Mr. Speaker, I hope that the fact that this Bill and its partner, the Road Transportation Bill, were both introduced during the death watch of a sitting—one, late on Friday afternoon and the other late last night—will not be an omen of their future life and that they will not disappear into the obscurity which surrounded their introduction.

Before last night’s adjournment I had dealt with the positive aspects of the measure before us, a measure containing what I referred to as “the essential elements” of a solution of our urban traffic problems. This measure thus contains a positive approach in that it seeks to identify the steps which are necessary and the solution which can be applied. I think it is appropriate at this stage to record the appreciation of this side of the House for the tremendous amount of work which was put into the study of the subject, and recorded in the report issued by the Driessen Commission. There is an extremely broad background of information available for those who are prepared to study it, information and background regarding the problem, the statistics and the projection of those statistics. All this involved a lot of work, hard work, for which we would like to record our appreciation.

I had started last night to deal with the twin approaches to one of the essentials involved in finding a solution to the traffic problems in our cities. I refer to the diversion of passengers from single or two-passenger motor-cars into public transport. I also dealt with the positive approach, which is to attract people, to lure them into public transport by making public transport convenient, quick, cheap, readily available and generally more attractive than the use of a motor-car. I had also started to deal with the negative approach, the approach of compulsion, of the application of punitive sanctions to keep private and other vehicles out of the centre of cities.

It is inevitable, in dealing with a problem like this, that there will be a temptation to take the easy road of applying sanctions, rather than taking the positive road of trying to lure people away from the roads and into public transport. It is the attitude of the UP that the approach should, firstly, be positive. We on this side of the House believe that we should first create a situation in which public transport is freely available and convenient in order to draw people off the roads. Only as a last resort should one turn to sanctions to keep them off by prohibitive taxation, and then only in so far as it is necessary to prevent deliberate obstruction of the positive objects of the measure. Let me clarify. By sanctions I am referring to the punitive aspect of levies on vehicles, buildings, parking areas and parking space within buildings. I do not refer to sanctions in respect of specific bus lanes to make bus traffic more attractive because it is faster, or to staggered working hours, or to restricted off-loading hours or to the other restrictions which can be applied without a punitive taxation attaching to them. Those we regard as regulation, not as sanctions.

There are two reasons why we take this attitude. The first is that the motorist is already carrying a very heavy burden, and that burden is getting heavier by the day. At the time that the Driessen report was submitted the motorist in South Africa was already contributing in customs duty, excise duty, provincial licences, petrol levy and sales duty an amount of R410 386 745 in the financial year 1974-’75. That figure has since escalated to over R600 million, as a result of the increase in taxation on petrol, in sales duty and in provincial licences in all provinces except Natal. The motorist is already carrying a very heavy financial burden and yet, for many private individuals and businesses, the motor vehicle is essential for carrying on their occupation. The business which must deliver or obtain supplies by road, every service industry operating in the centre of town, every salesman who is dependent on his car for carrying samples and for getting from customer to customer—every one of these has to use a motor-car. Therefore there is a considerable proportion of the traffic that would be brought under the provision of a levy or taxation and which would have no choice but to continue to use their vehicles and therefore would simply have to pay the levy or tax, whether they like it or not. This can only lead to an escalation of inflation because these costs will be passed on in the form of increased rentals, of increased profit margins which will be necessary to cover the extra costs and, in addition, they will lead to reduced services. I do not want to spend time giving many of the hundreds of examples which apply, but particularly in the field of services quick reaction to a breakdown is vital. Let me just take the example of an electrical breakdown in a large undertaking. Until such a breakdown is repaired, the whole undertaking stands still. Lights, calculators and electric typewriters do not work. All the work stands still. It is necessary that attention should be given to it urgently and immediately. That means that a vehicle must come from a certain point to the point where the breakdown occurs, bringing the people and the equipment to do the repairs. Otherwise this leads to reduced productivity and thus to a slow-down in economic activity generally. So, it is not only the direct cost, but also the indirect cost which will apply.

The second reason is that this creates the danger of throttling the central business district. The more one imposes a load on the CBD, the more you will get a tendency to decentralize, a tendency for businesses which can do so to move away. The effect of that is going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg of rates and taxes in any city. It is not the householder, but the commercial undertaking, plus, of course, the industrial areas, which provide the finances on which any city has to live. If one is going to throttle the main commercial centre and force either decentralization or escalation of costs, one is going to undermine that source of income, and one’s problems are going to become even worse. The effort itself is likely to be self-destroying.

The original report of the commission of inquiry recommended that in respect of licences all motor-cars should be levied an additional R9, vehicles in major urban areas, R20, and vehicles subject to permit, R45. Thus the person who has to use his car and take it into the CBD—the restricted area subject to permits—would, according to this recommendation, have to pay R45 additionally per annum for each car which is used. In a business which has 20 or 30 salesmen, the levy is multiplied by that number. For goods vehicles a levy of R18, for goods vehicles in major urban areas, R40, and for goods vehicles in a permit area, R90, is recommended. An estimated income of R74 million was expected from that source. Admittedly, the White Paper envisages a lower amount, viz. 15% of the total amount which is expected to be collected in the first year. But the figure of R74 million was calculated by the person who drew up the report, the person who knew what was involved and who was therefore more likely to know what it was going to cost. At that time R74 million would have been added to an already existing tax load of R410 million by motorists. If this were the only way, I believe one would have to give very serious consideration to it. I will return to this.

But let me first deal with another major danger. The problem itself is decentralized, decentralized to every city in South Africa. However, the system proposed and accepted in the White Paper centralizes the final, essential control. There is consultation. That has been dealt with at length, and I am not going to repeat it. There are to be metropolitan advisory boards, but the name indicates that they are to be solely advisory. The Administrators are brought in and they have to be consulted. Consultation in legislation means that one will tell them what one is going to do, listen to their representations and then do what one wants to do anyway. That is how consultation works in government. So one has one’s problem decentralized and the real, ultimate, effective power centralized in Pretoria, with the final decisions resting solely with the Minister. The Administrator represents the second tier of government. He is appointed by the Government. Therefore he must have the Government’s confidence. He reflects an elected tier of government which is responsible to an electorate.

The control proposed is the Urban Transport Commissioner and the NTC, these are appointed officials and are not responsible to an electorate. Unfortunately it must be said that the NTC has not always been noted for its receptiveness to the views of provinces and local authorities. It has not always shown itself sympathetic to local authorities and to provinces. We know of the case of the George controversy, the nature conservation aspect, we know of its attitude towards assistance to local authorities in regard to a subsidization of freeways and of throughways in cities, the adamant line that was taken in this regard. It is a fact—I do not have to prove it—that there has not always been a sensitivity for the views and the opinions of local authorities and the provinces. Purely in passing I want to mention the attitude of the Department of Transport itself towards getting motorists off the road onto public transport. For example, at the airports where motorists, to avoid the wasting of petrol, use public transport in the form of the South African Airways, the contribution which the Department of Transport makes is to impose pay-parking at the airports. So if one flies and leaves one’s car parked one pays a fee of R1,60 a day. But if one arrives five minutes later than the allowed parking time of 24 hours, one has to pay for a full half day in addition—not the hourly rate of 20 cents for the first hour, but a full half day extra. In other words, the motorist who is obliged to park his car in order to use public transport, has to pay and is used as a means of gathering finance for the department, excessively used, I believe, in the rates which he has to pay. If the department were sympathetic, it would take into account the contribution to the nation one makes by using the aircraft, e.g. the saving in fuel, the saving in cars on the roads and the profits to the South African Airways. The department, however, sees it as an opportunity to squeeze a few more cents out of the captive motorist. The hon. the Minister smiles; he thinks this is funny. But here we are dealing with a measure in which it is proposed that R74 million a year in additional money should be mulcted out of the motorist. We have to take these factors into account in weighing up what we do.

As I see it, the key word in the Bill is the little word “after” instead of the word “in”, because all the things that are done are done “after” consultation, not “in” consultation. This means that the ultimate decision is taken in an office in Pretoria subject only to the hon. the Minister. If we are to make the Bill work, I think the hon. the Minister must accept that we have to win the confidence of the local authorities and of the public itself. Their confidence and co-operation must be won and not forced. To win their co-operation and their confidence, they must be satisfied that there is no question of a dictatorial approach from the top, no suggestion of dictatorship where they will be told that they will do this and they will do that. Unfortunately the Bill provides for this in so many instances. It is the NTC which must approve a plan; it is the NTC which can impose conditions, which can send a plan back for amendment, which can take over the powers of any province or a local authority and carry out the work itself, it can prescribe the way in which work must be carried out and can even go as far as instituting an inquiry into the management practices of public transport undertakings. That means that in respect of the management practice of private firms, but mainly of local authorities, the NTC can now say that it does not think that the affairs of the party concerned are being run very efficiently and that the business will therefore have to be run in this or that manner because, in terms of clause 6(1)(h), it is provided that the commission—

The commission is empowered to ensure that in its opinion public passenger transport has preference. The commission will also be holding the key which makes this whole Bill work or not work and that is the key to the purse strings.

Unless there is confidence that the Bill is going to be implemented in co-operation and not by dictation, I believe we will undermine the spirit of co-operation which is necessary—even essential—to success. Therefore, during the Committee Stage we will move that clause 6(7) be amended in order to provide that where a dispute between an Administrator and the NTC is referred to the Minister by the NTC, the appeal shall be heard in consultation with the Administrator. The provinces will then know that when the final decision is taken, they will be in the picture and they will be participating in the decision. At present it is merely provided that where there is a dispute, the NTC will take the dispute to the Minister who will decide and his decision will be final.

You would like one of the parties to be the judge?

That is correct, because the party will not have been consulted by the Minister up to that stage. The commission will have consulted with the Administrator, but the Minister will not have consulted with the Administrator. The Minister will then hear what the commission’s view is, what it has recommended and also what the objection is. If the Minister is to take a decision which will carry the confidence of those who will carry out the decision, who must implement it, then we believe that the Minister must take that decision in consultation with an authority, appointed by the Government, but at the same time an authority who is responsible to an electorate and who is closest to the point of the problem itself. We see no reason why the Administrator should not be part of the decision-making which will ultimately determine what will happen.

We know—this is not meant as a reflection—that it is unlikely that the Minister, unless he breaks a long-standing tradition, will go against the recommendation of the the person he himself has appointed as urban transport commissioner. It does not happen in practice. How often does the Minister reject the recommendation from somebody whom he has appointed to do a job when that person comes along with a recommendation regarding the manner in which something must be done? The Minister has confidence in the person whom he has appointed and therefore he is not going to say that the person is wrong.

I often do it.

Well, I have not heard of many cases where the Minister has overruled a decision and I shall be very interested to hear some material examples where a recommendation has been overruled. The Minister must have confidence in the appointee of his Government as Administrator. Surely, he must have confidence. Why should he only have confidence in the top level and not at the lower tier?

In referring to this clause I should in passing simply like to say that we will also question the fact that the clause gives power to impose from the top, but in consultation, ratios of floor space to land area. It also imposes it on existing buildings. I hope the hon. the Minister can tell us whether, if a building exceeds the ratio applied, they then have to knock a couple of floors off the top of the building. Otherwise they will be exceeding the ratio and be breaking the provisions of the ordinance.

Let me now turn to the heart of this Bill, the heart which pumps the life-blood which will determine whether this Bill will work or not. That is the question of finance. If we turn to the White Paper we find that the Government had already, in 1975, cut down the recommendation of the commission from R92 million to R52 million for financial reasons. They then set about determining how this money should be found.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned last night that this report was drawn up during the period 1972 to 1974. So, three years have already elapsed since it was presented to the hon. the Minister. During that time the cost of everything has skyrocketed. Everything has gone up. These figures are therefore no longer relevant and do not depict present conditions. A guess would be that the R92 million has risen to at least R150 million—if not much more—to meet the same objectives. We know that the local authorities cannot afford this sort of money. They do not have it. We know that at the present time the Government is financially embarrassed and does not have money to spend. It is therefore doubly a temptation simply to sock the motorist for the money that is going to be needed. We have voted the sum of R84 000 for urban transport. This will only serve to set up the hierarchy and perhaps provide for a little research. It will not even be a flea bite; it will not get us anywhere, and we do not expect it to. We first have to set up the machinery, and merely to get it off the ground, we are going to have to spend nearly R1 million. How much more is it going to cost to get this Bill working in practice, on the scale that it is going to have to work? I repeat: The tendency, the temptation, will be there to sock the motorist, the owners of buildings—which means the tenants of those buildings—and the businesses which are dependent on transport.

In practice, that is where the Minister is going to see the money coming from. Since the White Paper there has, however, been another significant change and that is in the price of petrol. When this report was compiled, people could still look upon driving a motor-car as a reasonably cheap occupation. Today it has become an exceedingly expensive occupation. The latest figures from the Durban Transport Management Board, contained in a letter of last month, quote the Automobile Association as saying that the cost of running a luxury car is 21c per km, a large car 15c, a medium car 12c and a small car 10c per km. These figures have escalated by over 25% since this report was drawn up. So one has here a major new factor working in favour of the success of regulation and against people using their cars unnecessarily. A man is going to be a fool if he drives his car to work while there is adequate and convenient public transport available. It would be absolutely stupid. It would be much cheaper to travel by bus, if that type of transport is available, than to use your motor-car. This is the objective of this letter to which I have referred and that is to draw people onto the buses. I repeat what I said last night and that is that no person is going to get onto a bus if he can get to his office in ten minutes whereas a bus is going to take 40 or 45 minutes and might possibly involve a change of buses to arrive at his destination. Speed is a factor. Therefore the first task must be to create adequate and satisfactory transport facilities.

To prevent the temptation being yielded to of simply socking the motorist and the CBD, we are going to move the deletion of clause 21 which imposes these levies. They are not essential to the introduction of the Bill. They can always be reintroduced later if it proves necessary to introduce them. By their deletion now we create a powerful incentive to the success of the real objective of this Bill which is to regulate and to apply alternatives. I want to quote from the long title of the Bill as follows—

And so it goes on. The very objective, as indicated in the title of the Bill, is “to promote the planning and provision of adequate urban transport facilities”. We believe that it would serve as an encouragement and would provide an incentive for aiming at that objective instead of simply finding a new form of taxation, if the powers in respect of levies are left out of the Bill at this early stage. If it is shown that, despite the presence of adequate and convenient public transport, people are still abusing the roads, one can still then introduce the punitive aspect. However, to introduce it now before the other matter has been taken care of, is, we believe, to put the cart behind the horse. [Interjections.]

Before the horse!

Sir, it is funny what little things give pleasure to little minds. I admit quite happily that I transposed cart and horse, just as I believe the Government will transpose the positive approach for the negative approach if we do not amend the Bill to remove the levies. By removing that, we shall be putting the cart behind the horse, so that the horse will be pulling the cart and not the cart the horse.

