations on problems affecting the planning and the provision of adequate urban transport facilities in the Republic, as well as the manner in which the resultant expenditure should be financed, having regard to the existing and the expected economic and financial conditions in the Republic, the commission uncovered such alarming facts concerning the urban transport situation in this country that the Government decided that active steps on a national basis would have to be taken to find solutions to our urban transport problems.

With this in view it was decided that the functional sphere of operations of the National Transport Commission should be extended to comprise the formulation of urban transport policies and the general supervision of and the co-ordination of all matters affecting urban transport in the Republic.

Hon. members will probably agree with me that, having regard to the object of the commission, as contained in the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, 1948 (Act No. 44 of 1948), viz. “to promote and encourage the, development of transport in the Republic and, where necessary, to co-ordinate various phases of transport in order to achieve the maximum benefit and economy of transport services to the public” it is logical that the new functions are being entrusted to the National Transport Commission.

The Transport (Co-ordination) Amendment Bill, 1977, consequently makes provision for the membership of the commission to be increased, with a view of dealing with the additional functions.

Before I proceed to a more detailed discussion of the Urban Transport Bill, I should like to mention once again the unqualified support and co-operation which my department received in the formulation of this Bill from all the interested parties, in both the public and private sectors of the community. In fact, it may justifiably be said that the Bill in its present form is the result of team work over a very extensive field, and although I do not in any way want to suggest that a settlement has been reached in all respects as far as the finer details of the Bill are concerned, I nevertheless wish to state that the general provisions have been accepted by the bodies in question and that they will welcome the early putting into operation of the measure.

As far as the Bill as such is concerned, the outstanding feature is undoubtedly the establishment of a co-ordinating authority and the linking together of the various tiers of government, each in its own sphere, into a powerful organization to tackle and overcome the urban transport problem systematically and in an organized manner in the national interests.

There is no doubt that the large urban complexes in our country are precious national assets and that, because of this, it is essential that the local government bodies, which form part of such metropolitan areas, should be actively supported by the central and provincial authorities in the solution of their transport problems, problems which owing to the rapid increase of the urban population are beginning to assume ever greater proportions.

In the framework of the Bill powers are consequently being conferred upon and functions prescribed for bodies such as the National Transport Commission, the Provincial Administrations, the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards, the Core Cities of declared metropolitan transport areas and the relevant local authorities. It goes without saying that I will not be able, within the scope of this speech, to go into all such powers and functions, but I nevertheless wish to single out the most important of these to indicate the connection between the constituent components.

Clauses 5 and 6 make provision for the functions and powers of the commission, while clause 8 makes provision for the establishment and administration of an Urban Transport Fund by the aforesaid body. The most important functions of the commission, functions which may be performed only after consultation with the Administrator in question, and with the approval of the Minister of Transport, are the formulation, the application and the control of an urban transport policy in any metropolitan transport area and the determination of the functions of any body entrusted with the implementation of such a policy. In addition the commission shall also, of its own accord, or in collaboration with or through the agency of the National Institute for Transport and Road Research of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, inter alia, do research or cause research to be done in regard to urban transport matters, as well as to co-ordinate and consult with interested parties and local authorities in order to ensure that adequate provision is made for any foreseeable increase or change in the required urban transport facilities of any group.

As far as the powers of the commission are concerned, the emphasis undoubtedly falls on the consideration and approval—with or without alterations—of transport plans in connection with a metropolitan transport area submitted to it by the Administrator in question. In the event of the commission and Administrator not being able to reach an agreement on such a transport plan, the final decision rests with the responsible Minister.

Since the commission will only be able to perform its functions, in terms of the provisions of the Bill, if it has the necessary funds to do so, provision is being made in clause 7—as has already been mentioned—for the establishment of an Urban Transport Fund, which will be reinforced primarily by means of parliamentary appropriations. Expenditure from this funds will, in accordance with the provisions of clause 10, consist, inter alia, of grants to any Administrator or local authority for defraying a specified part of the cost involved in conducting or preparing a transport study, investigation or plan, as well as grants in partial defrayal of the cost of equipment, land, and so on, required in substitution for or for improving public passenger service facilities, in terms of an approved transport plan.

