laid upon the Table—

Mr Chairman, when the House adjourned last night the hon member for Maraisburg was castigating the hon the Minister about the use of Cabinet cars at the Government garages and I hope he will take note of that. [Interjections.]

The total Transport Vote in 1986 is R753 million as against R503 million in 1985. Yet on analysis it will be seen that in both Votes the major portion is allocated to bus and rail subsidies. In 1986-87 bus commuters are being subsidised by R256 million as against R210 million in 1985-86; rail services in 1986-87 are being subsidised by R300 million and they were subsidised by R149 million in 1985-86. In the present budget of the department a figure of R556 million out of a total of R753 million is to be used for bus and rail subsidies. Seventy-four percent of the Vote of the department is therefore being devoted to subsidies.

Primarily the aim of subsidies is to make an adjustment where Government has to interfere with the free market mechanism for some reason or other. This is what I will deal with this afternoon. The system at present in operation in South Africa is the subsidisation of tariffs.

Time allows me to deal with Black commuting only. The synopsis of the research report on Black commuting by Naudé of the CSIR National Institute for Transport and Road Research states, and I quote:

When one makes a comparison between the average distance commuted by bus by Black commuters in South Africa and commuters in the EEC countries one finds that in the EEC countries the average distance travelled is 13,5 km but that in South Africa it is 28 km. The question I have to put is: Why do Blacks in South Africa on average have to travel more than double the distance of people in other parts of the world? I have sent the hon the Minister and the officials some tables to which I will refer shortly.

I would like to identify the broad patterns and trends. Over the past 30 years there have been three major changes to commuting patterns, some less voluntary than others. Twenty-five years ago commuting patterns were mainly short-distance and there was a marked absence of rail and taxi-kombi commuting.

Due to the implementation of separate residential areas for Blacks—first on a sectoral basis through the Group Areas Act and then on a satellite basis by the consolidation of homelands—there were marked shifts towards medium and long distance commuting. To a large extent, these shifts were involuntary as far as the Blacks were concerned because they were imposed by the apartheid laws of this Parliament.

The Pretoria research brought to light some very interesting facts. Much research has been done by the CSIR regarding Pretoria. For instance, during phase 1—from 1886 to 1950—Black segregated areas existed within the town boundaries of Pretoria, resulting in very short-distance commuting. Phase 2 started in 1950. The dwellers in Black segregated areas of Pretoria were removed to the two new Black towns of Mamelodi and Atteridgeville. This led to the intermittent introduction all over South Africa of new rail commuting facilities in metropolitan and large urban areas. After the introduction of rail, it has been usual for 60% to 80% of commuters to shift from bus to rail. At the same time, a demand for feeder services has been created.

Order! I am not prepared to continue in this fashion. The noise level in the House is much too high. The hon member may proceed.

Such changes are likely to continue, because there are a number of urban areas where rail commuting services may still have to be introduced.

Phase 3—the consolidation of the homelands—caused a complete distortion of all previous travel patterns. The kwaNdebele-Pretoria commuting route is a case in point. The main reason for ultra-long distance commuting in this case was that people were asked to move from the Mabopane-Temba area, which is part of Bophuthatswana, to kwaNdebele, or to accept Bophuthatswanan citizenship. However, there has also been a considerable voluntary shift from the rural areas of the eastern Highveld, causing an increase in long-distance commuting to Pretoria.

What has been the effect of this on the daily life of the commuter? The CSIR report summarises the average working day of two groups of people. The effect of the Group Areas Act on the average inhabitant of Mamelodi—15 km to 20 km away from the workplace—is illustrated by these figures. He sleeps for eight hours 38 minutes, works for seven hours 55 minutes, travels for one hour 57 minutes and has five hours 30 minutes left for leisure and chores. On the other hand, if a commuter lives in Dennilton or Tweefontein which is 100 or 120 kilometres away, he sleeps for seven hours and 20 minutes, works for seven hours and 52 minutes and travels for six hours and 41 minutes a day, which leaves him two hours and seven minutes for leisure time. That is according to the research done by the CSIR. These are not my figures.

I want to deal with some more figures, and I have provided the hon the Minister with the tables. According to National Fare And Subsidy Data (1985), a ticket for a 10 kilometre trip costs 52 cents on average and the subsidy on it is 31% which amounts to an annual subsidy of R88 per commuter. Three percent of the commuters use this. A ticket for a 50 kilometre trip costs 160 cents, the subsidy on it is 65%, amounting to an annual subsidy of R560 per commuter. This applies to 63% of the commuters. A ticket for a 100 kilometre trip costs 292 cents, the subsidy is 71%, amounting to an annual subsidy of R1 126 per commuter. This applies to 16% of the commuters. These figures illustrate that the annual subsidy of Black commuters virtually increases geometrically in proportion to distances travelled. These figures are recurring annually. Thus over a 30 year period discounted back at real interest rates of six percent, it will mean that the commuter travelling 100 kilometres per day will cost the taxpayers of South Africa R15 210 per person.

Let us look at fare and subsidy variations. The hon the Minister will see from the tables that various bus operators operate at different rates, even though they travel longer distances. In the case of Bloemfontein the average ticket trip distance is 70 kilometres and the annual subsidy per ticket per commuter is R420. Bloemfontein workers have to live at Botahebo which is near Thaba Nchu. Bloemfontein want their Blacks to live so far away and yet expect the South African taxpayer to support this.

I want to deal finally with the end users. In the metropolitan area of Pretoria a total subsidy of R34,4 million is paid. The annual subsidy per ticket per commuter is R600. In Bloemfontein it is R420, in Durban it is R283, in Cape Town it is R180, on the Witwatersrand it is R165 and in Port Elizabeth it is only R80. Why is this? It is because the Black commuters in Bloemfontein and Pretoria have been moved out further than in other parts.

This research stands as an indictment of what group areas and homelands consolidation as imposed by this White Parliament have done to the Blacks. It is true that rapid urbanisation leads to greater commuting, yet in South Africa it is the poorest section of the population that is forced to live in faraway places with no freedom of choice, that has little or no time for anything but sleep, work and travel every day of their working lives. White South Africa was never told the cost in money and agony by Dr Verwoerd.

Benefits bring costs, and the South African economy may soon not to be able to afford this subsidisation because there may not be enough money available. I want to tell the hon the Minister that the regional services levies in the form of payroll and turnover tax will not be the answer. They will increase the tax burden on business by from 5% to 10%. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, various hon members have spoken about road safety during the discussion of this Vote. I should also like to discuss it, without reacting to what previous hon speakers said, simply because what they said was perfectly justified.

The mortality rate on South African roads is one of our greatest tragedies. A total of 8 965 people died in road accidents during 1985. That means that on average 25 people per day die in this manner. Every hour one person dies on our roads. Every day scores of people end up in the hospitals of South Africa. Every month scores of people are discharged from those hospitals as physically handicapped, blind or as paraplegics after months of intensive care. Those people will never be able to fulfil the same role in society as they were able to do prior to the accident. When one considers that fewer than 106 people per annum die in border wars then the nature of the road safety problems can be seen in a better perspective and in all its seriousness.

One shudders when one takes a good look at the area which road safety has to cover in South Africa. There are few people who realise the extraordinary diversity of our South African road users. One of the country’s most difficult tasks starts when attempts are made, by means of education and law enforcement, to induce road users to be more competent. The factors which influence the way in which road safety is dealt with are the following: Geographical distribution and differences, socio-economic diversity and differences, provincial separation and diversity, cultural differences and the difference in perceptive abilities of road users. These factors indicate for example that road users in the Northern Transvaal differ from those in the Western Cape. Brochures, information leaflets, community involvement projects, advertisements, promotions and all kinds of reading matter must be geared towards maximum impact and effectiveness and must be adapted to each group. This means that one cannot launch a specific project for the whole of South Africa’s road users, but that one has to initiate a separate project for each group.