There are plenty of steps that can be taken, but I shall not deal with them now. I am thinking of, for instance, staggered working hours, bus lanes, “park-and-ride” facilities, parking at suburban stations, restricted hours for heavy transport—so one can go on with positive proposals which should be attempted first. We have weighed this matter very carefully and we believe that, particularly at a time when the Government has no money and cannot use the incentive of the financial carrot, the motorist must be protected from a misuse of powers which might otherwise take place. The figure provided in the budget is R84 000—that is the total amount provided for the implementation of this Bill. That amount of R84 000 will not get it off the ground. We can start with effective studies, but we must prevent dictation from the top and exploitation of the motorist. Therefore, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) levies on buildings, parking and loading facilities and motorists will not be imposed until all possible positive steps to ensure the availability and convenience of adequate public transport facilities have been taken; and
2. (2) the Minister’s power to determine appeals will only be exercised in consultation with the Administrator concerned.”.

Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of the hon. member for Durban Point and the amendment he moved, do not surprise me, because this behaviour is typical of the UP, as we have learnt to know it over the years. They want to run with the hares, but at the same time they also want to hunt with the hounds. Last night the hon. member dwelt on the gravity of the traffic problem we were faced with. He dwelt on the necessity of a solution to that problem. The difference between the NP and the UP is that if a solution to a problem must be found, then we take the bull by the horns and look for solutions. Here again the Opposition is recoiling. They refuse to accept the responsibility of also having a share in it. The hon. member for Durban Point wants to solve the whole problem by positive action alone, but all those positive measures are incorporated in the Bill. They are built into the transport plans which still have to be drawn up in order to provide those transport services. The hon. member objects to what he calls negative action. To him, the worst is the levies which are being recommended and prescribed. But after all, if one wants to carry out such an extensive transport plan in any metropolitan area, one needs money to do so, and where is the money to come from? That the hon. member does not want to tell us. He does not want to tell us where that money is to come from. All he does is to bring up his old story of how the motorist will have to pay for it. According to him, everything has to be recovered from the motorists. But after all, this is far from the truth. The money collected by way of the levies, is used to establish essential services in order to carry out the whole transport plan. True to form, everything he did was just for political gain, to tell people: Look now you are being taxed! And that is all. They do not want to accept any responsibility for helping to solve the problems facing us.

I want to begin by firstly congratulating the Department of Transport on the investigation which they carried out under the chairmanship of Mr. Driessen and on the report which they published. Looking at the report, we see that it testifies to hard, thorough work. I have seen many reports, but I think that you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the most interesting reports ever submitted to Parliament. We sincerely thank that commission and congratulate them on the fine work they did in service of South Africa.

When we discuss the urban transport problem, the UP agrees with us that, as the hon. member for Point said last night, and again this afternoon, that this problem has really become a nightmare for us due to the influx of motor vehicles to certain parts of our large cities especially during peak hours. I think that everyone, including the hon. member for Durban Point, agrees that something must be done about this, about this ever-increasing problem. Despite the fact that the motor-car is a means of transport which is becoming ever more expensive—due, inter alia, to the price of motor-cars, the maintenance of motor-cars and increased fuel prices—the motor-car still remains the main means of transport in the major urban areas. The motor-car dominates to such an extent that according to statistics, which were given to us in 1970, motor-cars were responsible for nearly 80% of the kilometres travelled per person by Whites in the major urban areas. According to the same statistics, it appears that the above-mentioned figure will increase to about 90% by the year 2 000. What does this entail for us.

It entails an immense congestion of traffic during peak hours. The congestion of traffic, in turn, leads to an immense wastage of time, especially in view of the many hours lost due to traffic congestion. Together with this, we have tremendous wastage of fuel, wear and tear on vehicles, etc. Worst of all is, of course, the frustration it causes the motorist. The degree of frustration is so great in many cases that many people are already avoiding the central areas of cities at the moment. The latter phenomenon in turn leads to the economic situation in the central urban areas concerned being weakened.

Now the question arises as to why people are prepared to pay even more in order to use their motor-cars in spite of the increased transport costs. Why are people prepared to put up with the inconvenience which is unavoidably part and parcel of the life of a motorist in the city? The only answer which I can think of, is the fact that our public transport facilities are so poor. Unfortunately I must also add that our people have become too fond of luxury. I think that this plays a very major role in this regard. Even when adequate public transport facilities are available, we find that many people still prefer to use their own motor-cars. Of course, there is also the element of selfishness. If we look at the long queues of traffic during peak times, we soon notice that there is only one motorist in most cars.

Now we come to the question of why public transport facilities are usually so poor. Of course, this can be traced back to the poor support which public transport facilities enjoy. Due to the poor support, those who provide public transport services suffer vast financial losses. Of course, in order to solve any problem, it is first of all necessary to identify its causes. I think that the primary cause of this problem lies in the fact that the layout of most of our cities is unsuited to meeting with the demands made on modern transport systems. Of course this phenomenon can be traced back as far as to the previous century. After all, none of our forebears could have foreseen a century or so ago the enormous concentration of traffic which was to be our lot today. We can even go back to a period about 20 years ago. We need only call to mind the marvellous through-roads which were built here in Cape Town to recall that everyone thought at the time that this would offer a permanent solution to Cape Town’s traffic problem. However, what happened? What is the situation today? We need only go and see what De Waal Drive looks like during the peak times, in the morning and afternoon. It is not unusual for motor vehicles to be standing there bumper to bumper over a distance of several kilometres during peak times.

On the Witwatersrand there is a bypass to the South of Johannesburg, which has been partially completed. Even 5 years ago I thought that a road of that size was actually unnecessary. However, things are different today. During peak times, motor-cars also stand bumper to bumper over a distance of several kilometres on that very road.

The second cause of this problem is the extremely rapid economic development of South Africa which, in the first place, gave rise to the urbanization of the population. According to statistics, 76% of the White population and 37% of the total population were accommodated in the seven largest cities and the metropolitan areas around these cities in 1946. In 1970 the figure was already 87% of the White population and 48% of the total population. It is estimated that 93% of the White population and 52% of the total population will be living in the cities in the year 2000. The urbanization and the mass of people who have congregated in the cities, have also meant that there are many more cars. In 1970 there were 1 148 000 goods vehicles and cars in the seven largest cities and it is estimated that there will be 2 121 000 vehicles in the cities by 1980. The forecast for the year 2 000 is almost 6 million vehicles. This is the dilemma with which we are faced. In 23 years’ time there will be almost three times as many vehicles as there will be in 1980. The urbanization of the population has also meant that according to the 1970 census, 62% of all retailers’ transactions take place in the seven largest cities of the country, while more than 70% of the country’s factory production is produced in these areas.

We ourselves have brought about this situation and the problems which flow from it, and it will not help us today to say that we cannot do anything about it. Nor will it help to say that we will just have to live with it. One thing was very clear from the report which was presented to us and this is that the urban transport problem has become acute. The problem will become much greater in future, and if purposeful, rapid and drastic action is not taken, we will be faced with grave problems.

I do not think that this Bill can rectify all the mistakes which have been made over the years. However, I do believe that if the measures proposed in the Bill are carried out, our descendants will be spared the urban transport problem to a great extent. To be able to implement the Bill, it is essential that there should be a body with overall authority, one which can not only exercise effective control over urban transport, but can also bring about the necessary co-ordination and cohesion. In view of the fact that the country is divided into four different provinces, I think it is more than important that there should be an umbrella body at the top, namely the National Transport Commission, invested with the necessary authority to administer such a policy. I also think it is important for all levels of Government as well as private commerce and industry to be consulted.

One of the most important links needed for co-ordinating urban transport, is the establishment of a metropolitan Transport Advisory Board for every area which is declared a metropolitan transport area in terms of clause 3 of this Bill. We can probably say a great deal about the composition of the metropolitan transport advisory boards which must advise the Administrator. There will probably be a difference of opinion as to which bodies and organizations should be represented on them. However, I think it is important for every local authority which falls within such a metropolitan transport area, to be represented on that transport advisory council. This is important because the impression is being created that this body, the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board in a metropolitan transport area, is going to take over the functions of transport and planning from the local authorities and that a local authority will not have any further say in its own affairs. I should like to refer to a report in the Sunday Express of 30 May 1976. On the front page one sees: “The Highway Dictators”—an allusion to this Bill which has been introduced. I quote the first paragraph—

I think that this is a disgraceful report. Do hon. members know where it comes from? The hon. member for Durban Point has already spoken about the dictators here. I know where he got it from. We know them by this time. They can never work out a policy for themselves. It has always been the English-language Press, or some of the English-language newspapers, that have worked out a policy for them and prescribed to them what they should do and say. Incidentally, it was not long ago that they were very hostile towards the English-language Press, but that move to the left by the UP, that sly courting of the PRP, is now also bringing them closer to the English-language Press again. That is why the English-language Press has to dictate to them and that is why we constantly have to hear about the dictatorships which are being made possible by this Bill.

On what date did that newspaper appear?

The hon. member for Durban-Point cannot get away from it. This newspaper mentions dictatorship and the hon. member also referred to these transport advisory boards as dictatorships in his own speech. During the commission’s inquiry all local authorities affected by this measure gave evidence.

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

The hon. member just wants to spoil a very good speech. I gave him enough time to deliver his speech in peace. I think that he should sit and listen now. [Interjections.] Evidence was submitted by the United Municipal Executive of South Africa. Evidence was also presented by the transport and road user organizations, as well as by other bodies with an interest in the matter. All agreed that something had to be done to solve these traffic problems during peak times. There are probably differences of opinion amongst those organizations and even amongst the local authorities about how this should be done. However, all agreed in principle that something had to be done.

What I think is very important in this Bill, is that the transport advisory boards must furnish the Administrator of the province in which the metropolitan transport area falls, with advice on transport planning in that area. All plans have to be approved by the Administrator. I do not know where the hon. member for Durbban and the Sunday Express get their so-called dictator boards. What is more, according to the provisions of clause 6 of this Bill, the central, provincial and local authorities must all be consulted and involved in every transport plan for every metropolitan transport area. As a final safety valve, it is provided that if the commission and the Administrator cannot achieve consensus on any facet of these plans, the final decision will be given by the hon. the Minister.

Clause 3 contains provisions concerning the institution of the metropolitan transport areas and, together with the composition of the transport advisory boards, the activities and powers of the boards, I find this one of the most important provisions in the Bill. I think that the functioning of the transport advisory boards in every metropolitan transport area is also going to determine whether the objectives laid down in the Bill are going to be attained or not. The activities are not limited to traffic control and roads, since a co-ordinated transport plan must be drawn up for the whole metropolitan area. This is essential, because there are many mutual problems which various local authorities have to face within a specific area. That is why it is pleasing to note that in terms of the provisions of clause 13, the Department of Community Development, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, the Department of Planning and the Environment, the Provincial Administration and the Post Office will all be represented on the advisory boards. This is important, because all these departments will be intimately involved in drawing up a transport plan of this kind. Their involvement will be valuable, for example, as regards suburban train services, land usage planning, telephone communication, transport of Black workers, population density, etc. The position is that up to now, every local authority has done its own town planning without taking into consideration the planning of adjacent local authorities. I think that this unco-ordinated planning has contributed largely towards the transport problems we are faced with today.

I can continue to mention many examples of this injudicious planning. We need only look at the East Rand where most of the industries are situated along the railway line, without taking any other factor into consideration. What is more, many of those main connecting roads between the towns of the East Rand pass through the industrial areas and we can also add the thousands of Black workers who have to be transported to the industrial areas. Another example which I could mention in this connection, is the construction of the Jan Smuts airport without foreseeing the immense development which has taken place around the airport. The result is that more than 2 000 ha of valuable ground are unused today due to having been frozen. These are just a few examples of what could have been avoided if we had acted 30 years ago as we plan to act now.

There is certainly no instant solution to the problem, nor is this the idea behind the Bill. Nor is it the objective to have all vehicles disappear from our cities overnight. All the measures proposed will be implemented over the long term, although some short-term measures can be effected. In this connection I have in mind specifically the better distribution of working hours, in regard to which some of our Government departments have set a very good example in already applying this in Pretoria. Secondly, I believe that many of the large trucks can be diverted from the central areas of the cities, because it is unnecessary for loading and unloading of goods to take place specifically during peak hours. Thirdly, I think that bus transport should be given priority on our roads. I could mention many other examples. I still think that the most effective solution would be to provide for adequate, rapid and economic transport facilities in the cities. We must not see the spectres which the hon. member for Durban Point sees. We realize that it is only when we have succeeded in providing adequate facilities that we can expect people to make less use of their own means of transport.

We could probably discuss for days the methods which can be used and the levies which can be imposed as provided in clauses 21 and 22, but I do not want to go into this now. I think that we shall be able to discuss this extensively during the Committee Stage. However, there is something which I should like to emphasize very strongly: Levies which may be imposed on motor vehicles, land or buildings by local authorities, cannot be imposed indiscriminately; they must be approved by the Administrator concerned. Furthermore, it is also provided that these moneys must be paid into the transport fund concerned. Therefore there is no question of levies being imposed with any objective other than furthering the transport plan of the metropolitan area in which the local authority in question falls.

I want to conclude by saying that the objectives envisaged by the legislation, can only be achieved if we have the co-operation of every local authority, every body, every organization and every individual in a specific metropolitan area. I believe that we shall succeed if we are in earnest, if we put aside our love of ease and selfishness, and if we are prepared to discipline ourselves and show the will to make a success of it.

Mr. Speaker, I found listening to the hon. member for Boksburg quite an intriguing experience on this occasion, because for at least 50% of his speech I had hardly any quarrel at all with what he had to say. This is most unusual because usually when I listen to that hon. member I disagree almost totally with everything he says. All the hon. member has given us today is a treatise on the problems that confront us as far as urban transport is concerned and in that we have no quarrel at all. Indeed, we agree with him. There are considerable problems in this field. However, he did not really answer points which had been made by the hon. member for Durban Point, for example. He did criticize the hon. member for Durban Point for his criticism when somebody had actually taken the bull by the horns and done something about the problems. He said that this should have been greeted with open arms. However, the point that the hon. member for Durban Point was really making was that this was the wrong bull that had been got by the horns. We did not really get any positive argument from that side to tell us about some of the more controversial aspects of this Bill. Before I got to my feet I should have liked to have heard some of the arguments likely to come from the other side, but they did not come.

Your problem is that you do not know what comprises a Second Reading speech.

I take it the hon. member means that I should not say this sort of thing in a Second Reading speech. Well, I suggest that if one is going to make a Second Reading speech, one should argue in favour of provisions of the Bill rather than talk in very general terms about the problems confronting urban transportation. The first sentence of the long title of this Bill says that it is a Bill to promote the planning and provision of adequate urban transport facilities.

We know that.

As such it is to be welcomed in that we finally have from the Government an acceptance in principle that it has a certain responsibility in relation to urban transport matters. We have frequently heard from the hon. the Minister of Transport in the past in his capacity as Minister of Railways the contention that in no way do the Railways have any responsibility for this at all. We have now at least got him as far as to accept that the central Government does have a responsibility in urban transport matters. With the continuing shift of people from rural areas to the towns, our rapidly growing cities have had to provide road and transport systems to cope with this huge increase in population and it has become quite obvious in recent years that it is beyond the financial capabilities of our urban local authorities to cope, using only the present resources of revenue which they have available to them.