Before I leave the latter clause, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members especially to paragraph (f), a paragraph which is of particular importance in these times in which public urban bus transport undertakings are, with a few exceptions, being operated at a loss, as a result of which these undertakings are not keen to expand or supplement their services, something which in its turn leads to large numbers of commuters finding it more convenient and quicker to reach their destinations by means of their own private motor vehicle transportation. We are therefore dealing here with a vicious circle which not only loses our country millions of rand in foreign exchange owing to an excessive use of fuel but which also results in great expenditure and unnecessary wastage of manpower, manpower which has to be utilized in order to deal with traffic congestion in our cities.

To enable the commission to perform its comprehensive task in terms of the Bill, the necessary staff may in terms of section 12 of the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, 1948, be made available to it by the Secretary for Transport. Consequently the necessary spadework in this regard has already been done by establishing an Urban Transport Division in the department concerned.

†I now come to the second tier of government in the functional structure, as set out in the Bill, namely the provincial administrations, or rather the Administrators.

By virtue of the many and varied functions assigned to an Administrator in the Bill, and the strategic position which he must fulfil as the link between the commission and the other constituent bodies such as the relative local authorities, core cities as well as Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards, he is indeed the hub around which everything centres.

The Bill is liberally interspersed with provisions dealing with the functions and powers of an Administrator, and in order to illustrate his key role in the functional set-up, I would mention but a few of those functions and powers. He must be consulted before a metropolitan transport area may be declared—clause 3(1)—and with the formulation and application of an urban transport policy—clause 5(1)(a) and (2).

Moreover, he is responsible for the submission of properly prepared transport plans to the commission—clause 6(1)(a); conducting or preparing transport studies, investigations or plans with a view to the coming into being of a metropolitan transport area—clause 7(1); the appointment of Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards—clause 12; and the determination or approval of levies which local authorities may impose in terms of clause 21(1).

It is clear, that in terms of the Bill, the functions and powers of an Administrator are both embracing and diversive, and that, as in the case of the National Transport Commission, staff be placed at his disposal as well as at the disposal of the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards which an Administrator is obliged to appoint. The necessary provisions to this end, are contained in clauses 11 and 16(3).

The provisions of clauses 12 and 13 relating to the appointment and constitution of Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards are of particular importance in that representatives of all the interested levels of authority—that is to say, central, provincial and local—as well as representatives of organized commerce and industry and such other interested parties which an Administrator may deem fit, are brought together to consider urban transport matters, to advise or inform an Administrator in connection therewith, and to promote co-operation among local authorities in order to facilitate the preparation of an effective transport plan.

Hon. members will, no doubt, agree with me that an extremely important breakthrough is being made in this respect to co-ordinate urban transport planning in a meaningful and organized manner, specifically with a view to the present-day need for neighbouring local authorities to give due consideration to their mutual transport requirements in the process of forward transport planning.

*Pursuant to what I have just said, it is also important to note that further authority is being given to the co-ordination of transport planning within a metropolitan transport area in the Bill in that clause 10 expressly provides that the commission may only make grants to local authorities whose areas of jurisdiction fall entirely, or partially, within such an area, provided the awards are made in terms of a transport plan approved by the commission. In addition such local authorities will only be able to impose levies which have been determined or approved by the Administrator in question in accordance with an approved transport plan.

In terms of the provisions of clause 21(1) the levies apply to the movement of certain classes of motor vehicles, to certain immovable property, the parking of vehicles and to parking-places and loading-zones. Moneys thus collected are paid into the Consolidated Metropolitan Transport Fund for that metropolitan transport area.