The total involvement in road safety of each road user is still a dream, and it will remain a dream until such time as action is taken on a co-ordinated basis and in a more streamlined manner. An excellent example of co-ordination and a streamlined approach is the conduct of all those involved in road safety during the recent Easter weekend. Under the guidance of the NRSC, there was involvement in virtually all areas. The media played an extremely important role in the distribution and communication of road safety information and suggestions. The SABC in particular, with its ability to make direct contact with people, excelled in this regard. The law enforcement authorities, too, played a commendable role with regard to traffic safety.

The public, however, is still not orientated to road safety. The authorities are also guilty of this shortcoming. Which of the hon members—and I include myself in this—wear our safety belts for example, or maintain a safe following distance and adapt our speed according to circumstances?

One of the main causes of road accidents is when the 0,08% alcohol limit in one’s blood is exceeded. The liquor trade spends more than R35 million annually on the marketing of its product by means of advertising but only R0,5 million is spent on the anti-drink-and-drive campaign. This is an indictment against the Government. More funds must be placed at the disposal of the NSRC. If the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs cannot persuade the hon the Minister of Finance to do this, I shall accompany both Ministers to the Conradie Hospital and show them the consequences of motor vehicle accidents in South Africa.

I should also like to talk seriously to the liquor trade, wine, barley and sugar-cane farmers, all of whom are in any way involved in the cultivation or sale of liquor. I want to ask a serious question. Is it not time it was clearly printed on every bottle label or can or cardboard container that the contents of the can of beer or liquor would cause an X percentage of alcohol to be present in one s bloodstream if the contents were consumed? The same applies to every other kind of beverage. I would suggest for example that when one buys a bottle of wine it should be clearly stated on the label that if one consumes three glasses of that specific wine, it causes X percentage of alcohol to be present in one’s bloodstream.

The same applies to hard liquor. In this regard I can perhaps speak from experience. Most people think that they can drink a tot or three of strong brandy without it having any visible effect on them. It may perhaps be true, but if such a person were to get in behind a steering wheel he is the biggest danger on the road. [Interjections.] For that reason I also want to advocate that the penalties for drunken driving be made harsher. [Interjections.]

When we speak of penalties, I should like to go even further. If a person is driving a car while under the influence of alcohol and is involved in an accident of which he is the cause and it is proven that the alcohol level in his blood exceeded 0,08%, and if a person is killed or in such an accident or so seriously injured that he is permanently maimed and has to suffer as a paraplegic, I feel that besides the other penalties which the courts may impose upon him, his driver’s licence should be permanently suspended. If we are in earnest about confronting the problem of road safety in this country, this is the only way in which we can make progress in that regard. [Interjections.]

I wanted to mention a few other things, but unfortunately my time is running out. I should therefore like to refer briefly to the forging of driver’s licences. A few years ago I dealt with this subject in detail in this House. It was in fact during the discussion of this same Vote. At the time the hon the Minister told me that a commission or a researcher had been appointed and that the report would be tabled soon. I have this report which the chief road researcher of the CSIR compiled. The thing is so heavy that I can hardly pick it up without doing myself an injury. I should like to ask the hon Minister in all seriousness: When is the Government going to deal with this problem of the forging of driver’s licences? When is the Government going to implement the recommendations of Mr Botha as submitted in this report?

In conclusion I should just like to say that in my opinion road safety is a dynamic science which ought to play a far greater role in the country’s total economic and social structure. The day has passed when new developments, initiatives and action is allowed to stagnate as a result of bureaucratic wrangling. Road safety in all its attendant facets, is of the utmost importance to this country. The growth in population and the accompanying increase in road traffic must cause us to give serious thought to road safety. We must not only open our hearts, but our purses as well, before we get caught up in a spiral which in a period of ten years will cost us billions of rands to rectify.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member that some people are not visibly affected after a few drinks, but that their vision is definitely affected and they are then a danger on the roads. For the rest, all one can say about that speech is: “Well read, Keppies!”

During the debate on toll-gates a year or two ago, the hon the Minister admitted that toll-gates were by no means the best way of financing roads. He also said that he had had quite a problem convincing his Cabinet colleagues of that.

In the meantime the hon the Minister did succeed in introducing an increased levy for road construction work. Moreover, he caused third party insurance to be linked to a fuel levy. Therefore one could say that the principle of levies on certain facets having a direct bearing on the distances travelled was accepted as a principle which is more or less fair and at the same time the most cost effective way of raising funds.

As far as the national roads are concerned, some people argue that the largest fuel consumption occurs in the urban areas, and that it is therefore not fair that the urban-dwellers constantly have to pay for the national road network when they buy fuel. There are, of course, two very simple replies to that argument. Firstly, a national road network is strategically and economically of importance to the country as a whole. Secondly, it is a fact that on a good weekday there are just a few people on most of the rural segments of our N-routes as there are people at an NP-meeting these days. The only time when the rural sections of the national roads are in fact well used, is when the urban-dwellers go on their week-end pleasure trips, especially over long week-ends. I therefore feel that it is quite justified for them to contribute all year long for the pleasure of being able, once a year, to fly past Bloemfontein on their way to Stilbaai. [Interjections.]

†With that as background, I wish to be more specific, and talk about the toll-road at Marianhill. Almost the entire toll-road is situated within my constituency and a part of it falls within the constituency of my colleague the hon member for Pinetown. This Durban-Pietermaritzburg section is a vital link in the transport network, not only for the region but also between the biggest port and the PWV area. It is also a big cultural transport link between those scenically and recreationally deprived people of our biggest metropolis and the coastal resorts of Natal.

This link should have been built long ago, long before there was even any talk of toll-roads. However, the indecision and unfair weighting of priorities robbed the regular users of this section of the road of their fair share of the cake. Now, to add insult to injury, those people must pay for their cake before they can eat it.

Since there is no major improvement in the overall travelling time by using that road rather than the old road, it is now becoming apparent that heavy vehicles and also other regular users of that section are in fact bypassing this toll-road in quite significant numbers. I do not blame the people who do so, and I shall promptly also start bypassing it because I believe the break-even point has now been reached between the amount I have paid in toll-money and the value of the free lunch that I received from the hon the Minister at the opening of that toll-road! [Interjections.]

Some angry sounds have been forthcoming from that part of the world, from the town clerks of Hillcrest and Kloof, the Road Hauliers Association and the public in general, since the opening of the toll-road. I agree with the town clerk of Kloof who said that the major objective of building this road was to get the heavy vehicles and the through traffic off Field’s Hill—to separate that traffic from the normal commuter traffic using the old road on a daily basis. The town clerk of Kloof said that it was the hon the Minister’s road and that it was now up to him to persuade the public to pay toll. The precondition is that there should be an acceptable alternative route, and I warn, therefore, that the persuasion should not take the form that it is doing at present which is persecution by way of strict law enforcement—to the point of obstruction—on the old road to force people to use the toll-road.

I also hear that there are talks of discount rates. This would be no more than a costly face-saving exercise, since even at the current rates the collection fee makes it hardly a profitable exercise. I agree therefore with the town clerk of Hillcrest and most other regular users when I tell the hon the Minister to take his toll-road and erect it somewhere in a transport museum. [Interjections.]

If the hon the Minister is a good businessman he should not keep on throwing good money after bad. He must also be a good politician for once and admit to the mistakes of his policies, and take his toll-road somewhere else.