I think it is opportune to mention here the contribution to the transport scene made by the Driessen report and by Mr. Driessen himself, who I see is advising the Minister in this debate. The report itself is very wide ranging and covers a tremendous area of problems which confront us in the field of urban transport. The report came up with many very positive suggestions of which many go far beyond the compass of this Bill. I do think that we should congratulate that commission on the wide-ranging view that it did take and on the realization which the commission obviously had, that it was necessary to do a great deal in the urban transport field, that one had to be imaginative, that one had to depart from accepted norms and that one had to take major steps. In this way I think the Driessen commission did make South Africa aware of the necessity to do just that and to use our imagination.

We have at last seen a realization from our Government that urban dwellers who now constitute a very large percentage of the population and who pay a very large percentage of the taxes in this country, must have assistance if the cities are not to strangle to death. Cities just cannot afford the facilities and amenities which should be provided for them, given only their present sources of revenue. We have, however, a Bill before us which goes much farther than this. Originally local authorities, particularly those of the larger cities in the Republic, made clear that the sources they had for revenue were inadequate and that they wanted more money. The Government has replied to this to the effect that additional sources of revenue will be provided, but that if this is done they, the central Government, must have control over those funds through the National Transport Commission. In other words urban transport, which up till now has been totally in the hands of local authorities, will now pass to the overall control of the National Transport Commission who will have the final say. The National Transport Commission will have wide powers to force its attitude upon local authorities and even upon the provincial authorities. The Government in effect are saying to local and provincial authorities: “Right, we will find the necessary funds, but as a quid pro quo we must have control of those funds.” They are centralizing power and control over matters which have traditionally been the responsibility of local authorities. We, on this principle, must differ totally from the Government. We believe that subject to a degree of co-ordination—I will come back to co-ordination a little later in my speech, because co-ordination is always necessary—one of the functions of a local authority is to provide the sort of transport facilities that the people who live in the area require. We believe that the people who live in the area are quite capable of deciding for themselves how best to deal with problems of this nature and that the responsibility of choosing how the problem should be solved, should remain with them. This Bill does not do this. It puts power in the hands of the National Transport Commission, who can do virtually anything. All they have to do is to consult with the Administration of the province concerned whose opinions, incidentally, they can override. Then they have to get the approval of the Minister who, of course, represents the central Government.

The powers given to this central authority in terms of the Bill are very wide indeed and give us reason for considerable disquiet. As an example one could take clause 6(2). In terms of that clause the commission and the Administrator concerned can dictate to local authorities on the subject of density planning, of bulk factors in town planning. Hard experience in Johannesburg has taught the citizens of that city a very bitter lesson. The Johannesburg City Council would in the past introduce a town planning scheme, as all urban authorities do, involving certain restrictions of title on properties in a particular area. Applications would then come to the council for alterations to these conditions of title alterations which would adversely affect the whole town planning concept of the city council and were therefore rejected by the council. Time and again the Administrator of the Transvaal has seen fit to override council decisions and has allowed alterations to the conditions of title that were certainly not in the best interests of the city of Johannesburg. Frequently the reasons behind the Administrator’s decision have been obscure. What is more, they have treated contemptuously the wishes of the people who actually live there, viz. the citizens of Johannesburg. This is a very hard lesson Johannesburg has learnt. The idea of not only the Administrator but also the central Government, through the National Transport Commission, having the final say over the decisions that are taken, is not a very savoury one in the eyes of Johannesburgers. They have a very hard lesson behind them. The idea of centralized control, Pretoria control, over the domestic affairs of Johannesburg is, frankly, an anathema. By all means, let the transport commission have a co-ordinating function. This is a very useful function it could have. We do not believe, however, that they should have overall power.

Let us, for example, look at clause 6(l)(h). This gives the commission the power to—

Many public transport concerns in South Africa are still in the hands of private enterprise or the local authorities. We believe that this provision is an inroad into the rights of private enterprise. We do not believe that the National Transport Commission is necessarily able to comment adequately on the efficiency or otherwise of such undertakings. We believe in a free enterprise system in which, if such enterprises are inefficient, they go to the wall and are replaced by others. That is how the competitive system, of which we are a part, works.

We believe that the provisions of this Bill show the total disregard of the Government for private enterprise. The Government seems to labour under the delusion that the Government can always do a better job than private enterprise. Again, hard experience has shown us that the sort of centralized bureaucracy which this Government superimposes is frequently much less competent than either private enterprise or the operations of local authorities. I do not see why the commission should have the right to meddle in the running of a public transport undertaking. What makes them the arbiters of efficiency? Certainly, it is in the interests of everybody that tariff structures should be fair and equitable. On the question of management practices, however, I should like to look at some of the operations of the National Transport Commission and also at many of the other activities of the Government to see how they shape when it comes to management practices. I believe that private enterprise and local authorities are quite capable of running efficient operations with the best interests of the local people as their main aim and object.

In this Bill we see the Government, because it controls the national purse strings, insisting on dictatorial powers. I refer the hon. member for Boksburg, who has left, to the newspaper produced by him. I wanted to ask the hon. member for Boksburg the date of that newspaper. I suspect that that newspaper was in fact dated something like a year ago, when the Bill it was talking about was a very different Bill from the Bill that is now before us. I am sorry, I see the hon. member is now sitting over there. Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Boksburg what date that newspaper was?

What has that got to do with it?

Was it 1976? For the information of the hon. member for Boksburg the Bill that we have before us now is a different Bill from the Bill we had before us last year, which was the Bill that was being commented on by the Sunday Express. I do not think the hon. member realizes that the Bill has changed since then.

I did mention the date of the newspaper in my speech, if the hon. member would open his ears.

A lot of the reasons for criticism that were put forward in that newspaper, I suspect, had to do with provisions that have now been changed. I would go so far as to say that the hon. member for Boksburg was being very misleading in producing that and making the accusations he did about the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to suggest that the hon. member for Boksburg was misleading? [Interjections.]

Did the hon. member perhaps mean that the hon. member had misled the House deliberately?

I did not say anything about deliberate misleading. I said that what he in fact did mislead the House. [Interjections.] I believe that what he did could in fact have been very misleading, because it referred to a Bill which is no longer before us, a Bill containing provisions which were far more onerous than many of the provisions we have in the Bill today. As a result of criticism of that Bill, for the information of the hon. member for Boksburg, many things have been changed to better the Bill. The Bill is better and could not be subject to the sort of criticism that was offered to it last year.

That is not the argument. Do you agree with that newspaper when it says that the boards are dictator boards?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Boksburg now asks me a question as to whether I consider the boards to be dictator boards. I made it quite clear earlier in my speech that I believe that central Government authority and control is not desirable in this instance. If he wants to use the word “dictator,” he is at liberty to do so. If he feels that the cap fits, he can do so. I did not say anything of the sort.

I have not used it.

That was not my argument and if the hon. member would now, having made his speech and had his opportunity, allow me to go on, I would be very grateful indeed. I do not want to be misunderstood concerning our approach to this Bill because I believe there are many desirable aspects to this Bill and also many positive aspects to it. For example, it is sound common sense that machinery must be created to ensure co-ordination of transport services. The concept of a core city, for example, is a very good one. The establishment of metropolitan transport areas is sound common sense.

It is logical that in an area such as the Western Cape the local authorities in the Western Cape area, for example Cape Town, Parow, Bellville, Goodwood and all the local authorities, should combine and co-ordinate transport services. This could only be to the public good. We have no quarrel with this; we have no quarrel even with the establishment of an urban transport fund. However, what we do quarrel with is the method of control of spending as outlined in this Bill. When it comes to spending I think we have to appreciate just how much urban transport facilities cost. It amounts to astronomical figures. Last year, while I was in the USA, I had a look at the underground railway that was being constructed in Washington, DC. There the figure for building this underground railway has reached absolutely astronomical proportions. It is costing them something like $50 or $60 million per kilometre and they believe that eventually it is going to cost a good deal more. One has to realize that in South Africa we do not have that kind of money. One has to appreciate that if the Government is going to take financial responsibility to an extent for carrying out its urban transport policy, it has to put its money where its mouth is. It has got to back it up. It has got to make money available from general taxation. We do not know at this stage just how much money Parliament is prepared to appropriate. We suspect that the hon. the Minister rather regards the levy system, the selective taxation of motorists, for example, as the cornucopia. I think the hon. member for Durban Point described it as the goose that laid the old golden eggs—the motorist. We would agree with him that the motorist is already overburdened.

One has to accept that urban workers have their role in South Africa, and that people who use motor-cars frequently use them because they have to. Nowadays one does not use a motor-car unless one has to. People have to use motor-cars in the course of their occupations. However, if there were efficient public transport facilities, they would not use their cars. Nevertheless, they make their contribution towards the economy, frequently using motor-cars. I cannot see why a farmer who drives into the local village, in the course of his occupation, should not have to pay a tax, while an urban worker who has to drive into the centre of a city, as well as commercial travellers and many others, have to bear an additional burden by having to pay a levy of one sort or another. In fact, all he is doing is making his contribution towards the economy. He is not in a special situation because he uses that road. He has no alternative. He fulfils …

He is also making his contribution towards the congestion in the city.

Well, I would obviously not disagree with the hon. the Minister when he says one does not want congestion in the city. A certain measure of congestion is, no doubt, inevitable. One does not want to have people coming in just for the sake of coming in. However, may I make the point to the hon. the Minister that nowadays it is so expensive to use a motor-car that if adequate public transport was provided, most people would be all too happy to leave their motor-cars at home and not congest the city.

I know, for example, in Johannesburg …

Does the hon. member not want the commission to see that it is provided?

No, that is not my point at all. All I am saying—if he wants it straight from the shoulder—is that the hon. the Minister and the Government should have accepted a long time ago the responsibility for the financial burden which the local authority could not possibly bear. In fact, in the past, when the Government was asked to assist financially in solving some of the problems of urban transportation, they rejected it totally. It is only now, as a result of the Driessen commission report, that we are getting somewhere and that the Government has accepted responsibility. However, for years they have run away from that responsibility. They would have nothing to do with the problems of local authorities. They restrict local authorities as far as sources of revenue are concerned, and they have done nothing else about it. Local authorities can only deal with the moneys that are available to them. When that money is inadequate for the needs of an urban society—which is part of South Africa—the central Government must ensure that they have additional sources of revenue open to them. I believe the Government has been very tardy.

Looking again at the Bill, I repeat that I do not want to be totally destructive of the Bill, because there is so much in it that is good. There are many ideas which we go along with. We like the idea of the establishment of metropolitan transport areas. We have no objection to an urban transport fund. We like the concept of core cities. We would have no quarrel with the idea of metropolitan transport advisory boards. This is all co-ordinating machinery. We have no quarrel with that. It is a vital necessity.

We would agree with the concept of a consolidated metropolitan transport fund, although we would have reservations which we will discuss during Committee Stage, reservations as to the whole levy system and how it operates. During the Second Reading, however, we would like to confine ourselves largely to the principles behind it.

It is certainly with a certain measure of regret that we have taken the decision to vote against this Bill, because we do believe that major moves are necessary, that a breath of vision is necessary, that new concepts are necessary. I believe that the motivation behind this Bill generally is very praiseworthy. However, we would quarrel finally with where that responsibility lies. We will move amendments during the Committee Stage, but we do not feel that we can support the Second Reading of the Bill. In fact, we would like to move an amendment. I believe that it certainly is an amendment which the UP—having listened to the hon. member for Durban Point—will have no difficulty in supporting. It goes slightly further than their own amendment.

Having listened to the hon. member for Durban Point, I am a little surprised that he did not move an amendment in similar terms. However, I would say that he certainly expressed many of the sentiments that this amendment puts forward, although, in the wording of his amendment, he did not make those sentiments clear at all. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we move this amendment in, we hope, a constructive spirit, because as I have said, there are good things in the Bill. I move as a further amendment—

1. (1) it centralizes power and control and infringes upon the proper functions of local and regional government; and
2. (2) it accepts the principle of an increased selective financial burden on urban dwellers and motorists.”.

Mr. Speaker, arising out of what the hon. member for Durban Point has said, I want to state here today that it is really very unfortunate that the Opposition should always have to oppose simply because that is all they believe in. [Interjections. ] The hon. member for Durban Point tried to conjure up spectres this afternoon, spectres that do not even exist. The hon. member quoted the amount of money that will have to be used, a large amount which he says will have to be collected in the form of a levy. These are figures he has taken from the proposals in the Driessen Report, but which do not appear in this legislation at all. This is a matter that will have to be thrashed out later, with the approval of the administrators.

The Bill is the rubber stamp.

It was very unfair of the hon. member to quote the amount here. It is quite misleading in the sense that if it is stated in the Press that the motorist will have to pay up this and that for the system which the Bill proposes, then that statement will be incorrect.

As far as the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove is concerned, I want to say that he did the hon. member for Boksburg a great injustice in saying that that hon. member had misled the House with a quotation from a newspaper. It is true that it was a newspaper of 30 May 1976 … [Interjections.]

It was about a completely different Bill.

It was a different Bill at that time but the spirit and tenor of the present Bill have not altered in the slightest. All the hon. member for Boksburg quoted was the title of the report in the newspaper, “The Highway Dictators”, and a single sentence which reads—

That is all the hon. member quoted. As far as the tenor of this Bill is concerned, this is still the same Bill that is before the House. The quotation does not detract from this. I think the hon. member for Orange Grove ought to apologize for the words he used, namely that the hon. member for Boksburg had misled the House with his quotation from the report. I challenge the hon. member to say that I have misled the House with what I have quoted. The manner in which he made his speech and attempted to show up the hon. member for Boksburg in a bad light, is disgraceful. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to yet another issue which the hon. member for Orange Grove raised. That hon. member is very concerned about the fact that the central Government, through the National Transport Commission, is now going to adopt a sort of bureaucratic attitude in implementing this legislation. The hon. member made reference here to the problems in Johannesburg. It is a pity the hon. member for Durban Point is leaving now. The parties of those two hon. speakers represent the large cities. Those are the only places they still represent. The hon. member for Orange Grove must listen to me for a while. Is he aware of the fact that in the past the local authorities of the big cities, inter alia, of Johannesburg, regularly complained to the provincial administrations and the National Transport Commission that they did not have enough funds to construct roads?

That is what I said.

I know. He asked why this could not be left to those people. Those people do not have the means, nevertheless, they undertake projects—as happened in Johannesburg—for which they will never have enough money. The City Council of Johannesburg wanted the National Transport Commission to advance them money from the kitty to finance those projects, without the commission or the central Government knowing what was being done with the money. For the implementation of this legislation, the National Transport Commission is being used as the co-ordinating body for the whole country. To my mind, this is very important. It represents the Minister and the central Government. Consequently, it is very important that it be there. That is why I cannot agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove on the statement he made in this regard.