The levy for which provision is being made in clause 21(1)(a) is the so-called “levy and permit system” which is aimed primarily at discouraging traffic in specific areas in which traffic congestion occurs by charging admission fees in respect of specified classes of motor vehicles.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this, and the other levies envisaged in clause 21(1), are drastic measures, but bearing in mind their strategically important objective, viz. the provision of adequate urban transport facilities in the Republic, I do not doubt the need for them for one moment.

Naturally the levies will be put into operation with the greatest measure of circumspection, thorough regard being had to the transport requirements in and the financial position of each of the local authorities concerned.

Before going on to the next subject, I want to point out that I shall move certain amendments to clause 21(1) during the Committee Stage of the Bill, on the one hand so that the levies mentioned in the latter clause may be imposed on a differentiated basis and, on the other, so that clause 21(1)(b) may be extended to establish beyond any doubt that no levies will apply in regard to those portions of buildings which are used for private residential purposes, or which are destined for such use.

Clause 18 makes provision for the establishment of a Consolidated Metropolitan Transport Fund for each metropolitan transport area, and determines its sources of revenue as well as the purposes for which it may be applied.

The administration of a Consolidated Metropolitan Transport Fund is vested, in accordance with the provisions of clause 17, in a core city, which city will, under clause 4, be designated for a metropolitan area by the Minister.

Since the provisions of the latter clause may be interpreted to mean that the Minister shall designate a core city under the directions of a commission, I shall move an amendment to the relevant clause during the Committee Stage in order to rectify the matter.

It goes without saying that the designation of a core city is indispensable in the case of a metropolitan transport area which consists of areas of jurisdiction of two or more local authorities, primarily owing to considerations pertaining to the provision of guidance and for the sake of the administration of the Consolidated Metropolitan Transport Fund in question. A core city is in fact the first tier on which urban transport planning is coordinated.

The moneys in such transport funds are utilized for the defrayal of the costs of a local authority or Administrator in question, in regard to the preparing or implementation of approved transport plans, and for the payment of the remuneration and allowances of the members of the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board, as well as the costs—as approved by the commission—incurred by the core city in regard to the administration of the transport fund.

To sum up, what the proposed legislation amounts to is that, by means of transport plans in which all interested parties are involved, such steps are taken and measures are applied to bring about a greater mobility of traffic for the convenience of all, at a reasonable cost and with the minimum of adverse consequences. To achieve these objectives will definitely require co-operation and sacrifices from all sectors of the urban community, so that we may ensure that our cities develop on a sound basis for the further expansion of our national economy.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second major Bill affecting the Department of Transport, whose Vote we dealt with earlier plus the Road Transportation Bill on Friday evening and today. Permit me to mention, in passing, that the main reason why we did not take any time in the Vote this afternoon was because the major aspect of road transportation, and urban transport, was to be debated in the form of these two major Bills. We therefore did not want to duplicate discussion or take up unnecessary time which could be spent on other subjects. This particular Bill, which is a relatively short Bill when one thinks of the amount of work that went into the investigation and the preparation of the report, goes back a long time in history to the Borckenhagen Committee, the problems which arose in the financing of traffic matters and transport and the difficulties at local level which eventually led to the Driessen Committee and its resultant report. I believe that a great deal of very hard work was done in compiling that report. Ultimately, in 1975, we received the Government’s reaction to the report of the committee appointed in March 1972. I mention specifically that the committee of inquiry was appointed in March 1972. It reported in 1974 and we had the White Paper in 1975. I therefore think that it is necessary, particularly when we consider, as I shall do later, the details of the cost calculations which affect this issue, to remember that the calculations were made a long time ago, at a time when the economic situation was quite different, at a time since which inflation has escalated rapidly and at a time when the estimates, reflected in the White Paper and the report of the commission, were such as to be completely unrelated to the present costs South Africa will have to face in order to apply the recommendations of this committee. I intend to deal with that aspect in more detail at a later stage. At this stage, however, I merely want to emphasize the time factor which I think affects a number of matters involving our attitude towards the report, the recommendations and the Bill itself.