In the broader political sense I would like to raise a final point about toll-roads. It seems that there is a scheme brewing between the hon the Minister and some major construction companies whereby those firms as a consortium will finance and build toll-roads and administer the collection of money. I warn those firms that they will not be doing either themselves or the cause of free enterprise or reform politics a favour. The reason why they are short of work is quite simply that this Government has put a clamp on productive capital expenditure on constructional infrastructure in lieu of its commitment to the construction of apartheid structures. [Interjections.]

Business will have to suffer with the people until this Government puts its priorities right, which frankly means after apartheid has been demolished and we can give the correct precedence to priorities. Either those roads that are destined to become toll-roads under this scheme are necessary parts of the infrastructure—in which case they should be given their rightful priority in the allocation of resources—or, per definition and by law, there must be an alternative route to toll-roads. Therefore those toll-roads will be seen and may be seen as luxuries for the privileged users who can afford them or for whose weekend pleasure they have been built. There could be no more explosive way of allocating resources at this stage in our history.

I wish to ask business when it will learn. To have been in bed with this Government may have been a good thing for decades, but those times are over, and I think for ever too.

Mr Chairman, I should like to assure the hon member for Greytown that I do not for a moment regret a toll gate, that the Mariannhill toll gate is a success and that I already have the figures today on how the income from it is increasing. It has been operating for only 2 or 3 weeks and I can assure hon members that all will be grateful for that toll gate in future.

You will eat those words.

The hon member for Greytown has just said that people had been waiting for a road for years.

Not for the gate. [Interjections.]

They waited 24 years for a road but, when I came with a toll gate, they had their road. When I convened the Pinetown City Council and all other city councils concerned I said that if we did not make it a toll, we would not have a road either. [Interjections.]

Where was the choice?

That was the choice— the toll or sweet all.

†Sir, I should like to start with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who referred to the 56% increase in the budget for transport. He is perfectly right; a further R151 million will be used to subsidise train commuters, plus an amount for Khayelitsha. As I have already told hon members, the Khayelitsha line is a guaranteed line. However, we had an increase. I mentioned that in previous debates. Losses on trains now amount to R1,1 billion. [Interjections.] Buses should also be subsidised, because if one abolishes subsidies my heart will bleed for the Black man of South Africa.

Yes, but why did you move them so far away?

I am coming to that, Sir. Of course, we cannot all live in Houghton. Blacks in particular do not want to live in Houghton. That would be too near the hon member for Houghton. [Interjections.] All our people cannot live within the huge metropoles. That, too, is impossible. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members have had their turns to speak. I appeal to hon members now to give the hon the Minister an opportunity of replying to the points they have raised. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, those hon members will never upset or hurt me with their interjections. I know a Prog. When one treads on his toes he squeals. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to a 20% reduction in the price of fuel. He comes from a family of business people. Sir, the Malcomesses are business people.

Windmills!

Sir, he referred to a loss of R400 million by the SA Transport Services. I should like, Sir, to tell him that the SA Transport Services are saving now, on fuel alone, the amount of R43 million. Must I really then …

You mean to tell the House that you have not lost R400 million and that you are saving more than R43 million?

Sir, I am referring to trains now. SA Airways lost a total amount of R3 million last month alone on their overseas flights. The flights are not fully booked. When overseas flights are not full I cannot go along and reduce tariffs as a result of the first reduction in the price of fuel. I wish I could have done that.

That is the way to get the customers! [Interjections.]

Sir, why is it that British Airways, Lufthansa and all the other international airlines also cannot achieve fully-booked flights? That is on account of the unrest in South Africa. That is definitely not on account of the fares.

Who started that?

Yes, I think you Progs were part of it. [Interjections.] Never mind, I do not want to quarrel now. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member said Whites could pay much more for their bus fares. That is what the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said yesterday, Sir. But who makes use of a bus and a train, Sir? It is the poor people, irrespective of the colour of their skin. Why should we penalise them, Sir? If the hon member had only said all people should pay more, it would have been different. Why should we discriminate against White people?

Why are you discriminating against the Blacks?

Now, Sir, I want to refer to the National Transport Policy Study. The hon member for Durban Point put certain questions to me in relation to the National Transport Policy Study, as did the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and various other hon members. Now, Sir, I want to clear the air once and for all in relation to this particular policy study. We have spent more than R7 million on this study over the past three to four years and we foresee that the future savings will amount to many millions. This is a multi-billion Rand undertaking. There is therefore nothing wrong in spending R7 million in connection with this investigation.

*The National Transport Policy Study was concluded on 31 March 1986. At present the Department of Transport is preparing a white paper on the recommendations of the study group. It is also being done in consultation with the pilot committee and other interested institutions and we wish to table it during the current Parliamentary session. The National Transport Policy Study made recommendations on goods and passenger transport as well as the organisation of the total transport component including interstate transport. Legislation to carry out the recommendations is being prepared at present; I should like to submit it to Parliament next year.

Although the legislation mentioned will be considered here next year, it will not be promulgated summarily for reasons which will become obvious later. The legislation I have in mind is the institution of statutory arrangements for transport including inter alia a load quality system and a passenger quality system and it will also include arrangements as regards national roads. As there is confusion over the implementation of the new system as recommended by the NTPS, I consider it necessary to furnish the House with the following information. With the exception of the Transport Advisory Board legislation, which has already been approved by the Cabinet Committee and which I should like to pilot through Parliament this year, as well as legislation to enable me to privatise roads—I wish to have both Bills promulgated this year—no legislation will be instituted on specific dates without our taking cognisance of current circumstances within the transport industry except to indicate the phases it has to pass through. As I view the position at present, there are specific prerequisites emerging from the study which have to be complied with before we can proceed to the implementation phase.

One of these is the removal of financial in equalities in SATS. SATS will pay the same for its diesel and its licences for its trucks as any other truck owners will pay. Now, however, all will contribute to the maintenance of the road. The permit system will also be phased out gradually and there will be no permits later.

Hear, hear!

Consequently it will be of no use to us to attempt piloting legislation through pell-mell—however eager I may be to see the recommendations of the study, with which I agree in principle, implemented. At this stage it appears that essential legislation can be piloted through in 1987, with implementation over a period of about three years as from 1988. I therefore envisage that by 1991 all recommendations of the study acceptable to the Government will have been instituted and we shall hasten with all dispatch without operating in a disorderly way. For the present I wish to put it very clearly that the provisions of the Road Transportation Act will remain in force until replaced by some other legal provision.

I am now being interpreted as if permits will be abolished next year and consequently the industry and the courts no longer see the necessity of a permit system for road transport.

Any person or institution undertaking road transport and not complying with the provisions of the Road Transportation Act lays himself open to prosecution and, if he is found guilty, a heavy sentence may be imposed. I also regard it as essential to state that since last year local road transport boards have permitted a considerable number of kombi taxis up to and including 16 seats—to Black entrepreneurs among others. No amendment to the existing Act is required to do this. I think hon members all agree with me that a kombi should not necessarily carry only 8 people but 16 if the driver wishes to convey 16 passengers.

I also take pleasure in mentioning that one of the chief objectives of the National Transport Policy Study is to issue guidelines for future regional services councils on regulated public passenger transport. As the recommendations of the National Transport Policy Study have not yet been approved by the Government, regional services councils are not yet in existence and transport legislation with the attendant upgrading of quality control of transport has not yet been settled, it is important that LRTBs should not take decisions on an ad hoc basis which anticipate any of the changes mentioned before because this would contribute to a negative influence on the impact and success of regional services councils.

Kombi taxis cannot be increased on a large scale without quantitative norms which still have to be laid down as well as qualitative control by both the transport tribunal and the impending regional services councils.