The hon. member for Durban Point emphasized the heavy burden which is supposedly being placed on the shoulders of the poor motorist. I want to tell that hon. member that he knows just as well as I do that in view of the dense urban traffic, those people who drive to town, to work or to the office, do so for their own pleasure and convenience and out of selfishness, as the hon. member for Boksburg said. As things are today, those people can make use of public transport but they do not want to do so. If, in future, they have to pay for the extra convenience they are permitting themselves in driving to the city centre in their own car, they are not to complain because it is a luxury they are permitting themselves. I want to add that to date, the National Transport Commission has spent approximately R44 million on the construction of roads in municipal areas. We see in this Bill that yet another R10 million still has to be allocated from that fund for the construction of roads in Pretoria. However, R44 million has already been spent on the construction of urban roads, money which the National Transport Commission provided without having the right of co-ordination, planning or anything of the sort. It is not fair. It is for that very reason that it became essential that this Bill be introduced.

Unfortunately, I have had to spend a lot of time replying to remarks made by the two hon. members who tried to oppose this Bill in a negative way. To my mind, this Bill is positive and constructive.

The rapid economic growth in South Africa has resulted in the rapid expansion of urban residential, commercial and industrial areas and this has been accompanied by the rapid increase in traffic in our large cities. A few years ago there was an increase of more than a quarter of a million newly licensed vehicles per annum on our roads. If we bear this trend in mind, one which occurs mainly in the large cities, one can imagine the massive extra volume of traffic that is being pumped onto the roads and into the cities annually. Therefore, the situation had to reach breaking point. In the past, the rapid tempo of township development has not taken into account the increase in traffic. The result is that for a long time now, our large cities have had to contend with growing traffic parking problems. For a long time, then, there has been a considerable need for a clear and co-ordinated urban transport policy. The coordination, planning and regulation of transport and a systematic transport plan for every metropolitan transport area in terms of the provisions of the Bill would also have a favourable effect on the future orderly development of cities and towns. The main objective of the Bill is to effect a major improvement in the field of urban transport. If the Bill is implemented successfully, I can only predict that it will give rise to a fundamentally different pattern of transportation and traffic in our cities and that it will change the pattern of our entire transport system, the lifestyle of our people, and commercial and industrial activities.

It will herald an entirely new dispensation and will gradually eliminate the mistakes and the shortcomings in the present pattern. What is more, if ever anything was ripe for development in South Africa, here is an opportunity for the almost unforeseeable and unpredictable development and expansion of the metropolitan transport system so as to adapt and become adaptable to the steadily increasing future development of the country. Even at this early stage, I want to express my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Transport, his department, the Driessen Commission and all the bodies and people that have made a contribution to the preparation of the legislation, on the exceptional clarity of vision and farsightedness they have displayed.

With a few exceptions, the entire Bill revolves around the establishment of metropolitan transport areas with properly coordinated transportation planning and regulation. In order to implement this effectively, the following is being done: Firstly, the activities of the National Transport Commission are being extended considerably and they are being given controlling powers. Secondly, the administrators of the provinces are making a major contribution towards strengthening the hand of the commission at a provincial level. The hon. the Minister said last night in his Second Reading speech that the administrators were really the axis around which the entire Bill revolved. Thirdly, a core city has been designated to every metropolitan transport area. The hon. member for Orange Grove is not in the House now but I nevertheless want to point out that the core city that is being designated in this regard, is the group that will take the initiative in the entire transport plan. The hon. member for Orange Grove alleges that the National Transport Commission is taking over. But this is not true; they are only co-ordinating. The core city must initiate the whole process, in co-operation with other municipalities around it. Furthermore, a special chairman and members are being designated for a metropolitan transport advisory board, or boards, on which all local authorities which are situated entirely or in part within such metropolitan transport areas, will have a seat. Transportation studies, investigations and planning will be undertaken in accordance with the features of each metropolitan transport area. A consolidated metropolitan transport fund is being established for each transport area. Approved transport plans for metropolitan transport areas are being published and put into effect. The plans are not only being drawn up, they are being put into effect as well. It is true that it will cost money to implement them.

We do not wish to dispute that. The money will be found a little at a time, however, as is provided for in the provisions of this legislation. In reality, an approved transport plan constitutes authorization for a series of steps in which the central, provincial and local authorities are involved. If a difference of opinion arises between the Administrator and the commission over any facet of this matter, then the Minister makes the final decision so that there can be no delay in the planning or execution of such a step. As I see it, the Bill has been drafted in such a way that the practical functioning will be as follows: At the top there is the Minister who represents the central Government. Under him there is the National Transport Commission. Under this there are the Administrators, each having two wings. On the one hand there is the core city and on the other there is the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board. Under both the core city and the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board, there are the local administrations. As far as the implementation of the legislation is concerned, therefore, it works from top to bottom and from bottom to top. I think it has been worked out very well. The initiative lies with the commission to begin with the implementation of the legislation after the Administrators have been consulted. The first step will be to establish metropolitan transportation areas. If any problems arise as to which areas are to be included in the metropolitan transport areas, the commission will consult the Administrators, as stipulated in clauses 2 and 3. The declaration of such an area by way of notice in the Gazette is made by the Minister at the recommendation of the commission after consultation with the Administrator concerned. After the declaration in the Gazette that the area is a metropolitan transport area, the Minister, at the request of the commission and after consultation with the Administrator concerned, may designate a local authority as the core city of a metropolitan transportation area The Administrator concerned must appoint a metropolitan transport advisory board for such an area, a board on which various Government departments, the core city, local authorities and others will have a seat. The transport advisory board may come into being even before a core city has been designated. This is mainly an advisory board for the Administrator, providing the Administrator with additional administrative assistance.

When I studied the legislation, the question occurred to me as to what would be achieved thereby and what the objectives were. If we take a close look at the legislation, we see that the activities of the commission have been extended a great deal with a view to the aims of the legislation, that the overall powers of the commission have been extended to a great extent; the establishment and management of the Urban Transport Fund by the commission; the activities of a metropolitan transport advisory board and the activities of a core city; the institution of a consolidated metropolitan transport fund; the expropriation of land by a local authority with the approval of the Administrator, the imposition of certain levies by a local authority with the approval of the Administrator concerned, and the additional powers of local authorities. These are all examples of the objectives that may be achieved by way of this legislation.

When we study clause 10, we note that land may be purchased, roads constructed, passenger transport services subsidized and even funds appropriated for the development of an underground train system in a large city. This Bill has been planned in such a way, Mr. Speaker, as to afford one a really penetrating insight into what it means for future urban transport planning. The public will certainly have to make a contribution and that aspect we shall discuss at great length, probably in the Committee Stage, with reference to clause 21. The old pattern of urban through-routes and the better regulation of traffic in our large cities by means of a subsidy to local authorities is now being eliminated by way of this Bill. This is now taking place under the supervision of the National Transport Commission, the Administrators and the Minister. In other words, it has been transferred from the level of the local authority to the provincial level and to the Government level. Therefore, since it is such a major and important piece of legislation, it is a special honour for me to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the hon. members owe the hon. member for Maraisburg, who just sat down, a certain debt of gratitude for having cleared up the matter of the newspaper report which was referred to by the hon. member for Boksburg. You see, Sir, the hon. member for Boksburg reacted to the hon. member for Durban Point’s speech where, in trying to motivate his amendment which he had moved, he said that the Bill as it presently stood, did contain certain powers and I think he may have used the term “dictatorial powers”. In order to oppose what the hon. member said, the hon. member for Boksburg jumped up and showed the House a newspaper cutting—in fact I could read it from here—which referred in its headline to “highway dictators”. Then he accused the hon. member for Durban Point of saying what he did say about this Bill containing certain powers, on the strength of that newspaper article, and of following the line which was followed by the newspaper article. Now we hear from the hon. member for Maraisburg that the newspaper article was actually published just about a year ago. We would like to thank him very much for informing the House, because it appears to me that the hon. member for Boksburg does not know, or is not aware, of what has gone on during the past year. During the past year a lot of people objected to the powers of the original Bill. If one analyses them, one will find that there were dictatorial powers in that original Bill. In fact, I doubt whether there is a single Administrator in the Republic who would have accepted the powers that were contained in that Bill at that time. In fact, Sir, the hon. the Minister himself went to great lengths during his Second Reading speech in explaining exactly how this new Bill differed in order to accommodate the wishes of the Administrators. In fact, I have listed the number of clauses and subsections which have now been altered for exactly this purpose. There is something like eight of them. For argument’s sake, if you look at clause 3(1), you will see that in establishing a metropolitan transport area, the Minister may do so on the recommendation of the commission after consulting with the Administrator. We agree with this. This is something which all the Administrators were concerned about. This is now being written into this Bill, which we are very pleased about. In clause 5, when you come to the functions of the commission, you will see there that the commission, after consulting with the Administrator, has certain functions which are, inter alia, to regulate and control traffic in the urban area, to formulate the urban transport policy, and to determine the functions of the authority. All these things the commission can do after consultation with the Administrator. So on that score we have no arguments at all. However, it is when we come to clause 6 that the hon. member for Durban Point and all of us on these benches object.

Clause 6(1) provides that—

I shall come to that subsection in a moment—

Then, in terms of subparagraph (b), the commission may—

What does subsection (7) provide? It provides that—

That is the objection we on this side of the House have. Up to that point the Bill meets with the total approval of this side of the House as far as consultation is concerned. However, subsection (7) assumes that, in a dispute between the commission and the Administrator, the Administrator is wrong.

How can you say that?

Well, the subsection states that, if such a dispute should arise, “the commission shall refer such aspect to the Minister, whose decision shall be final”. All we are asking for in our amendment is that the Minister shall take his final decision in consultation with the Administrator concerned. That is what the hon. member for Durban Point said in his speech earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is one member on this side of the House who objects to what this Bill is trying to achieve in general or who objects to the spirit of the Bill, to which the hon. member for Maraisburg referred earlier on. I think we must accept that, if this Bill is to be a success, it must have the co-operation of all the people who are concerned in it. That includes everyone from the Minister right down to the local authorities. I believe there has to be a tremendous amount of co-ordination, cooperation and consultation. I believe we cannot have a situation arising, such as has happened in the past, where there has been total confusion in respect of traffic control and road development in an urban area. How often have we not seen national roads being built just to the boundaries of a major city so that six-lane highways were dumping streams of traffic into inadequately designed and built local roads within the urban areas themselves? How often have we not seen millions of rand being spent by the National Transport Commission on building huge inter-changes and ring-roads, such as are now being built around Durban, where they are actually responsible for the road work, while little connecting links of perhaps one kilometre in length remain? Such a connecting link exists in my constituency between the southern freeway in Durban and the South Coast freeway at Louis Botha Airport. For some three or four years the traffic travelling between the South Coast and Durban has had to go along detours of little side roads in order to get to and from Durban. Yet at the same time there is a beautiful new link-road nearing completion which stretches some eight or nine kilometres from the 45th cutting almost to the airport. Now, at the final stage of this ring-road development, the connecting link between the southern freeway and the South Coast freeway is being constructed. I believe that for the last three years we could have been benefiting from the money that has been spent on the ring-roads, had they started at the right place, viz. the vital link at the Louis Botha Airport.

Then there is the question of rail transport within urban areas. In Durban the S.A. Railways together with the Durban city council have a local co-ordinating committee which, I am led to believe, works exceedingly well. The members of that committee understand each other’s problems. After all, they are all located in Durban. However, plans which are drawn up in Durban and sent to Johannesburg for approval are often altered and sent back to Durban with vast differences from what the local people wanted. These reviews and alterations result in tremendous delays. We find it is a case of lack of co-ordination between the Durban office and the Johannesburg office of the S.A. Railways. I have been led to believe that this does exist and therefore we welcome this Bill, because once these metropolitan transport authorities are established, the co-ordination will be there and these problems of the past will, I hope, be over once and for all.

We have to accept the fact that there is a tremendous need for research in urban transportation and in handling urban transport problems. In the past the general thought of the people concerned was that huge freeways had to be built in order to cope with urban traffic. Now there is a rethink on this matter and the feeling is that this really does not solve the problem. The feeling is that one must look at this in depth and find other solutions to it. Therefore in certain clauses of this Bill there are now provisions which will enable the establishing of chairs of transport or traffic engineering at certain of our universities. Provision is also made that research can be conducted into these problems. I believe that this is going to fill a very great need indeed. As I said earlier on, there is still very much to be learned as far as coping with the traffic problems in a large metropolitan area is concerned.

While we agree with these aspects of the Bill, we also feel and believe that its success depends on an extremely high degree of consultation between the peoples concerned. When it gets down to the nitty-gritty of administering this Bill it is going to depend on the personalities concerned, who hold the reins of power in these various boards. These are most important considerations because the effect of this Bill, through the metropolitan transport boards, through the plans which they are going to draw up, is going to have tremendous effects on the businesses of every metropolitan area. We can see from clause 21 that the rates of certain business buildings in the centres of the big cities can be increased in order to finance some of this work. The people who are living in the large cities and who are travelling to and from them day by day are going to find that the patterns of their daily lives are going to be altered as a result of the effects of this Bill. Most of all, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers on this side, the application of this Bill is going to result—in fact it has to have finances in order to implement the commission’s findings—in increased taxes or levies on the part of the people who are living within the metropolitan areas. All of these things which I have mentioned are very sensitive areas because they affect human relationships. It is in this context that the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point must be viewed. We in this House, especially after the recent budget debate, are very much aware of the financial position of South Africa and we know that the Government is tightening up in all directions. We know, for example, that the Railways Administration has cut some R200 million off its capital budget for the current year. Money is very short in South Africa at the present time and this is a reality which we must face. In this connection I have spoken to people who, when this Bill is promulgated, are going to be in the position where they probably will have a say in administering it. These are people concerned with the administration of large city councils. They tell me that this Bill is being viewed in two lights. On the one hand there is the view of the person who is concerned with the financial aspects of a large city’s budget. I have been told that these people will subscribe to this Bill because they look upon it as a way of obtaining financial assistance in meeting some of their transportation problems. That is to say, they are hoping that, in terms of the various clauses in this Bill, the cities will obtain certain subsidies, subsidies which will assist in financing public transportation services which are owned by the cities and which at the present time are operating in some instances at a great loss, and subsidies also to subsidize the construction of major freeways throughout the cities. That is one point of view, the point of view that this Bill will provide the funds to solve the problem.

There is another point of view. That is the point of view of the professional transportation engineers within the cities. They believe, or are led to believe, that by accepting this Bill the implications of such an acceptance could lead to the cities becoming committed to a large volume of expenditure in order to qualify for the subsidies to which I have referred. They say that because of this there would be a danger of unwise spending, something that could result in increased taxes and in increased levies. I am referring to the levies mentioned in clause 21 of the Bill. The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to this. The feeling is that these levies at this stage could result in the essential business districts suffering. As someone said, it would result in the death of the golden goose.

Their view is that emphasis should be placed in another direction. That is a direction which does not necessarily require the expenditure of large sums of money. A measure referred to in this respect is that of staggered working hours. Staggered working hours—mention is made of that in the Bill—will result in a better utilization of public transport. One also thinks of one-way streets and busways. Then there is fringe parking, something which may also result in a better use being made of public transport. It is because of these points of view that I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to refer particularly to the first leg of the amendment. There the hon. member states that levies will not be imposed until all possible positive steps to ensure the availability and convenience of adequate public transport facilities have been taken.