I accept that there has been wide consultation. The Bill introduced last year, which was held over, had a number of features which gave rise to concern. Following upon the discharging of the Bill last year, there was a series of meetings, simposia and discussions at which the views of interested parties were expressed on a very wide scale and, as the hon. the Minister correctly said, there was a wide measure of agreement. I think, however, that the hon. the Minister has perhaps been over-emphatic in the detailed attention he gave to the powers of the Administrators because this was one of the tender spots, if I may put it that way. He went out of his way tonight to emphasize how wide were the powers of the Administrators, on what a broad field they were consulted and what wide executive authority they had. I want to make the point, however, that all the authority ultimately comes back to the centre. This is an aspect with which I will deal more fully when I come to it in my speech. I refer to it now simply to emphasize the emphasis, if I may put it that way, which the hon. the Minister has placed on it.

I think we will all agree in this House that the situation in our cities has become critical and that the urban traffic has reached such a stage of congestion and frustration to those who have to suffer it that it makes it unnecessary to debate that aspect. The Driessen commission itself has emphasized the future chaos into which South Africa’s cities will be plunged if attention is not given to this matter and given to it urgently. In fact, I believe that there is already chaos in many instances. I do not think it is necessary to spend much time repeating that problem. The problem is there for everyone to see and for everyone to suffer and it will be of greater value if we direct our attention to the solutions which are proposed.

We will all agree that the essential elements in a solution to the problem are contained in the Bill before us. If I may set these out as I see them, there is a first group of elements. Those elements include research, planning and co-ordination. There must be research into problems, the planning of solutions and the co-ordination of activities. I will call that the first group of essential elements which are needed for any practical and realistic solution. The second element which I believe exists is the unit which must be considered and this is the metropolitan area. Again we have an essential element.

The third element is also catered for, i.e. the core city, which I think we will all agree is best equipped to administer a traffic plan. Then, the next element is the twin aim of the diversion of passengers from private cars to public transport and, hand in hand with that, the regulation of essential traffic which cannot be diverted. That is something on which very little emphasis has been placed, either in the report, in the White Paper or in much of the discussion which I have heard. We have heard a great deal about the diversion of passengers, the diversion of motorists, to become passengers in public transport. But we have not heard so much about the essential traffic which will have to remain there, no matter what plan is introduced, because it is part of the natural process of day to day life in South Africa. These two go together in what I consider the fourth essential element in the solution. All these are linked in the fact that this Bill must necessarily be an empowering measure. We cannot in this House set out in detail how we intend to handle every aspect of the problem. So this has to be a Bill which will empower authorities to deal with the problem at various levels. This means that there is a responsibility placed on Parliament to weigh very carefully these positive aspects which I have mentioned against certain other aspects. We must be careful to weigh these and to determine the relative weight of the favourable factors against some of the problems with which I shall deal later. It comes back to the old chicken or egg question. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg.

I hope so, because that is the argument with which I want to deal. The egg, I believe, is the source and the egg is the thing which must be nursed and incubated and from which one gets a chicken. Then that chicken can be trained. But the egg and the chicken about which I am talking here are the two ways in which one approaches the problem of getting the car driver and passenger out of a motor car into public transport. There are two ways by means of which this problem can be approached. The first is by attracting the driver to an adequate public transport service, a frequent service, a convenient service, a comfortable service, a realistically priced service, a reliable service and a speedy service. All those factors come into account, and I would say the most important is the last. If a man can get to his office in 10 minutes by motor-car and it is going to take him 45 minutes and two changes by bus and train, then he is going to get into his motor-car and drive to his office.

He can hitch-hike.

He could even hitchhike. It is getting to that with the state of the economy in South Africa. That is about all one can afford to do these days, and if the price of petrol increases any more we shall have just about everybody hitch-hiking, but there will be nobody to pick up the hitch.

Perhaps somebody will give the hon. member a lift home.