It is important that local road transport boards, in considering applications for permits for kombi taxis within their areas, should not anticipate the function or objective of the imminent regional services councils in the light of this consideration and in view of the guidelines laid down by the Road Transportation Act as well as on the merits of the application.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether we will have a chance during this session to discuss the White Paper that is to be issued. Secondly, I should like to know whether the legislation that is to be prepared can be prepared as soon as possible so that we can deal with all of it during the recess and not encounter the same problems that we encountered this year with the MVA Bill which was shoved on us almost at the time it should have been passed. We really would appreciate promptness so that we can devote sufficient time to the legislation.

It is my intention to have the White Paper ready during this session but, as I have just said, we cannot have all the phases in one parliamentary session. We will try to finish it in two separate steps but we will have an opportunity this session to discuss the White Paper.

Will we do it this year?

Yes.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central asked me what the cost is to maintain the National Transport Commission. The total revenue of the National Road Fund is R590 million if one gives them seven cents on a litre of fuel. He also asked me what the cost of the road transportation boards was. That total cost is R3,2 million.

Why do the National Road Fund not spend all their money?

They were busy with certain contracts and the money will be spent in this coming year.

That was what you said last year.

No, I can give all those figures to the hon member. He referred to the Tsitsikamma toll road. We had no alternative because we did not increase the price last year. The proposal was that the tariff for using the toll road should be increased by 25%. I did not allow it but because of the delay we had to increase it to such an extent. According to the survey this Tsitsikamma toll gate which is on a very quiet road is also a success.

The hon member also referred to the viewing site on the Tsitsikamma toll road and the telephones. The public want the telephones.

Do they?

Yes. The public can sign a book there. The hon member should see what they write and how they thank us for having a view of the bridges. If the public ask for a thing, why should we not provide it?

Because of the lack of funds.

The hon member prefers bridges to be designed by private sector engineers. This is done by the private sector. The National Transport Commission does not have any bulldozers …

One does not design a bridge with a bulldozer.

… but they go to private enterprise and they do the whole job.

Why then do they have a sector that does it? They have a bridge design section.

Yes, that is a different section. We have two or three engineers to check up on all these bridges and see whether everything is in a satisfactory condition.

That is okay, but I am talking about designing.

They design the new bridges and they …

Order! I am not going to allow a dialogue across the floor of the Committee. The hon the Minister must please proceed.

The hon member for Kempton Park referred to the Group Areas Act. I agree with him. Hon members of the PFP proceed from the assumption that they will live under the same conditions as at present when this Act is repealed. Group areas are only one of the reasons why our transport system has to be subsidised but it is not the only one as we cannot all live at the same place near our work.

The hon member for Kempton Park’s contribution on telephones along our roads pleased me. He was positive and saw the necessity for them.

The hon member also asked what the income of the National Road Fund was. It is R590 million. Let me read this to the hon members to enable them to understand what we propose doing in future with the funds of the National Road Fund. We are going to build Jomet in Johannesburg. The hon member for Rosettenville asked whether Jomet would obtain funds again. We are going to build the south-west bus route. That leaves the Dalview interchange, improvements to traffic arteries and bus terminals and depots. There is also the Pretoria Premet, the Fonteinedal road scheme, Rachel de Beer Street, the Zambezi Road link and other improvements to traffic. Cape Town calls for Vanguard Drive, Turfhall Road, bus and rail junctions and a system of area traffic control. Bus terminals and passenger facilities are being built in Durban and improvements made to the traffic artery. There are the Dunswart bridges and improvements to traffic on the East Rand.

I can furnish the Committee with figures. We are to spend R23 million from the National Road Fund on Johannesburg; R16,7 million on Pretoria; R15,3 million on Cape Town; R10,9 million on Durban; R6,7 million on the East Rand; R5,5 million on Port Elizabeth; R2,4 million on Bloemfontein; R2,2 million on Pietermaritzburg and there is R8,1 million for contingencies.

†The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to aeroplanes that have to divert from the airport at Port Elizabeth. The Department of Transport is planning to instal an instrument landing system on the main runway for an approach from the west. However, such an installation must be co-ordinated with future extensions and the availability of funds with regard to its relative priority. As there are more than 31 000 aircraft movements per annum at the H F Verwoerd Airport the number of diversions indicated by the hon member is insignificant.

Did you say 31 000 aircraft movements per annum?

Yes.

Nonsense!

At the H F Verwoerd Airport?

It could be a printing error.

*The hon member for De Aar calmly and collectedly mentioned something that I wish I could accomplish, which is sole, central control of the traffic legislation of the provinces. The hon member said national traffic legislation should be instituted instead of the National Road Board. If we could succeed in combining all the provinces as proposed by the hon member, I should be one of the happiest of men.

Something more for decentralisation!

One cannot permit each province to collect licence fees separately because motor vehicles do not travel only in one province but throughout the country.

The hon member referred to the Group Areas Act and said the industrialist should decentralise.

Those were two speeches!

If the industrialist referred to by the hon member for Bezuidenhout had constructed his factory at Dennilton, it would not be necessary for the Dennilton man to travel 100 km to Pretoria. That is precisely the point made by the hon member for De Aar.

Are you going to take Iscor away from Pretoria?

The hon member for Roodeplaat said we should privatise the profitable. He is quite right. If we were to privatise only what the private sector wanted, they would grab pipelines first as there is no competition. The man obtaining them would make more money than from a gambling den. I wish to thank the hon member for Roodeplaat for having the insight to appreciate these matters in this way. The hon member also expressed his thanks for the speedy way in which the oil had been removed from the stranded ship.

I now reach the question of privatisation. What would happen if we asked a consortium to build the South Rand road? It could be Murray & Roberts, LTA, Sanlam, Old Mutual or any engineering firm. They would then have to build this road amounting to R7 million or R8 million plus a tunnel. It could also be the road from Parys through the Free State to Durban. Surely that is the right method. Are hon members satisfied with this proposal or not?

No.

We are moving in that direction.

People will demolish it.

Now I get to the hon member for Durban Point. I have replied to him on the National Transport Policy Study; I read the passage.

†Now that hon member says that they received no proposals from the hon the Minister. He says there is no White Paper and nothing definite. Will the hon member be satisfied if I bring him definite proposals and say: “Here it is cut and dried.” Is that the way he wants it? I shall provide a White Paper and we can discuss it.

That report is confidential!

No, we can discuss it. There is nothing to be hidden under the table.

I want to ask the hon member if he is happy that we are going to use two cents of the price of a litre of fuel for the MVA Fund? Is the hon member happy with that?

The principle, yes, but we are still looking at the figures.

The hon member is a shrewd politician but he is afraid to say no.

We had it in evidence today!

I am talking about motor insurance.

So am I!

In the past, the pensioner travelling 6 000 km per year had to pay exactly the same for his third party insurance as the commercial traveller doing 50 000 km per year. That was unchristian.

Un-what? Bishop Tutu will have you!

But he has you!

Not me, mate!

People are glad about this and I know it is the right thing to do.

I raised this matter before the Cabinet Committee last year. It came back and I had to explain. I invited the PCA, Napto, the Law Societies, the Bar Council and the insurance associations. Each time they made proposals to change the system. The matter then went before the standing committee. During the recess, I was telephoned and told that the matter would not be finalised by the end of April. The hon member for De Kuilen made a very good statement about this.

*What is wrong with that? Why does there have to be such a fuss over this? We can also have it done by proclamation. The public wants this measure, but the hon member wishes to make some mileage out of it because it may perhaps be a week or two late. That is unnecessary.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he believes it is correct to confront a standing committee with a draft Bill which has a deadline that is impossible to meet, and assume that whatever has been proposed will go through? I can tell him it will not go through because that committee is going to work on this properly.

It is not a matter of whether it was correct. It was the right thing to do. Is the hon member against this thing?

It is not a question of being against it.