In conclusion I would like to reiterate that this Bill has some extremely positive features to it. I believe it merits the support of us all in respect of the positive points. However, in regard to the points which have been made by hon. members on this side of the House in respect of this final—let us repeat the word—dictatorial power which the commission has through the Minister over those people who have to administer and do the work on the ground, and who are very much aware of the local problems and of the feelings of the people and also because of the power which this Bill creates to raise levies and to tax our people, I am very much in agreement with the contention that we should oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened attentively to the speeches made by hon. members, particularly those made by hon. members of the UP. As far as I am concerned, the hon. Opposition is completely wide of the mark.

Are you under the Whip, Barney?

I am under the Whip, that is perfectly correct. I am still using the brain of S. P. Barnard, however. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make any reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. After all, he said a time ago that he could not follow me at all. According to him, I speak in such riddles that he cannot follow me at all. All I can say to him is: “Do not worry; Einstein had the same problem too.”

†People could not follow what he was saying. They said he was talking in x’s and y’s. However, there was nothing wrong with Einstein.

What I dislike, however, is the manner in which the hon. member for Orange Grove attacked several hon. members on this side of the House during the last few months. He makes me think of the high-pitched voice of a fish-monger selling cockles and mussels in the back streets of London. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Must I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman?

†I withdraw the phrase “in the back streets of London”. [Interjections.]

It seems to me that you have been doing some travelling lately! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with one of the major problems in the world. If this legislation is not passed, and if a start is not made with solving the problem, South Africa will become economically paralysed, particularly in her urban areas. The transport department is performing its task very well these days. Every day 206 000 people are transported from Soweto to the city centre. If one considers that 117 000 passengers are transported by them within the space of 2½ hours, one has to take one’s hat off. Considering the costs involved in this, however, I want to know what causes them. Why have we come to a point where we have to spend R33 million on a service that does not serve its purpose? One could go back to 1960 before a Department of Planning existed. I want the hon. member for Yeoville to keep quiet today. We served on the Johannesburg City Council together and we all had a share in it. I voted against it, whilst others voted in favour of it.

I am just reminding you that you are also part of Johannesburg.

I am, and that is why I am dealing with this matter. The big problem with Johannesburg is …

You are one of the problems.

Hon. members will note that everything I am going to deal with will be relevant to Johannesburg. To a place like Soweto, the problem with Johannesburg is that the market has been moved from the Langlaagte area to City Deep. Every day, 723 000 people have to go and buy food 40 km away from their homes. That is Johannesburg. Those hon. members who know Johannesburg will know that the eastern Bantu township used to be situated a short distance from the airport. The eastern Bantu township and all open stretches of land in between, have been declared an industrial area. In those days we did not have a Department of Planning but National City councillors complained and said that transport problems could be avoided only if the passengers were transported over a minimal distance. A man should not be transported over a long distance to his place of work nor should he spend his money a long way from his residential area. In those days we said we should plan the commercial and industrial areas around Soweto and between Soweto and Johannesburg. However, these people wanted to know at the time why we were discussing those things. They said: “We will go it alone.” They decided to establish the industrial area in an area extending from Primrose to Doornfontein and those places, almost as far as Germiston. In other words, this means that even if the hon. the Minister of Transport were to put into effect every thing the Act called for, there would always be costs that could not be recovered. There will always be costs involved in the problems we are saddled with, and these will make transport more expensive every year. It does no good to point a finger today and say that Johannesburg was wrong. It will not help us today to say that it was wrong to move the market to City Deep. We know it was wrong. A child can see it was wrong.

The market? You yourself are wrong.

Now hon. members can see what I mean. Is it right to send 723 000 people, plus 31 000 Indians, plus 47 000 Coloureds as well as the people of Randburg to a market in City Deep?

Ask the Railways; they know all about that.

The hon. member must not drag the Railways into this now.

†Just now the hon. members will tell me to go and see Uncle Ben.

*As soon as they get into difficulties, they want me to go and speak to Uncle Ben. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not come along with a story like that now.

†The hon. members on that side were the supreme power; they had the power on their own. Nobody else could establish a market in the municipal area, but Johannesburg.

*Where did they go and build the market? They built it 30 km from the non-White areas. The public has to pay for this. Planning is very important in South Africa. The investigation that is under way today, must be taken further. Planning must not become a post office. The people from Planning and Transport must put their heads together. If necessary, more money must be spent on an investigation to determine whether or not commercial and industrial areas should be established between Soweto and Johannesburg.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

That hon. member reminds me of an Egyptian goose that has stepped on its own eggs. He must sit down. I am dealing with an important matter. [Interjections.] There are always people who want to distract one’s attention when one is dealing with a matter of real importance. I am not pointing a finger at anyone today. It does no good to kick a coffin. The authority of Johannesburg has made its mistakes. That time has passed. We must find a solution to those matters now.

A better transport system alone will not solve those problems. We have to revise our planning. We have to plan in what way a person can be taken to and from his place of employment. Distances between the places of employment and the homes of Whites and non-Whites must be reduced. A city like Johannesburg may be taken as an example. It is situated approximately 20 to 30 km from Soweto. The road from Soweto and the southern areas to Johannesburg is used by White and non-White up to approximately 130%, which results in a delay of approximately half an hour per day in the case of commercial vehicles. On the return journey from 7 o’clock to 9 o’clock, only 40% of the road’s capacity is used in the opposite direction. In other words, 60% of the capacity of the road is unused. If one were to approve the requests for the location of industrial areas around Soweto instead, one would reduce the problems. Then it would not be necessary to transport a person a further 30 or 40 km if one wanted to take him to Primrose and other places. In reality, transport must not be reduced. I am not asking for poorer transport, but for shorter distances. I am asking that planning be done in such a way that people need not be transported 30 to 50 km further than is necessary. We can take these matters into consideration today and look at a place such as the vegetable market, for example. It cost R14 million to build the market, but the adjustment of the road network from Soweto to Johannesburg and the roads leading into the centre of Johannesburg from the east and the south-west, will cost R1 000 million in the next ten years and no improvement will be effected by the expenditure. There will be improvements, however, if we apply this Bill. It is not pleasant for me to accept a Bill like this. It is not pleasant for anyone to accept an Act when one has a voter who will be affected by it. If one has to operate on someone, however, one has no option. This legislation must be put into effect. The investigation must be extended. More experts must be involved to investigate the problem. The system must be able to attract people to come and render their services and supply further information.

There is one thing we must not forget, however: We cannot make transport pay, no matter what we do. I have studied transport systems from Tokyo to Thailand; I have studied their legislation in relation to the transport problem and I have come across a large variety of measures. There are provisions, for example, to the effect that in certain cases one has to pull off the road at 4 o’clock in the afternoon and wait in one’s car at the side of the road. Whatever vehicle one is driving, whether it be a car or a truck, one has to wait at the side of the road until a certain time. Our people are not used to things like these and they will certainly not like them. If we can tell the people that we are attempting to solve the general problem, then perhaps we can obtain their co-operation. The subeconomic worker does not need to live 15 to 30 miles outside the city in South Hills or another 30 miles away from the city. Those people could go and live in the open areas like Heriotdale and others which are situated between the airport and Park Station. If we could build on both sides of the railway line and maintain a high population density there, then the value of units of land will be no different from those in other areas. Therefore, the people could make use of train services and they really would not need a motor-car. They could then go from their homes to Johannesburg and from there to the commercial areas and the areas surrounding these. It will not be necessary for us to bring the people in from other areas. The large and useless mine dumps could be used as parks and the utilization of land could be increased by 100% in those areas. This is an important aspect we must look at.

In my opinion, the legislation is initiating a larger investigation. We can only hope that everyone in South Africa will give us their co-operation in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte broached the planning problems of Johannesburg and their effect on traffic. Unfortunately I know too little about that city to debate those issues with the hon. member, and I therefore hope he will forgive me if I do not react to his arguments. Before the House we have a Bill and two amendments, one by the hon. member for Durban Point and the other by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

I want to dwell for a moment on the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. If one reads the amendment moved by the hon. member, one finds oneself sympathetically disposed towards the ideas he expressed in that amendment. Firstly he requested that the proposed levies on motorists should not be imposed until proper and efficient planning for urban transport has been done and the facilities have been provided. Secondly the hon. member is not satisfied about the hon. the Minister’s right to settle disputes between the Administrator and the National Transport Commission and he feels that in terms of the provisions of the Bill, as it reads at present, things could perhaps go wrong.

As far as the levy is concerned, I find myself in sympathy with the hon. member because no one, if he can possibly help it, wants to place an additional burden on the motorist who already has to pay a tremendous amount of money. However, seen against the practical background of the traffic situation we have to deal with in this connection, I regret that I cannot support the hon. member’s argument. I myself am a motorist and I would not like to argue with the motorist, but I have never yet met a motorist who would acknowledge that he is a contributory factor to what is today known as urban congestion. The motorist usually says that if urban transport is made a sufficiently attractive proposition, he would voluntarily make use of urban public transport instead of his motorcar. Secondly the motorist says that he is not responsible for the congestion in the cities and therefore does not want to pay.

I think the motorist is guilty of two errors. Firstly he wants the municipality or the State to pay. I am not aware of an instance in which a municipality or the State has ever paid. It is, in any event, the consumer, the taxpayer, the motorist or whomever who must pay, but never the State or municipalities. Neither do I agree that public transport can be made such an attractive proposition that the motorist would choose in favour of public transport because I have never encountered a form of land transport that could dethrone the motor-car as far as convenience is concerned. The motor-car, in present-day transportation, is the most convenient means of transport for us all, and no matter how convenient and attractive we make our public transport, I can hardly see us succeeding in reducing the number of motor-cars in the city to such an extent as to stop or reduce urban congestion. The only conclusion one can reach is that there must be some or other means of influencing the motorist himself by making conditions more difficult for him. I do not like it, and my fellow motorists will not like it either, but unless we have some means of making things somewhat more difficult for him, he will not stop coming into the city by car, no matter how good the bus service or how fast the trains may be.

As far as the Minister’s right to settle disputes between the commission and the Administrators is concerned, let me state the case in the following terms: If the National Transport Commission has to take a point to the Minister for decision, I cannot envisage the Minister only listening to the commission’s case. Surely that would not be a proper hearing. The Minister would also have to ask the Administrator what his case is. Both cases would therefore have to come before the Minister. Let me give hon. members the assurance that if I could furnish proof that the Minister had only listened to the commission’s case, this would be one of the best possible points on which I could attack the Government, specifically because the Minister would not have been carrying out his function properly. It therefore seems to me as if that objection also falls away.

Let me immediately add that I also have problems, from a different point of view, concerning the levy. I do not think the figures were properly quoted by the hon. member for Durban Point. As I see the matter, the hon. the Minister foresees that an amount of nearly R52 million per year will have to be budgeted for the implementation of the legislation. No less than R44 million will have to come from the Exchequer, from sources the State has yet to find, sources which the hon. the Minister has not yet decided upon. But the motorist is surely excluded as a possible source. A mere R8 million would be collected by way of levies on the motorist, and that R8 million must be compared, not with the R74 million to which the commission’s report refers, but with the R18 million in that report, because the levies merely relate to parking, parking in loading zones next to buildings, tax on buildings, etc. The figure of R74 million, which appears in the commission’s report, is quite another figure. It was rejected by the Government in the White Paper and therefore no longer exists. In the White Paper the Government stated—I hope I am correct, because if I am not correct then I have problems—that the major amount from the motorist’s pocket had been done away with. I am referring here to extra licence fees for the ordinary motorists throughout South Africa, R9 for a motor-car and I think about R20 for a lorry. In addition there were to be additional licence fees for the urban motorist and an additional levy, by way of licence fees levied on motorists who make use of the core city. However, those aspects have been done away with. What remains is the amount of R8 million that comes out of the motorist’s pocket. It is a selective levy, and in that regard the PRP is correct. However, I believe that I, who live in a city and enjoy the benefits of urban life, and the tens of thousands like me, would be prepared to pay an extra levy to improve the quality of our urban life, in the knowledge that the major portion of the amount comes from the pockets of the South African public and not only from those who live in the cities. As far as I am concerned, therefore, the point that this is a selective tax also falls away.

The PRP also made the point that power is being concentrated in the hands of the central Government and that the powers of the local authorities would be reduced. That is so. The hon. member would have point if his view were accepted, but I do not know of local authorities who have any objections. In fact, they are only too grateful for the fact that that tremendous problem is being taken out of their hands. They have already known about this for years. The question of urban transport and the concomitant problems are nothing new in South Africa, but for numerous reasons the local authorities could do nothing about the matter. Now, however, there is a set-up in which one must have expert planning to launch one’s project. In that process of planning one needs people with the utmost degree of expertise. My view is that it would pay us more handsomely to centralize those skilled people so that they can do the planning for the various cities and then to decentralize the implementation of the cleverly worked out planning. That is how I view the matter. That is why I believe that a set-up which is relegated to the National Transport Commission—and here I include the planning—is a better proposition than having it relegated to local authorities because I believe it would be a duplication and triplication of the number of people who must have the expertise to plan the project at the various local authority levels. Although I am sympathetically disposed to the gist of the amendments I cannot, however, from a practical point of view, support them.

I now want to come back to the Bill itself. I once had the privilege, at one of many symposiums on urban transport, to listen to a speech by a foreigner who had travelled the world specifically with his eye on urban transport and its concomitant problems. He began by telling the people—

Bearing in mind the words of that foreigner, I want to say that it is with amazement that I read the report of the Driessen Commission and saw with what expertise and depth of insight those people put forward a matter which, I believe, we must study with the utmost care. The Bill before the House today stems from that report and, what is more, not only from the report, but also from the White Paper which is before the House. I want to say immediately that we are taking a revolutionary step. People do not realize it, but for the first time in the history of South Africa the State, the central Government, is saying that it regards urban problems as being so serious that it is prepared to intervene at central Government level in an endeavour to do something. This is the first time in our history that this has happened, and in my humble opinion this should be welcomed because the cities of South Africa are not the property of the local authorities alone. The cities of South Africa are a national asset and the pulse-beat of 80% of our entire economic development. If our cities are damaged or destroyed, it is not only the local authorities and the people in that particular vicinity who suffer losses. The whole of South Africa does. I therefore believe that it is the duty and the responsibility of the State of South Africa to take a look at this matter.

On the other hand, we know only too well that urban congestion has today placed a gigantic national burden on us, a burden which, as far as fuel, pollution, frustration, accidents and numerous other aspects are concerned, can be debited against the urban congestion with which we are faced. I have not seen any figures in this connection, and I do not know whether it can be calculated, but I submit that if one quantifies the burden that urban congestion places upon South Africa, one would find that it amounts to millions of rands. It must be a tremendous sum of money. Now these matters are being tackled for the first time. In this connection I regret the economic situation we find ourselves in. What I would have liked to have seen was that we had enough money to really tackle the problem. I would have liked to have seen the matter tackled years ago, but perhaps one must be satisfied and be greatful for half a loaf because it is better than no bread at all.