That is the main thing.

I am concerned about some of the details.

If the hon member were unmarried and I were to bring him a beautiful woman, he would not be angry with me; I am giving him a good thing. [Interjections.] I am offering an excellent measure but the hon member just wants to raise a dust. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Welkom made a very good speech. He said our transport legislation was too fragmented and I agree with him on this. It is a pity there is an exception in the case of speed traps.

The CSIR is conducting an investigation on seat belts and the consumption of alcohol. Our problem in South Africa, to which the hon member for Kimberley South has already referred, is that more than 40% of the 8 000 people dying on our roads annually are pedestrians who use the road when drunk. This pushes our average up enormously.

The hon member for Rosettenville referred to the fact that urban transport was increasing by between 4% and 8%. I have already read out what we intend doing to obtain money for the cities. We have appointed a task group on the Johannesburg transport system. We are expecting a report from it shortly on other ways of transporting people.

The hon member for Parktown informed me he could not be present here today. I shall write to him about the A3 and A6 freeways in Johannesburg to which he referred.

The hon member for Primrose referred to taxes. I shall furnish him with a written reply to his question on the possibility of an increase in the legal axle load for heavy vehicles. The hon member also informed me he could not be here today.

The hon member referred to the urban transport problem and touched on a variety of aspects concerning this. The income of the National Road Fund will amount to approximately R590 this year of which R100 million will go to the Urban Transport Fund—but I shall send the hon member this information.

†The hon member for Umhlanga spoke about an airport at La Mercy. When I was Minister of Agriculture, the expropriation of land fell under the Minister of Agriculture and Land Tenure, and I was responsible for the expropriation of La Mercy. I know La Mercy very well. [Interjections.] I would be very happy to have an airport at La Mercy, but the financial difficulties are such that we cannot build it now. We are spending a couple of million rand on the Durban Airport. I think the hon member saw it himself. The first section will be completed at the beginning of next year—within eight months. The whole caboodle will be finished in 1988, in order to handle the simultaneous landing of two or three aeroplanes.

Be careful!

I am going to take a plane, and sit in the back, but this hon member must also be there. I will phone the airport, but I will not tell them that I am coming within a week or three or four. I cannot fly especially, but if I have something to do in Durban—I go there on and off …

Just don’t take any luggage.

I will take luggage. That hon member does not need luggage; he sleeps naked. [Interjections.] We can then have a look at the matter. However, I think the hon member for Umhlanga exaggerated the situation—it cannot be so bad. We phoned last night with regard to the hon member’s luggage and the matter is being followed up.

Everybody’s luggage!

Are you giving him a special deal?

No, it is all the same.

The hon member made a very good speech with regard to discipline on the roads and training. The question of training is a long story, and I shall refer to it later on.

*The hon member for Worcester spoke about the Du Toits Kloof tunnel. He is always grateful. He also referred to the road on the far side of the mountain and asked what it would cost. I cannot estimate now what it will cost in 18 months’ time but according to today’s costs a motor vehicle passing through the Du Toits Kloof tunnel will have to pay R2. The hon member spoke about the road between the tunnel and Worcester. He knows how I struggle to obtain this seven cents on a litre of fuel. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs—Danie, are you listening …

Yes.

This hon Minister is my friend. He helped me and, if he requires a piece of road in his constituency, he merely has to telephone me. [Interjections.]

May I telephone tomorrow?

I obtained that money and can consequently announce to the hon member that plans have already been drawn up for the improvement of the stretch of road concerned in the hon member’s constituency. Construction will begin on it next year.

The hon member for Maraisburg spoke on Government motor transport. He always speaks most entertainingly. He also discussed the ombudsman and said we should see to ambulances. He said we should see to Government ambulances and examine the maintenance of our vehicles. I wish to thank the hon member most heartily for his contribution.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout referred to Black commuters, and the subsidy for Black commuters. He drew certain comparisons between the travelling distances of Black commuters. However, he referred to a few Blacks who are exceptions. He did not refer to the Blacks living in Soweto and the distance they travel to their places of work, in comparison with people living in places such as Germiston, Randburg or Halfway House. There are people living in Germiston, Springs and Krugersdorp who travel to their places of work in Johannesburg by train. The hon member mentioned only the few Blacks who have to travel very far. He mentioned the people living in kwaNdebele as an example of those who travel excessively far. It is not the intention of the Government that people should live in kwaNdebele and work in Pretoria. They should work in the new factory of Ikangala.

Why cannot he work where he wants to work? [Interjections.]

Why cannot he work where he wants to work?

He can do so, but then he must not complain. [Interjections.] There is a factory where they live …

Not everybody who lives there can get work at the factory.

That is true, but we are not dealing with ideal situations. [Interjections.] The hon member for Bezuidenhout gave us a lot of statistical information, but he cannot show me a single country in the world where train passengers are not subsidised. I told the hon member this before.

I just said that you aggravated the situation.

I did not aggravate it. In my opinion it is an achievement to have a transport system such as ours transporting millions of people annually while receiving so little Government aid. It is definitely an achievement.

*The hon member for Kimberley South spoke on road safety and paid tribute to the NRSC. It is high time these people received a little praise. [Interjections.]

The hon member said the public was not motor accident-conscious and we should vote more money for the NRSC. The other day I saw four young people being carried out of an ambulance at a hospital after such a motor accident. It was a shock to see them.

I begged the Cabinet to include the driver’s licence in the identity document even if it were in another form. We could not persuade people to do so. We are still struggling to find a solution to the problem of driver’s licences. Last month Adv Botha showed us that details of each member of Parliament’s driving licence were available on microfiche.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether we cannot adopt the same system as is presently used in the USA where one’s actual driver’s licence is a form of identification. The same card is used, and if a person needs to be identified, even in respect of his age, his driver’s licence will show his real age. This can be used if a person under 21 goes into the bar and wishes to be served. His driver’s licence will show his real age. Why cannot we have a system like that?

I can add that in certain countries one’s fingerprints have to be on the driver’s licence. [Interjections.] When hon members of the PFP reacted unfavourably to having fingerprints on the identity document, I thought immediately that those people must have guilty consciences. [Interjections.] Hon members may have my fingerprints any time, because I do not have a skeleton in the cupboard. [Interjections.] However, those hon members are all afraid of fingerprints. [Interjections.] The hon member for Bezuidenhout is quite right. In the USA people have to have their driver’s licence with them all the time. That is the ideal situation.

Their driver’s licence is in the form of an identity card. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Greytown said he was in favour of the addition of a levy to the petrol price. I have referred to Mariannhill and will furnish the hon member with statistics within a month. My own truck did not pass through that gate because the spelling of the name was unrecognisable.

In conclusion I wish to thank hon members heartily. My thanks also go to the Director-General, Mr Adriaan Eksteen. [Interjections.] To work with a man of such lightning intelligence who does not drag his feet…

Where does he live?

I do not wish to drop old Lapa, but he lives in Acacia Park! [Interjections.]

I wish to thank him heartily. Mr Jock Germishuys, who is retiring at the end of the month, has already been thanked. He piloted a Boeing. He is a man who knows aviation. I work well with the Deputy Director-General and all the other officials—even though we sometimes disagree.

Mr Chairman, before the hon the Minister resumes his seat, I should like to put a question to him. I see the hon the Minister of Finance has agreed that the debts of South Africa fall under the jurisdiction of certain American and English courts. I request the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to establish in advance that assets such as aircraft of the South African Airways cannot be seized in foreign countries. I wish to know from the hon the Minister whether he can assure us that this will be examined timeously.

I think the less I say on this the better because one sometimes puts ideas into people’s heads by mentioning such matters. I do wish to say, however, that, if they take our things, remember many other people’s possessions come to us as well. [Interjections.]