The Bill is the framework of the Government’s policy for urban transport. That policy is set out very clearly in the White Paper. It is a policy which, on the one hand, aims at mobility and, on the other hand, convenience to users, reasonable costs and, of course, minimal side-effects. Those aims can be achieved, but we in the House must realize that it is not a matter that can simply be finalized tomorrow or the day after. It will take time. It will also require a probing study and expert planning.

Planning is the heart or the gist of the matter. There will have to be proper, expert planning before we can adequately take stock of the whole matter. Numerous bodies will have to be involved in that planning.

I have in mind local authorities, regional authorities, the provincial administrations, the State itself and experts in the field. The motorist will also have to be involved. It is not good enough to just tell him: “I want to keep your motor-car out; do not come into the city.” We shall also have to see to it that the necessary means of transport are available. This cannot be done overnight either. It costs money.

As far as that is concerned, I just want to refer in passing to the hon. member for Durban Point’s statement that the levies could be imposed at a later stage. To provide sufficient means of transport costs money. One of the methods that can be employed to get money, even if it is, relatively speaking, only enough for a few tyres, is specifically the imposition of a levy on the motorist. In that connection one thinks of a municipality like that of Johannesburg which takes care of its own transport. If a levy is not imposed on the motorist, where must the money come from to provide for sufficient means of transport for the people of Johannesburg? One cannot simply press a button to get the money.

Study, planning and the provision of transport will cost a great deal of money, but what will be needed most will be the adaptation of the public and particularly the adaptation of the city dweller. It is very easy for us to talk about the control of transport, but we shall have to change our whole pattern of life. When one comes to the city in the mornings along the national roads, one sees that a large percentage of the motor-cars have only one occupant. This fact has frequently been stated here. Those people will have to change their life-style. I do not know how difficult or how easy that will be, but they will have to change. If the State wants to succeed in its future efforts, it will have to have money, the co-operation of local bodies, but above all the co-operation of the public of South Africa. If it does not have that, this plan will not succeed. To achieve that it must, as has already been stated, ensure that sufficient public transport is made available.

On the other hand, it must also ensure that the motorist is not unnecessarily burdened. The motorist will not mind paying, but he already bears a tremendously heavy burden. Unnecessary taxation he will simply not be able to face up to. I think the Government was wise to relinguish the system of additional licence fees.

However, if one really wants to move the public of South Africa along with one, one will have to give national status, in the true sense of the word, to the cleaning up of cities and to urban control. In order to achieve this, we shall have to make use of all media: the newspapers, radio, television—all possible media. We shall also have to make use of the goodwill of everyone in South Africa in order to have this matter accepted by the public of South Africa. The machine is there. I have great faith in it: One can do a small adjustment here and a small readjustment there. However, the machine can only function successfully if it has the goodwill of the public of South Africa—that is the fuel. If that fuel is lacking, I do not think we will get much further in this matter, and that would be a tragedy for South Africa and its future.

Mr. Speaker, it is my special privilege to be able to follow up on what the hon. member for Maitland said. I think he made a responsible contribution and gave evidence of his insight into a very complex problem. In fact, I would not have been able to defend the Bill on better grounds than the hon. member for Maitland has done. The Bill has to do with the urban transport problem. Superficially judged, the Bill can be interpreted as relating only to the problem of transport and traffic in metropolitan areas. The statement I now want to make is that the measure before the House is one of the most important economic measures yet debated in this hon. House this session. The transport problem is in essence a problem directly affecting the economic vitality of the country. The present figure reflecting motor-car ownership, a figure of about 1,9 million, has obliged the Government to institute a commission of inquiry into the urban transport problem. There is every indication, and we can expect, that the problem will increase within the next two decades, particularly when seen in the light of the fact that the figure for motor-car ownership will then be almost 10 million. I also want to state that the problem of transport as such is not a problem unique to the Republic. Most of the industrialized countries in the Western World are struggling to unravel the transport problem. We are in the privileged position of being able to learn from the experience of other countries in this respect. Authorities in the field of urban transport are agreed that efforts to solve the transport problem have not met with much success till recently, specifically because there has been a basically incorrect approach to the problem.

To prevent our falling into the same trap, I briefly want to look at the approach in countries overseas, the way they set about trying to solve the urban traffic problem. Their problem was that they thought that by spending more money on wider freeways, by building costly fly-overs and providing more parking areas and parking facilities in the metropolitan areas, the problem would be solved. That was a mistaken and futile approach that produced no substantial results, because what are the consequences of such an approach? The result is that incalculable damage is done to the urban environment. Parks give way to parking areas, sidestreets give way to freeways and trees give way to parking metres. The construction of wider freeways and fly-overs are, at best, merely a temporary solution to the problem. The provision of more parking facilities within metropolitan complexes inevitably draw more traffic to the city centre. This is a trend which, according to the Driessen Report, must specifically be discouraged. The approach involving more freeways and larger parking areas has elicited tremendous public reaction in America. As an example of that public reaction, I want to quote from a letter which appeared in the New York Times of 2 May 1974. The correspondent states the following—

In the same vein another transport economist, E. L. Tennyson, of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, declares—

Transport economists and authoritative bodies have come to the conclusion that by building more roads and erecting more fly-overs the symptoms of the problem are treated and not the causes. Such an approach to the transport problem is a short-term solution, a solution which creates more long-term problems than it initially tried to solve.

If this approach is not the solution to the traffic problem, the question that arises is where that solution must be sought. I venture to say that the solution to the transport problem is a practical solution. It must be sought in the optimal utilization of the existing road network. In addition, preference must be given to public transport rather than to private transport. The contrast between these two approaches is quite clear. Whilst the first approach requires the spending of more money on greater fly-overs, the second approach is a practical one. It is an approach aimed at the better utilization of the existing facilities. It places a restriction on the free movement of private motor vehicles, something which is inevitably very necessary. From the nature of the case it also includes the co-ordination and synchronization of the various public transport systems.

These two approaches I have tried to sketch, have revealed one central truth, i.e. that the more one spends on private transport, the more uneconomical and inconvenient this form of transport becomes. On the other hand, the more use one makes of public transport, the more economic and convenient this form of transport becomes.

By way of illustration, I want to refer to an extract from Traffic Engineering of December 1975. Here we find a very interesting summary of the difference that exists between the use of public transport and the use of private transport. In this extract we find an explanation of the costs involved in the respective modes of transport. The costs are expressed in kilometre-unit terms, and I should like to quote a few examples. To travel 16 km by motor-car, with one occupant, costs R3,22. This, of course, includes all direct and indirect costs. If public transport is used, however, the position is as follows: Suburban train services with a “walk to the station” as they put it, costs R2,27. “Bus, park and ride” costs R1,98; “Busway, bus access” costs R1,66 and the use of a bus costs R1,53. From this we can deduce, therefore, that it has been proved professionally that if all costs are calculated, for a unit distance of 16 km it costs an individual R1,70 less to make use of public transport.

Underlying the whole urban transport problem is the aspect of special structuring, in the sense that there is an imbalance between the modes of transport and the persons being conveyed. It has been scientifically calculated that an individual needs 50 sq. metres in which to carry out his daily life functions. A motor-car, however, needs 500 sq. metres to move around in the urban complex. Basically it is this imbalance in special structuring that gives rise to the transport problem. Therefore it is vital, in every transport policy, to give priority to the promotion of public transport. In every transport policy, whether at the national or metropolitan level, absolute preference must be given to the promotion of public transport.

It is undoubtedly true that the Bill before the House has far-reaching implications. The Bill will fundamentally influence the traffic pattern, and also perhaps indirectly the economy of the country. It is true that the Bill has financial implications, but I am convinced that the measures in the Bill will not be implemented before they have been studied thoroughly. In the first place I see the Bill as creating an administrative framework to deal with the urban transport problem. The introduction of metropolitan transport areas, in terms of clause 2, the designation of core cities and the appointment of metropolitan transport advisory boards attest to this fact. That is the administrative structure. Apart from this administrative structure, however, the Bill also provides, in terms of clauses 5 and 7, that transport studies and investigations can be carried out by the Administrator in collaboration with the National Institute for Road Research. Supposing we accept that the underlying philosophy—to use a modern word in politics—of the Bill, the White Paper and the Driessen Report is that public transport should be promoted. What does this mean in practice? I am convinced of the fact that elementary practical measures can now be adopted to alleviate the urban transport problem, inter alia measures such as traffic priorities for buses. Here attention can be given, among other things, to the possibility of demarcating streets specifically for buses and using traffic lights to give preference to bus traffic. One can also think of measures allowing buses, which leave bus terminals in metropolitan areas, preferential entry into the general stream of traffic. There is also the revolutionary idea, with the use of double traffic lanes, of designating one of the lanes used by oncoming traffic, during peak periods, for bus traffic. All these measures can be introduced with a minimum of planning—as envisaged in the Bill—and at minimal cost. The cost involved can be off-set against the costs of other projects. I want to point to an example that we are all familiar with, i.e. the well-known harbour freeway in Cape Town. The cost of constructing half a kilometre of that road is R2,3 million. The cost of construction of another portion of the freeway is a little more ambitious, i.e. R6,3 million for the construction of 800 metres. It can therefore be seen that the costs involved in these adjustments would be minimal in comparison with the costs of large projects such as these which, in my opinion, do not solve the traffic problem.

Taken at its face value, this Bill deals with the traffic problem. That in itself is important. As far as I am concerned, however, the value of the Bill lies on a completely different level. As far as I am concerned the value of the Bill lies in the latent and hidden contribution it will make to two of the most urgent problems South Africa is faced with today: The fight against inflation and the improvement of South Africa’s balance of payments. My argument is that if the existing road network can be better utilized, and if mass transport could take the place of single car trips, we as a community would collectively be making a disciplined contribution to the combating of the inflation problem. There is one generally acknowledged weapon for the combating of the inflation problem, and that is discipline and self-discipline. If fuel can be saved, by making more use of public transport, it would undoubtedly have a favourable influence on the Republic’s balance of payments position. Apart from the traffic problem, at which this is aimed, this Bill—as I said at the beginning of my speech, is also one of the most important economic measures that has yet been debated in this House this session. I therefore think it is entitled to the support of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellville made a very interesting speech. He raised a number of valid points and he made a contribution which I believe will be read with great interest by people who have a particular interest in the matter under discussion. We are sorry that we are not in a position to support the Bill as it stands and that it has been necessary for us to introduce an amendment. Had the provisions of the Bill been part of a comprehensive, overall environmental plan, I personally would have found them attractive, particularly from a technical point of view. In the form in which they are presented, there are, however, certain aspects which tend to frighten me. It frightens me to think of the lessons that have been learnt in, for instance, the USA. They have learnt that all the planning which preceded the year 1950 and which was dictated by the automobile and freeways, has now proved to have been counter-productive in terms of the optimum utilization of the environment, the protection of the environment and the provision of services for the communities concerned. I think it is unfortunate and wrong that a transport plan should be presented in isolation of an overall environmental plan. I think that a transport plan should be an integral part of, closely related to and complementary to an overall environmental plan. Had that been the case, there would have been no difficulty, as far as I am concerned, in accepting the overall technical provisions of this transport plan. The problems we have to deal with in regard to the optimum utilization of our resources, the provision of services and the provision of an environment in which the people and the population of the future can develop in a normal and effective way, require a comprehensive and overall environmental plan. It requires a plan which in particular, when it plans for transport, favour mass passenger transit particularly from the point of view of the conservation of our dwindling resources. Such a plan must provide for the relaxation and the recreation of people. It must be a plan which will strike an effective ecological balance between the man-made and the natural environment in which we live.

The most important aspect is that it must conserve those aspects of our environment which are vital for the future of mankind, and protect them from the inroads made by development. One of the characteristics of transport and road building is that they, by providing access to areas which should be conserved, bring an intolerable pressure to bear on authorities to release those areas for further development. So it is seen that transport plans, where they operate in isolation of environmental planning, are a danger to the environment rather than an aid in the preservation of that environment. Since in this particular case we have a transport plan which, in fact, seems to enjoy a superior status to environmental planning, it is frightening in that it can result in irreparable damage being done to the environment as a result of the fact that transport planning will dictate development on its terms and not in terms of the requirements of the environment.

The considerations are the following: What our country needs is a plan which will carefully consider the land use requirements of its urban areas. This should be the primary consideration and should form the foundation of our environmental plan. Having considered the land use requirements, one should take into consideration one’s economic resources, one’s population situation, the established population structure and other development criteria. Having established one’s land use plan, one then provides transport facilities, i.e. roads and transport services, as a service to the developments created in terms of the land use plan and not the other way around. It is in this respect that I think this transport plan fails because here we are making the mistake which was made in such a disastrous way by the USA when all their plans become subject to the dictates of their transport plan, their roads and King Motor-car.

It is too late now to withdraw this Bill, and obviously the hon. the Minister is not going to do so. It is also too late to refer this Bill to the Department of Planning and the Environment and to say to them that we believe that the provisions of this Bill should become an integral part of the overall environmental planning of South Africa and that it should become complementary to that planning but that it should not dictate that planning.

I would like to quote one sentence in this regard. The Transvaal Provincial Institute of Architects was asked to comment on the PWV road grid which was planned some time ago. It is very interesting, and the hon. the Minister and the Department of Planning and the Environment should look at it if they have not already done so. The PWV road grid is one of the most grotesque plans yet presented. It was a vast network of huge expressways and freeways which would have criss-crossed the PWV area and which would have resulted in some of the more unfortunate consequences which always result from plans of that nature. In their comment they said the following—

That is the crux of the matter. Only after a policy, a plan and a structure of human settlement and open spaces has been formulated, should roads and freeways be designed. In other words, the question of roads and freeways should come under consideration only after the overall environmental concept of land use which provides for, among other things, the relaxation, the recreation and the good life of people together with the accommodation of those people has been settled.

This Bill unfortunately seems to accept that the increase in the use of the motor-car is inevitable. In other words it accepts that the motor-car is here to stay and that it will dictate the development and the way of life of the people of our country. It accepts that the use of the motor-car is going to increase, and that therefore we must have more and more and bigger and bigger roads. It accepts that the motor-car is going to be the main force in the development of our country. That is not so. One of the most unfortunate things one notices is that the planning does not look far enough ahead and does not take cognizance of the facts that are revealed when the future resources of the world are accurately and honestly investigated and studied. The evidence which one finds when one does this is that the resources which are essential for the extension of the use of the motor-car, namely metals, road building materials and fuel, are all dwindling. For instance, Mr. Speaker, there is the fact that by 1980, the demand for fuel will be larger than the supply. From that point onwards, the situation will become progressively worse and in accordance with the exponential function. This means that the rate of demand will increase more and more and it will be found that at the same time the rate at which new petroleum sources will be found will decrease. The cost of producing petrol from those sources will increase.