I merely wish to explain to the hon the Minister …

Order! I cannot give the hon member for Langlaagte an opportunity to explain anything.

Sir, may I therefore put another question? I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware that he does not have the same jurisdiction over the aircraft of those people who come here as that hon Minister has now given to them. Someone has to owe one something before one can seize his possessions. [Interjections.]

I have taken note of the hon member’s request and shall attend to it. He has stopped me in my tracks as I wished to express my hearty thanks once again.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 2—“Parliament”:

Mr Chairman, I wish to start by expressing the appreciation and thanks of hon members on this side of the Committee toward all the officials who contribute to facilitating our activities here in Parliament.

In continuing my speech on Parliament, I am naturally speaking in the shadow of the new Constitution in terms of which the sovereignty of this Parliament is derogated by the existence of a President’s Council and the extraordinary powers of the State President. Deficiencies in the new tricameral Parliament become clearer to us daily; its activities have become more difficult with every session so far. It is becoming clear that the political jalopy of the “New Nats”—that is this tricameral system—is already becoming obsolete. This system appears to us to be dying already and that a Third-World political system will be constructed out of the ruins of this White civilisation.

No one in “New Nat” ranks sitting here can tell us how the new political dispensation to come will work. Those who do know, like the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, do not want to tell us. Pandora’s box has not been opened to us by the Ministers concerned so we do not know what is to become of this Parliament.

In addition I wish to say the bluffing game of so-called own affairs …

Order! I have accorded the hon member the opportunity of developing his argument. Nevertheless, I wish to point out to him that under this Vote this Committee does not discuss the constitutional aspect of Parliament, but the Vote: “Parliament”, which comprises expenditure on Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I wish to say with every respect that I am giving a specific introduction to Parliament and its activities here. We cannot merely clutch the subject out of thin air. One has to furnish it with a definite perspective to be able to discuss it. [Interjections.] I know hon members of the Government are not very eager for us to discuss this. The point I wish to make, however …

Order! I shall give the hon member the opportunity of making a few points by way of introduction to his argument, but he should not digress. The hon member may proceed.

I wish to say that, when the new Constitution was introduced, the Government said on one platform after the other and on one television programme after the other that we, the Whites, would have an own House in this tricameral Parliament and that inter alia we would have our own facilities such as a dining-room, etc. I am leading up to the specific point I wish to make on the bluffing game on own affairs the Government is trying to play with us.

On 9 April 1984 during the discussion of the same Vote as we are dealing with now, the hon the Minister of Transport in his capacity as the Leader of the House said to us:

Interjections followed, to which the hon the Minister replied:

I wish to tell the hon the Leader of the House I am the last person to be angry with him about these promises he made as regards own affairs and own facilities. I am not angry with him; I am very sorry for him because this hon Minister has to take the rap for the “New Nats” in the NP who make promises to the voters to attract them to the new dispensation and the Government whereas those promises are broken afterwards.

I wish to tell the hon the Leader of the House that the promises he has to make on behalf of the Government are simply like morphine which is injected into our voters to render them powerless as regards the abdication which is actually being planned for a later stage by the “New Nats”. Consequently we no longer believe in these promises the Government holds out to us.

Those who a few years ago proposed that this Parliament, which stood like a beacon of the civilisation built up here in Southern Africa, be converted into a tricameral system actually had the object in mind of making this Parliament one in which Blacks would also ultimately have to be accommodated.

Order! The hon member for Rissik must please revert to the Vote under discussion. I cannot permit the hon member to carry on a debate on constitutional matters now. If the hon member wishes to pursue his argument on Parliamentary facilities, I shall permit him to do so. He should refrain, however, from turning it into a constitutional debate. The hon member may proceed.

He is a rambler!

I may be a rambler but I can tell hon members the Government makes promises to the people out there which it cannot honour.

Sir, I wish to remind you that millions of rands were spent on the buildings erected here. There is a prospect that a new dispensation will be introduced yet again. I now wish to ask where the money is to come from. Will this building be used again or what is the Government’s planning as regards the new constitutional dispensation? [Interjections.]

In addition, as regards the promises made to us and to the voters, I wish to say we were to have met in separate Chambers with separate facilities. What is happening now? I quote from Business Day of February:

What happened? A member of this coalition Government came into one of our dining rooms like some demonstrator …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I contend with respect that the hon member for Rissik is circumventing your ruling. [Interjections.] To my mind the only relevant aspect under the Vote “Parliament” is the actual amounts voted in this year’s Budget. I further wish to allege that, in quoting that specific passage, the hon member for Rissik is continuing the political discussion you prohibited him from pursuing under this Vote. He is insulting hon Ministers … [Interjections.]

Order! I have listened to what the hon member for Innesdal had to say. I am listening very attentively to the hon member for Rissik and, if he should overstep the mark, I shall call him to order. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: May I inquire whether an hon member may take the liberty of referring to another hon member as a demonstrator?

Order! The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr Chairman, now the hon member for Innesdal is doing the same as the hon member for Bryanston after the hon member for Bryanston said he would not set foot in our “dun-eet” again before it was opened to other hon members of Parliament. The hon member for Innesdal said he was also boycotting the “dun-eet”.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I wish to suggest with respect that the debate on the facilities in this Parliament has nothing to do with the appropriation under the Parliamentary Vote. [Interjections.] Wait a bit! I wish to request with respect that the hon member for Rissik should not circumvent this ruling in order to be able to conduct a political debate under this specific Vote on whether Parliamentary facilities should be thrown open or not.

Order! I can only tell the hon member for Innesdal that I cannot stop the hon member for Rissik if he wishes to speak on Parliamentary facilities under this Vote.

The hon member spent too much time travelling in America during the years we were debating here when the PFP stood up every year—according to their full right and their standpoint of principles—and said that the dining room of this Parliament should be thrown open. The hon member did not react to that at the time. The hon member sits in the NP, under the name of the NP, but he does not have the courage of his convictions to rise, abandon the NP and join the PFP. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, to start with I should just like to raise a modest little matter with the hon the Leader of the House. I should like to hear from him how matters stand with the salaries of the waitresses here in the diningroom. How do matters stand with their salaries now, in comparison with what they were when they worked for him, in the catering section of SATS?

In view of the directive which was issued at one stage by his department to the effect that Whites who became redundant in a specific post, could now be appointed to a lower post, but with a loss of salary and status, and in view of the fact that the directive was not used in respect of the other population groups, I want to ascertain whether that is what has come up here with the women who are our waitresses here? I want to ask the hon the Leader of the House to give me a direct reply to this question. Is it correct that these women are at present receiving approximately R200 per month less than they received when they were still being employed by the catering service of SATS? [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the Leader of the House not to ignore this little question of mine in his reply.

To a certain extent we are witnessing a macabre comedy here today, namely that the PFP, which was always in the forefront of this debate, is now keeping quiet. They are keeping quiet to such an extent that they do not have a word to say in this debate. Their silence is that of those who have triumphed. [Interjections.] Their silence is that of people who have been satisfied; they are silent because they are now resting on their laurels as conquerors.

They are the “fat cats” now.

No, they are not the “fat cats”. They are remaining peacefully silent because they have run that once powerful NP into the ground in respect of the matters of this Parliament.

With their wing, the New Nats.

They have won a small, but extremely strategic skirmish in the process in which they are channelling the National Party over the precipice of integration like a flock of sheep. [Interjections.] Just look at them smiling, Sir. They are smiling like typical “fat cats” now. [Interjections.] I think we should congratulate them. We should congratulate them because this small band of Progs has completely flattened the once mighty and numerically powerful National Party. [Interjections.]