The Rand Afrikaans University recently did some research on this problem and they predicted that at the end of the next five years, a litre of petrol will cost R1. The old gallon, in other words, will cost in the vicinity of R5. The cost of a motor-car, which is at present in the region of R4 000 to R5 000, could increase in the next five years to about R15 000 to R20 000. The point that I am trying to make is this: We must not think in terms of the permanence of the motor-car, nor must we think that the increase in motor traffic is inevitable. We must accept that one of the results of dwindling resources will be a decrease in the number of motorcars. In ten years’ time the family that today owns two motor-cars, will probably find great difficulty in maintaining one motor-car, and the majority of families who now own one motor-car, will in all probability not own any motor-cars. If that is accepted, one must accept that the need for vast motorways will be reduced, and one must also accept that an entirely different philosophy should apply to the planning of transport for the future. It does give the Minister an opportunity to place far more emphasis on the provision of mass passenger transit and to under-emphasize the provision of roads for motor-cars in the future.

I would like to mention something else which has not been mentioned in this House before, but which is something we shall have to deal with. If one looks at all the plans that have been produced by large cities, provinces and other transport authorities one will notice that they all emphasize the provision of freeways and bigger and faster roads. Very few of these plans are making adequate provision for mass passenger transit in the future. When they do make provision for mass passenger transit, they do so on a perfunctory basis in case it should happen that mass passenger transit becomes a factor in the future. Their primary consideration is not the provision of mass passenger transit, but to provide for the motor-car. They say that if the occasion arises, they will have some land set aside and provision made for mass passenger transport. That kind of thinking is incorrect and fallacious. It is the duty of the Minister to insist that provision for mass passenger transport should be the primary consideration and that the making of provision for the motor-car should be the secondary consideration. Were he to do that, he would anticipate events over the next 20, 30 or 40 years. In fact, he will not only be anticipating events, but he will be giving guidance and he will be influencing those events.

Another thing that we in South Africa do not seem to understand, is that we must also provide for other forms of transport. There any many other forms of transport that individuals can use, and one of them is the bicycle. In 1967 in the Johannesburg City Council there was a great deal of mirth when I raised this matter, but, Mr. Speaker, in European countries the bicycle is being taken very seriously indeed. Some years ago the number of bicycles sold in America exceeded the number of motor-cars sold there. This gives an indication of the extent to which the status and the use of bicycles has increased, even in the country which became famous for the mass production of the motor-car. One of the things that I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is that in association with the provision of mass passenger transit we must keep in mind that as far as the transporting of people from their places of residence to mass passenger transit termini is concerned, the bicycle is proving to be the most popular form of transport overseas. It has proved to be the most popular form of transport for a number of very good reasons. The cost of a bicycle is 1% of the cost of a motor-car. The cost of the maintenance of a bicycle is less than 1% of that of a motor-car. The amount of natural resources required for the production of a bicycle is less than of that required for the production of a motor-car. One can park 20 bicycles in the space required to park one motor-car. The bicycle does not pollute. It uses only human energy. The advantages are infinite. Overseas there are bicycle freeways, intercharges and clover leaf systems and the cost of construction is 20% of the cost involved in constructing similar facilities for motor-cars. The maintenance costs are also 20% of the maintenance costs in regard to equivalent facilities for motor-cars. The point I wish to make is that the hon. the Minister, who is not listening, must apply his imagination and attempt to anticipate what is going to happen in the next 20, 30 and 40 years. He must apply his imagination in order to provide for the circumstances which are going to exist then. He must give some thought to unconventional methods which we may require in the future.

Reference has already been made to the problems city centres experience with regard to the deterioration of those centres as a result of traffic problems which to a large extent strangle communication between suburban areas and the central areas. That is as much a problem of land use and town planning as it is a traffic problem. In fact one can go so far as to say that it is primarily a problem of land use and town planning and secondarily a traffic problem. The difficulties experienced by central city areas derive from the fact that in the planning of these areas the planners have not made provision for a permanent population within those areas. In other words, the central areas are used as office space, they serve as light industrial areas and they are used for business purposes. The planners, in providing for such activities, because they think they are more profitable, have failed to realize that unless a larger permanent population is retained in central city areas and the normal facilities for recreation and relaxation are provided which a larger permanent population requires, the central city areas will not be able to resist the attraction of suburbia around them. In that regard, therefore, the planners should go back to their drawing-boards and, when it comes to replanning central city areas or planning new central city areas, they should not overlook the important requirement of retaining a permanent population in those areas.

In the White Paper on the Driessen Committee’s report the last paragraph in part reads as follows—

One of the aspects of this Bill I should like to comment on, is the fact that the boundaries of local authorities and of provinces, boundaries which were established a long time ago, have become inappropriate and irrelevant to the provision of services such as transport services for the populations in those areas. Those boundaries can no longer be regarded as relevant or appropriate to the provision of these services. On page 4 of the Bill reference is made to the appointment of an Administrator by the Minister to take control of metropolitan transport areas. The Bill provides that if such an area in effect falls under the control of two Administrators, they themselves must decide which of them will be responsible and, if they cannot decide, the Minister will decide. The point I wish to make is that there is an anomaly as far as the provinces are concerned. The anomaly is that the provinces were established long before any patterns of development in South Africa were visible. Now that those patterns have become clearer and we are planning the future development of South Africa, we find that the provinces and their boundaries have become anomalous and, indeed, have become an embarrassment in respect of the planning for which a Bill like this attempts to provide. I think the hon. the Minister should take that into consideration in his planning. It is possible that in the near future the Government will have to apply its mind to the position of the provinces in South Africa. Possibly the Cabinet Committee, which is looking at the Westminster system, could also look at the position of the provinces and the problems their boundaries create when it comes to legislation of this nature.

An important consideration in respect of this legislation is that it is the Minister who will be called upon to apply it and he should realize that if he attempts to apply it in isolation from environmental and land-use planning for the areas under consideration, he is going to set up a confrontation between transport and the environment, and if he does that he will in no way improve the situation; he will only create larger problems, because he is going to add to urban sprawl and, consequently, to the problems the central city areas already experience; he will add to the difficulties between local authorities where they have conflicting interests, and he will add to problems between provinces and local authorities. He will not be able to solve the problems which he has set out to solve unless he accepts that he will have to subject his transport policy and his transport plan to the primary requirements of the environmental development plans of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Bryanston and I must say that he put forward some interesting points. This is a technical Bill and as such we can all agree about the implementation of certain of its terms. If we do not agree we can at least consider these aspects in a cool, calm and dignified manner.

At the outset there are a few points on which I should like to comment, points which were raised by the hon. member for Bryanston. During the course of my speech I shall then mention a few other matters. The first point is that the hon. member mentioned the fact that we should have an overall environmental plan and that we should start off with a land-use plan and that certain requirements should then be built up on that, and thereafter we should draw up our transportation plan. This would all be very well if we started to plan a new city from scratch. Then what the hon. member said would be quite correct and quite true. But when we have a particular problem already we must adopt a completely different approach. We have a particular kettle of fish and we have to plan the environment in that particular city. We have to make the environment more liveable, we have to improve the amenities, there should be accessibility to the centre, etc. Therefore I think the hon. member’s speech failed in this respect that he argued the case of a new metropolis about to be planned. He also stated that planning would now take place in isolation. I should like to refer that hon. member to clause 13 of the Bill, where provision is made for a huge committee, with people on it from different local authorities, all partaking in the planning of the whole area. So planning under this Bill will certainly not be done in isolation.

The hon. member also referred to the USA. When one compares the USA with South Africa one should be very careful, because in the USA they have different political units, they have a different legal system, a different legal framework in which they work and they have completely different economic values. Therefore when one makes a comparison with the USA, one should be very careful.

*I should like to say something about the transport problems, problems which are of course caused by three important factors. The first factor is that our country’s economy has flourished to such an extent and has made such progress that certain established patterns of life have developed. We have begun to regard the motor-car as an everyday necessity which we are entitled to use whenever and however we wish. In the second place we also have a relatively high population growth. In the third place there is the tendency to urbanization. These are the factors which have led to the problems we have in our cities. We all agree on this. I should like to point out a few figures, just to indicate the magnitude of our problem.

Since we are discussing urban transport here, it is appropriate that we furnish the figures relating to the seven metropolitan areas which were discussed in the Driessen Report. Those areas were Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town, Bloemfontein, East London, Port Elizabeth and Durban. We take cognizance of the urban population, as it was in 1970, and of the projections for the year 2000. In 1970 the Whites in the seven metropolitan areas numbered 2,22 million. In the year 2000 they will number 4,51 million. The number of Coloureds and Asians in the seven metropolitan areas will increase approximately fivefold in the period 1970 to 2000. Their numbers will increase from 1,34 million to 3,1 million. We find the same tendency in the case of the Bantu. There will be a twofold increase in the population.

When we consider the increase in the numbers of all types of vehicles in the aforesaid seven metropolitan areas, we note that passenger vehicles will increase approximately fourfold, while commercial vehicles will increase well-nigh ninefold. The fact of the matter is that, although the population increases twofold the number of vehicles increases approximately fivefold. That is the position.

In addition there is still the phenomenon of urbanization. In 1970 approximately 87% of the Whites in this country lived in cities, while 93% of the Whites will be living in the cities in the year 2000. When we consider these figures, we must also accept—and in this respect I differ with the hon. member for Bryanston—that the popularity of the motorcar for the conveyance of people will not diminish. This is something which is going to keep on growing, for various reasons. In the first place the motor vehicle as a means of conveyance is flexible. With it one can move from door to door. As far as the cost convenience is concerned, the motor-car has a relative advantage. The motor-car is not bound to a specific route, or to a specific timetable. We can therefore expect that more and more vehicles will flow to the central business areas of our cities if proper control in this respect is not exercised. Someone expressed it in this way—

The peri-urban areas become depopulated and all vehicles move to the central areas and cause a tremendous traffic explosion there.

Of course we could simply close our eyes to the problem and refuse to do anything about it. We could argue that it would be too expensive and that we cannot do anything about it at the present juncture. The hon. member for Durban Point said that we are going to further inflation. In this regard I should like to refer hon. members to what was published by the S.A. Institute for Civil Engineers. It reads as follows—

†They come to the conclusion that we pay for transportation facilities whether we create them or not. That is the point. To argue about inflation is, I think, really counter-productive, because we are paying whether we are building the transportation facilities or not.

*If that is the case, then the question arises whether it is essential that this Bill should come before this House at this precise juncture. I want to state that this Bill is indeed already long overdue. The fact of the matter is that the co-ordination of transport in a metropolitan area cannot simply take place on a voluntary basis on the part of the local authorities. Every local authority is very jealous of its own jurisdiction, and if we wish to solve this problem, we shall have to have co-ordination. The necessary funds will have to be obtained for this. In my opinion these are the two cardinal aspects of the Driessen Report: Firstly, co-ordination and secondly, the acquisition of funds. The Bill is based on the Driessen Report and in my opinion it is possible that there could have been a different approach in respect of the Bill which could have been drawn up on the basis of the Driessen Report. But here we have workable legislation, and what is very important is …

Order! Hon. members must please refrain from conversing so loudly. They are making it difficult for the hon. member to proceed with his speech.

The fact of the matter is that this Bill has a special advantage, which makes the legislation in its entirety acceptable to me. It is an exceptionally flexible Bill, in this sense that levies may be imposed where necessary and then reduced or lifted completely, where necessary. In other words, there is an integral flexibility in respect of the levies, in respect of the acquisition of finance. That is the position. The interests of the motorist can best be served, precisely because we have a flexible levy system in the Bill.

In addition areas are being demarcated, classes of vehicles introduced and regulations made. These are all things which are not being permanently established for all time, but can be switched and altered depending on the requirements.

Let us take a closer look at the parties which are most closely involved in the Bill. Firstly I want to refer to the hon. the Minister. He is responsible for the establishment of the core city and of metropolitan transport areas on the recommendation of the commission. What is important is that the Minister should have the final say in terms of this Bill throughout, also vis-a-vis the Administrator. After all, the Minister is on a higher legislative level as the Administrator and the provincial authorities and he is also responsible to the House of Assembly for every decision which he takes. I am of the opinion that that is correct. I have no objections to that, and I cannot see why the Opposition is objecting to the fact that the Minister will have the final decision. The fact of the matter is that, as any sensible person would do, he will of course do the necessary consultation. Decisions are not simply taken. But the final party who should have the say, is obviously the Minister.

The second important Party I want to mention, is the National Transport Commission. It plays a very, very important role. In the first place it recommends the metropolitan areas. The hon. member for Bryanston said that the boundaries and the jurisdictions are no longer feasible. Indeed, the Bill agrees with him to a certain extent. There is no compulsory demarcation of an area which can be defined as a metropolitan transport area.

Another important aspect is the research that has to be done. When one is going to put a system such as this into operation, one has to undertake a study to determine what methods of conveyance will work best under specific circumstances and what combination of methods will be the best. Attention will therefore have to be given to the question of under what circumstances bus transport is preferable, and under what circumstances it will be necessary to create parking and travelling facilities or to put a tubetrain system into operation. We cannot decide on these things today. These are matters which require a complicated and important study.

One of the most important contributions which we are able to make to ensure that the city centre flourishes, that the city centre stays alive, is in fact to undertake research into those aspects to determine how we can regulate the movement of people to the city centre in the best interests of all. This will require a comprehensive study. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to essential transport. Essential transport is a very difficult concept to define. It may be that a doctor is earning his living in a city centre, but to the shoemaker who also works in the city centre, the money he earns there is as important as the living the doctor or anyone else makes. It has been found overseas, specifically in England, that it is very difficult to draw a firm distinction between what are essential services and what are not essential services, and that to do so is frequently unfair. I want to agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that further research will have to be done in this respect.

An important aspect which the commission referred to was that the NTC would have to formulate certain policies, determine functions and establish an Urban Transport Fund. This is set out in clause 8 of the Bill. In respect of the study to which reference is being made in clause 10, I note that fares for transport engineering and transport planning may be established. Here I wish to associate myself to a certain extent with the hon. member for Bryanston. In this context urban planning as such cannot be excluded. Land use is very important and determines to a great extent the use of means of transport. It is a question of what comes first: The chicken or the egg, land use and then transport or first transport and then land use. I want to suggest for consideration that a chair of town planning as well should be established for example, for it is a very important component of the entire problem and the solution to it.

Next I want to refer to the administrators, who play a very important role here. In this respect it is fortunately the case that the planning will continue to be done by the provincial administration. This is very important. When one views this Bill in its entirety, I want to say in conclusion, in view of the time factor, that it does in fact make provision for the survival of our essential business core, but that its functions will change. However, if we do not place this Bill on the Statute Book, there is a strong possibility that our central business cores are in fact going to die. In view of the economic problems we are experiencing in our cities and the fact that the use of vehicles is increasing all the time, it is very important that we should in fact place this Bill on the Statute Book at this juncture, precisely in the form in which it has been conceived.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria West has shown that he has made a careful study of the Bill. He has referred to the question of the projected population figure of our major towns and cities in the future and also referred to the drift to the cities. He has urged control over motor traffic in certain areas within cities and has made a very interesting remark in regard to the lost time involved in the use of commercial vehicles. I believe one solution to alleviate the problem of congestion, is to stagger many of the operations which, in terms of our present way of life, take place simultaneously so that large numbers of commercial vehicles are needed, also creating the problem that so many of them have to lay by during valley period when they are not needed.

Many of the salient features of the debate so far and of the Bill embrace the question of the provision of urban transport facilities. I believe it is a problem which is occupying the minds of people throughout the civilized world. I also believe that the problem will continue to exist and will grow worse as long as the internal combustion engine, i.e. the motor-car, provide citizens with the quickest and the most convenient means of transport and travel from point to point. The escalation in the use of private transport has created a multi-faceted problem. To summarize the problems, problems which, to my mind, can only grow worse, I should say that there is the congestion, there are the delays affecting both individuals and public transport, the loss of manpower and therefore also productivity, the wastage of fuel and therefore also the dissipation of our foreign exchange, and pollution to which reference has been made, both in regard to its direct effect on the atmosphere and to its indirect effect by virtue of the enormous transport facilities required to transport oil from the Middle East to Western countries. One only has to think of the Torrey Canyon and the North Sea leak to realize the danger of pollution which is caused indirectly by this insatiable demand for oil and petroleum products; and consider the problem of the increased demands for land for arterial roads and for fly-overs.

I briefly want to refer to the first portion of the amendment which my hon. colleague of Durban Point moved, to the effect that we on this side of the House refuse to pass the Bill unless the levies on buildings, parking and loading facilities and motorists will not be imposed until all positive steps to assure the availability and convenience of adequate public transport facilities have been taken. We know that the Bill provides for planning and for the implementation of those plans. But we know that it takes time. I believe that the immediate need is to make maximum use and to ensure maximum efficiency of existing facilities. That means that there should be better traffic control. I believe that computerized robots in the cities are leading to a better flow of traffic in the cities. One of the major difficulties which we have to face, is the lack of consideration on the part of the motorist himself, the selfish attitude he displays of wanting to double park, to park at bus stops and to put his own convenience above the convenience of the public using public transport. That can only really be overcome or eliminated when we have adequate traffic control. Are we satisfied that we have, at the present stage, adequate traffic control in the form of personnel to deal with the traffic problems? Are we satisfied that the traffic control officers of the various cities are at full complement? Are there not valley periods during the day when there are not sufficient staff to cope with the problems which might arise?

Order! Some of the conversations conducted by hon. members among themselves could more conveniently be conducted in the lobby.

Are we making the maximum use of the manpower of all sections of the community when it comes to the training of people for traffic control? I believe the existing public transport systems should be improved and that this should be one of the priorities before the hon. the Minister sets about finding means and putting into motion methods for collecting further levies. We can encourage more park-and-ride concepts and we can look into the exclusive use of streets or lanes for buses and for suburban feeder services. We should also consider the development of the system of reversible lanes in peak traffic hours. In certain regions suburban commuter train services could be speeded up considerably, thereby helping to overcome the congestion caused by the use of the motor-car. The improved means of traction and the improved signalling systems have not been used to maximum effect to reduce the travelling time to which commuters on suburban train services are subjected as the result of the failure to take advantage, in many instances, of the change from steam to electricity and the saving in time which could result from that.

I also believe that the greater use of long-distance passenger trains could help to relieve the urban traffic congestion. If we had a dynamic and imaginative approach to the operation of long-distance passenger trains, we would encourage people to use them more and wean them away, in many instances, from travelling long distances in their own motor cars, at high cost to themselves. The hon. the Minister is in a dual capacity in this respect in the sense that he controls transport and the operation of the railways. Thus he is best equipped to look into the question of speeding up the long and slow journeys of so-called express trains which appear to travel more slowly and have longer stops at certain stations instead of operating to streamlined schedules. Full advantage should be taken of the improved electric and diesel traction and modern facilities such as improved tracks and signalling methods. No real or serious thought was given even to the question of the elimination of the time spent in taking in water during the days of steam. Slower speeds are maintained and there are longer waits at stations. The hon. the Minister can check, and he will find that I am right in my contention in regard to many so-called express trains.

Attention should also be given to long-distance package travel in the form of combined rail, tourist-coach, and hotel excursion tours, the system which has been adopted to eliminate vacant seats on aircraft, where special excursion package deals which combine the aircraft and the hotel fare are offered to encourage people to make use of the air facilities where they are available. I believe the same opportunity exists in our long-distance passenger train services.

A scheme like that, will also eliminate the congestion at points of departure, intermediate points and points of arrival at times when people undertake their annual migration to the coastal areas.

I would like to refer to clause 6(l)(g), which provides that the commission may ensure that public passenger transport has preference in any urban traffic regulative system in any manner it may think fit. No one will refute the paramount interest of public passenger transport. However, what do the motorists think of this suggestion, and of this particular clause? Many motorists would welcome an improvement in the existing public transport system. Cost, congestion and the parking problems today neutralize to a large extent the advantages of private motor transport. However, motorists, motoring organizations and businessmen feel that it is unreasonable at this stage to place onerous restrictions on the entry of cars into the central areas of cities—as is envisaged in clause 22 of this Bill—until adequate public transport services have been provided. Motorists furthermore sense that clause 8 of the Bill will cause further demands to be made on their pockets through no fault of their own, but rather due to the lack of adequate planning and the reluctance of the State, in certain instances, to provide adequate financial support for those local authorities of large cities who need this finance to assist them in solving their transport problems. These improvements are of benefit to the whole population, and it is unfair to say that motorists should be taxed more heavily. They do not want to pay costs disproportionate to the overall need.

What does the public think about this? Market researches recently undertaken in a European country showed some very interesting facets.

The question which was addressed to a large number of people involved in this particular research project, was: What modes of transport appear to you to be most important for passenger traffic? The result, Sir, was as follows: 45% said the motor-car, 37% said the underground railway, and conventional railways claimed 22% support. I realize that this adds up to over 100%, but this is simply because some of the respondents gave two different answers. Then the second question was: Which vehicles are most likely to succeed in the provision of efficient urban transport? The answer was: 20% said that buses would, 7% claimed that trams would—the hon. the Minister knows that trams are extensively used overseas—and 6% said that bicycles would—this for the benefit of the hon. member for Bryanston. Sixty per cent of the people in the densely populated cities claimed that the underground would solve the problem best and only 21% of those in densely populated cities claimed that the motor-car would be the best solution. I realize that as far as we in South Africa are concerned, we are just thinking on the fringes of underground services, this is a tremendously expensive undertaking and one needs a large concentration of population to make such a proposition feasible. But obviously it is a means of urban transport which will have to have serious consideration given to it. I believe that, although the public has these opinions, they would be prepared to cooperate with this Bill in the main and would be prepared to subject themselves to some sort of staggering of hours, particularly in regard to work, to school hours and to universities.

There has been reference to consultation. My hon. colleague, the hon. member for Durban Point, has indicated that he feels that the consultation is not as extensive as it should be. I find it cause for regret to see that in the very first amendment which the hon. the Minister tabled in regard to clause 4, he appears to have disregarded the concept of consultation contained in the original clause, because clause 4, which the Minister’s amendment as I understand it is intended to replace, reads as follows—

The proposed amendment of the Minister reads—

There is no consultation whatsoever. I believe that that is a matter for extreme regret, and I hope the Minister will have second thoughts on that particular aspect. Then there are other amendments which will be discussed in the Committee Stage, but I wish to deal very briefly with two of them now. The one is the question of inspectors, in clause 6, and I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give sympathetic consideration to the amendment which is on the Order Paper in this regard. It is not a new procedure which is being suggested in the amendment. The system which is in practice in full operation in the Department of Health, embodies the same principle. It serves to protect members of the public and to ensure a satisfactory relationship between inspector and inspected. Therefore I hope the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept it when the Committee Stage is taken.

As regards clause 13 I want to point out that it does not make provision for alternates. The amendment proposed is purely a permissive amendment, but it is put forward with the idea of ensuring that this body, which will deal with very important matters, maintains maximum membership, so that if there are people who have been nominated specifically by organizations or departments who are unable to attend, there will at least be provision, should the occasion demand for an alternate to be present at a meeting at which the member so nominated or appointed is unable to attend. I will go into further details in the Committee Stage. I merely want to give the Minister some indication of the motivation which resulted in this amendment being put forward. In closing I wish to support the amendment moved by my hon. colleague from Durban Point.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea elaborated on the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point, especially the first part. It seems to me the hon. member and the hon. member for Durban Point did not read clause 21 of the Bill properly. It expressly provides that the levies which may be imposed, may only be imposed for an area which is included in a metropolitan transportation area in terms of any applicable approved transport plan. In other words, there must first be an applicable transport plan before such levies can be imposed. Consequently I cannot understand how the hon. members of the official Opposition can say that levies may simply be imposed right at the outset, with the implementation and after the approval of this legislation. The hon. member also elaborated on the question of rail transport. I am not going to dwell on this. The hon. the Minister will probably react to it.

Transport definitely plays a very important role in our economic set-up and activities. In the past transport centred around the transport of goods. The problems in our transport system have been caused by precisely that and we also find that our transport laws in the past have been aimed at goods traffic to a great extent and that legislation for regulating urban transport in particular, was not considered necessary. Consequently there was no co-ordinated regulation of traffic and local authorities each tried in their own way to regulate the type of traffic to the best of their ability. This took place on a mere hit and miss basis which led to public transport being rejected by the consumer to a great extent. The consumer started making increasing use of his own transport in order to move to and from his home and work. The financial position a decade or so ago was also such that it did not actually make any difference to the road user. At that time fuel prices were not yet a factor. The amount of fuel available was practically unlimited and this was not a factor at all. The traffic flow was not as congested as it is at present either. However, conditions have changed a great deal since then. The rapid economic development in South Africa caused the establishment of towns to increase so rapidly that not enough attention was paid to traffic and traffic flow. Mr. D. J. Hough, M.E.C. in charge of traffic in the Transvaal, said the following during the opening of a symposium on urban transport—

The effectiveness of a good transport system must be gauged according to the following aspects: Fast, safe, reliable and effective and convenient.

I should like to discuss the Bill briefly in view of these criteria. Firstly, there is the requirement “fast”. Conditions in our cities and larger towns developed to such an extent that complete traffic congestion has developed in many cases, during peak hours in particular. Apart from the valuable time which is involved in traffic congestion, it also has a cumulative effect on cost increases. The first question which we must ask ourselves, is whether we can afford the wastage of fuel which a traffic jam causes.

Let us approach this problem from a practical viewpoint. If it would take 20 minutes under normal circumstances from, say, work to home or back, and a traffic jam should take place which would increase the journey by 10 minutes, it means a time loss of 50%. It is calculated that that increase of time causes an approximate 30% increase in petrol consumption as well as a 60% increase in the degree of wear and tear on the car. Therefore traffic jams cause a great deal of additional expenditure for the motor-car owner. But time, and expensive commodity today, is also lost as a result. However, most important is the high petrol consumption as a result of traffic jams and the slow pace at which cars have to move as a result. It is definitely not necessary for me to emphasize the importance of this fact. We have now reached the stage where we must ask ourselves whether we can still afford this luxury of an unnecessary wastage of petrol. Fuel has become an expensive and scarce commodity and it will probably remain so in the foreseeable future. We must also ask ourselves whether we can afford at present and in future to have currency leaving the country in order to supplement this wasted fuel. Over the past few years it has become customary in our cities for people to struggle to work one by one and two by two and then arrive at work with a headache and a big grudge against the local authority concerned because there was a traffic jam round every comer. The time has probably come for us to ask ourselves what contribution we ourselves make towards traffic jams. Consequently financial sacrifices are definitely going to be involved here. That is why financial instruments are being built into this Bill in the form of levies which are going to be imposed on the motor consumer. The primary reason for this is not to collect money. Instead it concerns building in certain disciplines, of which the most important is definitely self-discipline on the part of the motorist. The levy, as contained in clause 21(1 )(a) (c) and (e), is aimed at discouraging as many private motor-cars and commercial vehicles as possible from entering specific parts of a metropolitan area at certain times, which definitely also include peak hours. This is a very important point. Therefore it is aimed at keeping vehicles out of certain central urban areas at a specific time. A result of the levies will be that less traffic will be moving on certain streets, which will mean that essential public transport will be able to flow more rapidly and with fewer obstructions.

I should now like to deal with the second aspect, namely safety. It probably cannot be gainsaid that accidents, the so-called light accidents—which are perhaps not of a serious, fatal nature, but which cause great material damage—occur mostly in our cities. Traffic jams lead to frustration and eventual carelessness and recklessness on our roads and streets. I should like to quote certain figures here. In Johannesburg there were 44 243 accidents last year as against 41 290 accidents in 1975 an increase of almost 3 000 or 7,2%. In Pretoria the accident toll in 1976 was rather more favourable. There was a decrease of 7,5%, from 20 870 in 1975 to 19 416 in 1976. We are grateful for this but it still remains extremely high. Therefore the fewer private motor vehicles which are on the roads at a specific time, the greater the possibility that there will be an appreciable decrease in traffic accidents. Consequently this is one of the reasons why the institution of an effective transport service has become imperative. This is also one of the objectives which has been built into the Bill.

The third principle which I want to discuss, is reliability. That is why we gratefully accept clause 6(2), because the permissible floor space cannot be deviated from without prior consultation with the commission. Subsection (3) determines that sufficient provision must be made for the loading and unloading of goods so that the available street area may be larger. An essential requirement for reducing motor traffic, as I have already mentioned, is effective, reliable public transport. In addition there is also proper utilization of the street area and, where necessary, an extension of the street area. Of course funds are required for this, and let us not have any illusions about this: It will be a considerable amount. That is why certain financial obligations are being imposed on the road user, as I have already indicated. Clause 21(1)(b) and (d) also require certain sacrifices from the businessman which can be imposed by the local authorities with the approval of the Administrator. The role of the businessman in the increase of traffic certainly cannot be disregarded. That is why these subsections also provide for levies on assessment rates on business premises and levies on parking lots. The White Paper provides for a levy of up to 12% on assessment rates. The businessman in the central city is probably one of the largest generators of traffic, and that is why it is right that he should pay a higher levy than the businessman in the outlying areas. That is why I have been asking for this throughout and I am grateful that the hon. the Minister indicated that a differentiated levy would be applied. The further one moves from a central city area, the lower the percentage of the levy will be. I believe that the Administrators can work out a basis of differentiation. Voices have been raised here, especially by the hon. member for Durban Point, that these levies cannot be justified. The contribution of the local authority towards the estimated cost of R52 million, as provided in the White Paper, is calculated at R8 million. Therefore it is foreseen that the motorist and the owner of a business undertaking will have to contribute less than 4%—I think it is important to take note of this—of the expected expenditure.

Your arithmetic is a bit strange, is it not? R8 million of R52 million is 15,7%.

Fourthly, I refer to effectiveness and convenience. The traffic set-up and the traffic regulations, including the available occupation of the streets, must be expanded and utilized as much as possible. In its report, the Driessen Commission came to the conclusion that proper, effective public transport is the most important solution to traffic congestion. Therefore I should like to confine myself for a moment to bus transport only, because Pretoria makes use chiefly of bus transport. It is very clear that if measures are introduced to keep private motor traffic from the central city, an effective alternative will have to be created. We must have no illusions about this. Cities who do not have train traffic and therefore have to depend on bus transport, must be assisted in an orderly co-ordinated way in creating effective bus transport. Firstly there must be effective parking space for the so-called park-and-drive method which has been suggested.