Last year, Mr Chairman, it was for practical, for logistical and goodness knows what other reasons still not possible for the National Party, which dominates the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, to throw open the small private dining-room, known as “dun-eet”. They argued this matter vehemently, Mr Chairman. At the time, though, the Chief Whip of my party was able to tell them that they had lost the moral argument in regard to the refusal of admission to the “dun-eet” of members of the other two Houses. This year, however, a few Coloured demonstrators flattened them. Flattened them completely, Mr Chairman! [Interjections.] During that process a principle was introduced into this Parliament which is alien to our entire parliamentary tradition. What happened was that members of this place, members of governmental authority, members of the Parliament of South Africa, forced their will upon the Government by way of demonstrations. [Interjections.]

And what is more they are sitting in the inner circles of the Government!

Yes, they are sitting in the inner circles of the Government.

Yes, and one of these days they will also be sitting here in Parliament!

Now, Mr Chairman— and this is why I say it is macabre—after they had demonstrated on two occasions and subsequently withdrawn, there was a meeting of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Last year’s resolution was reversed. But what happened then, Mr Chairman. This was followed by conspicuous horse-trading. There was horse-trading in this sense that they were told: “Now you people may as well withdraw. We shall agree, but the condition is that you people stay away from there”. Now it only happens occasionally that members of the House of Delegates come here and—please excuse my word again, Sir—eat there as a token.

What is that you said, Tom? [Interjections.]

Now they are able to maintain the situation in this way for the present—the hon the Leader of the House and his party. They are able to maintain it in this way at the moment because they still have a controllable group there. This Government, however, is in that way making provision—and I shall come back to this again later in regard to a different matter— for the last race group in South Africa as well which still does not have representation in this place. The Government is making provision for them as well, in accordance with the dictates of Huntington, namely by way of “deceit, ambiguity and concealment”. And now I ask the hon the Leader of the House the following question. When the members of the fourth Chamber eventually turn up here …

There is not going to be a fourth Chamber!

How do you know that?

… and they enter that dining-room at 12h15 …

The Blacks will simply come directly to this House!

Order!

… where are the members of the House of Assembly going to eat?

Probably in the Company Gardens! [Interjections.]

Do you see, Sir, that is the situation in which we have landed as a result of this Governments panic-stricken flight from the way which is the only way in which the population relations in this country can be properly ordered and maintained. They have painted themselves into all kinds of corners, and every day they paint themselves even more inextricably into ever more impossible comers. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I just want to point out again what the hon Chief Whip of my party said on a previous occasion. We do not begrudge any people—the Coloureds, the Indians or the separate Black peoples in South Africa—a single right in this country which we also demand for ourselves.

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg is again tending to digress rather widely from the scope of the Vote under discussion.

Mr Chairman, all I am doing now is to qualify in a single sentence a principle which I adhere to in practice. We do not begrudge any people in this country anything that we also demand for ourselves. This Government, however, is painting itself into every possible corner because it has given up, because it has allowed the hon member of the Official Opposition to take it in tow. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to the ostentatious buildings adjoining the Parliamentary building, which are apparently nearing completion.

Order! That is a matter for the Department of Public Works.

Mr Chairman, I suggest with all due respect that you listen first to what I want to say in this connection before you ask me to drop the matter.

Order! The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member in terms of his party’s policy that the groups should have separate facilities, which would, presumably, be equal, whether, for example, he envisages a situation in which the Library of Parliament would have to be triplicated? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that would depend on where the various Houses are accommodated.

We will not have the Houses then.

At a certain stage, when the hon the Leader of the House was still in the position where he was blindfolded by the “New Nats” as to the direction he was going to take, he said: “Ek gaan darem nog lekker lag vir julle KP’s wanneer die nuwe bedeling in werking gestel word en Indiërs sit in Natal en Kleurlinge in Bellville-Suid.” [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to tell the hon member that there is no overcrowding in the dining room at present. Any hon member can have a meal there without any difficulties. [Interjections.] The hon member for Soutpansberg put certain questions to me. During the discussion of the SATS appropriation I asked the hon member where a directive existed that a White was to be put at a greater disadvantage or treated worse than a Black. I did not receive that letter. After the debate here I also requested the SATS management to inform me about those guidelines. They then told me no such thing existed.

I also saw that letter.

I have a few of those letters in my possession.

Then I ask the hon member for De Aar whether I may see one of those letters.

Will you resign if we show you the letter?

I do not wish to resign; I merely want to know why I am not permitted to see the letter.

Because you say it does not exist.

Why am I not permitted to see the letter?

Then just do not tell us we must …

Order!

The hon member said the young ladies serving us here were R200 per month worse off and he asked whether we applied the same directive to them as we applied to Whites working on the Railways. He said in the same breath that those girls no longer worked for us. How can he question me on the directive and say in the next breath that the women no longer work for SATS?

That is a feeble point.

Mr Chairman, may I repeat my question to the hon the Leader of the House or at least explain? My question is simply this: What are the girls earning here now as against the remuneration they earned when they worked for SATS?

Sir, now the hon member is asking a proper question. [Interjections.] He insinuates immediately again that there will be discrimination against those girls.

We are afraid of that. We know you.

No, I merely want to know what they are earning at present.

I asked the Secretary to Parliament whether we could convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Catering for next Monday, 21 April. I want to discuss this matter on that occasion.

What are those women earning now? They are receiving R200 less and the hon the Leader of the House knows this.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte should not become so excited.

I heard that story and that is why we convened the meeting. I cannot understand why those people should earn less but I also believe the bonus system works differently here than at SATS. Surely the hon member himself serves on the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Catering.

My question has not even been answered.

But the hon member serves on the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Catering himself. Surely he can put his question there.

No, he is just asking how much they receive now.

I do not know.

You are the Leader of the House and you do not know!

Good heavens, do I as the Leader of the House know everyone’s salary? [Interjections.] It is no use attempting to reply to questions of hon CP members in a polite way.

These people no longer work for me; I am the Minister of Transport Services.

You are the Leader of the House!

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House has not answered our questions. He came and said there was no overcrowding in the “dun-eet”. I wish to cite an example. He is well aware that, contrary to the principles it promised to the voters and contrary to the principle put to us in this House after Rev Hendrickse and his followers simply sat down in the “dun-eet”, the Government changed its standpoint. I do not hold this against the hon the Leader of the House because they are not his views. He has to proclaim the standpoint of a Government which is so heavily loaded to the left that the right half can no longer move.

I wish to make two comments to him. He continues telling the people out there we have separate facilities in Parliament but this is not true; we do not have separate facilities.

People are hungry, Daan!

In the years when the PFP put these standpoints, I listened to it. Its standpoint was correct in principle according to its policy and it succeeded. For the next two or three years until we get rid of the Government hon members of the PFP should listen to us.

I say to the hon the Leader of the House that his telling the people out there that Whites have own affairs is only a bluffing game. That is the point I wish to make. I now wish to revert to the “dun-eet”. The House of Assembly is historically entitled to the “dun-eet”. Hon members tell me there is no overcrowding. We now have a dispensation in which Rev Hendrickse obtained admission to the “dun-eet” in his way. I wish to tell the Committee that civilised behaviour also means that a person does not begrudge another his privacy. [Interjections.] That is one element of good manners. Under pressure from his left wing the hon the Leader of the House then changed his standpoint in principle so that the “dun-eet” was thrown open again.

I do not wish to scold and fight him but unfortunately he is the Leader of the House. He has to accept he can no longer say out there that the House of Assembly has a separate room with separate facilities. When my hon colleagues or the hon member for Sasolburg tells this to the people out there during the next referendum—we hope it will come—the hon the Leader of the House must not tell them again there is something like own affairs.

The hon the Leader of the House comes to this Parliament, which is very important to the CP—just as important as it is to the hon member for Sea Point as emerged from his speech of the year before last—and tells us in our sovereign body that he protects minority groups. According to him there will be a Constitution in which the protection of minority groups will be incorporated. Here we have one small facet of our daily lives in Parliament. We have an historic custom that members of the same party have certain tables in the “dun-eet” at which they sit. I do not sit with the hon members of the PFP or my hon friends of the NRP; not that I do not like them—because they are nice chaps—but because it is the custom that one sits at the tables of one’s party. Now one enters the “dun-eet” and Rev Hendrickse and his people, as well as Mr Rajbansi and his people, also have the right to sit there. They have the right to sit at our table. If one walks in there and one …

Will you chase them away? [Interjections.]

No, we shall not chase them away.

The way in which this Parliament is regulated is a sign of the disorder which is prevailing in an increasing measure in the country because the Government is forcing us all into the same constitutional structure. That is all I wish to say to the hon the Leader of the House. My hon Chief Whip has already discussed these matters.

Obviously we are enmeshed in this dispensation just as the hon the Leader of the House is. When we come to power, we shall naturally attempt to implement our policy. According to our policy each of the peoples has its own Parliament with its own dining rooms. I wish to put it to the hon the Leader of the House that he will find CP members very much more—if I may use the word— civilised in our approach to and in our conversation with those of colour when we have an own sovereign Parliament and wish to receive those of colour there. As regards that, the rightists are perhaps very much more liberal concerning their actual relations with non-Whites. [Interjections.] Hon members may perhaps differ with me on this.

I do not wish to tell Rev Hendrickse or Mr Rajbansi and their people they should not eat. They have been brought into this system—an act against which we voted. We were promised we would have separate facilities but then Rev Hendrickse came and in a way which disgraced the Cabinet and the Government…

Nonsense!

Of-course! [Interjections.]

Does the hon member for Winburg approve of the fact that Rev Hendrickse merely walked into a place where the ruling of the Speaker of this House provides that it is reserved for certain people? If the hon member adopts that attitude, he is ten times worse … [Interjections.] … and the difference between him and the PFP emerges clearly. The PFP is sincere in its application of its policy as regards this but the hon member told a story in Winburg. I know Winburg. The hon member does not even want to appear on the same platform with me.

We do not blame him either!

Yes, because he cannot; neither will that hon member do so.

The hon member for Winburg announced there that we White members of Parliament had our own House and our own dining facilities here.

That is not the truth.

I wish to tell the hon member his statement is untrue; it is not so.

I wish to close by saying we do not begrudge the Coloureds and Indians who came here somewhere to have meals but, according to promises made to us, we have a certain place which is ours according to the customs of the House.

With this I wish to tell the hon the Leader of the House—we shall remind him of this every year until the next election—that he is doing two matters an injustice: The “own” promises he made and Parliament as an institution. A Cabinet colleague of the hon the Minister’s simply walks into a room and says: “I shall sit here and make a scene of it.”

That is blackmail.

If that is the way of “sound” power-sharing the NP is following now, I wish to tell the hon the Leader of the House and his colleagues there is going to be very great and serious trouble in this country.

Mr Chairman …

You are awake!

The hon member may hear something which will upset him again here.

You are awake!

Mr Chairman, may I promise the hon member for Jeppe something without having it held against me?

A crate of bananas! [Interjections.]

Yes, that would be good.

I had not intended participating in this debate. I should like to accept that, when the hon member for Soutpansberg raised the entire matter of the ladies serving on the staff in the dining room, he did so because he was really concerned about their position and not to score a political point. I believe that is so.

If the hon member made the statement here that the ladies were all R200 per month worse off …

That is what I asked!

No, the hon member stated that very clearly. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question?

Give me a chance to say something too.

Order! I called upon the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member stated that ladies of the staff supposedly earned R200 per month less. I do not wish to argue the details of the ladies’ salaries at this point as I do not think they deserve to have their salaries used as a political argument in this Committee. [Interjections.] I think it a disgrace that this should happen and hon members will find this is the first time such an element has been introduced into debating on Parliament. [Interjections.]

Those hon members have a representative on the catering committee which considers these matters from time to time. On the 21st of this month there is a meeting of that committee at which this subject will be dealt with among others.

I have received a document on this which I have not studied yet but I wish to say that there are a number of the ladies who are considerably better off under the current dispensation than they were under that of the hon the Leader of the House as the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. [Interjections.] The fact is that the manner of remuneration and conditions of service differ. A benefit the ladies do not receive at present but which they had under the old dispensation is a travelling concession for which an adjustment has to be made to their remuneration structure. As regards overtime and bonuses, the ladies now fall under a totally different dispensation than when they were in the service of SATS. The hon member made a general statement here that ladies received less without exception.

He put a question.

But what is the innuendo in the question?

They do not know the difference.

The hon member for Langlaagte trumpeted out at the back there that the ladies received R200 less.

Some of those ladies receive up to R200 less.

I wish to suggest that we leave this entire matter in the hands of the catering committee with great confidence.

You are a member of it and we cannot trust you.

Instead of coming here with complaints without any details whatsoever, hon members of the CP should also exhibit their confidence in their representative on that committee who has made a very valuable contribution over the years.

A cat among the pigeons!

One cannot argue with these people. [Interjections.] As regards salaries, I think we may safely leave that in the hands of the catering committee.

Getting to the availability of Parliamentary facilities, I think it a tragic day that at this stage we should still be reproaching one another, referring to demonstrators and carrying on as if we were out of our right environment. One hon member even alleged he had been pushed out of facilities here at the House of Assembly. All facilities are available to hon members and all dining facilities are available to all hon members. For convenience’ sake they are situated in buildings which are more convenient to some than to others but Parliamentary facilities are open to all hon MPs.

I was privileged to negotiate with representatives of all groups in this regard and we may be exceptionally grateful for the co-operation exhibited. People took one another’s rights into consideration. [Interjections.] If there are a few hon members here who say they are being crowded out by that arrangement, it is not true. Not one of the hon CP members can claim here that he has been pushed out of his position, whether in the main dining room, the “dun-eet” or any other facility in this Parliament. [Interjections.] For a person to have to debate at this late hour against the CP’s attitude, which is petty on account of its members’ selfishness, is a disgrace to Parliament to my mind.

You are a disgrace to Parliament!

Your party is a disgrace to Parliament!

Order! Will the hon member for Jeppe withdraw that remark.

Mr Chairman, may I address you? The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament implied a moment ago that we were a disgrace with our standpoint, whereupon I reacted by saying that he was a disgrace. So it is precisely the same.

Order! The hon member for Jeppe said the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament was a disgrace to Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that and say the NP is a disgrace.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the statement unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the hon Chief Whip of Parliament that he and I have been here for the same length of time and that he cannot teach me what is scandalous and what is not. Furthermore I should like to tell him that today it was a case of the voice of Jacob, but the hand of Esau, because every argument he used today was exactly the opposite of the argument he used in the days when the hon Chief Whip of the PFP drove him into a corner. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is that the hon member has replied that there are no problems, but that is not an answer based on principle. There is no more principle in the NP’s arguments. The Progs have a principle and we have a principle, but the NP and the NRP are devoid of principle.

Now, I should like to tell the hon Minister that he is one of those men with whom one cannot really become angry. [Interjections.] I remember—and I should like to repeat it to him—when he told us how he was going to laugh at us when the Indians were sitting in Natal and the Coloureds here in Roggebaai. I should like to tell the hon the Minister that he must leave that lot to their own devices now. They have already wondered too far off the road they were on. He must leave them alone and come back to where he belongs. [Interjections.] He must come to us and leave them alone. He can also bring a few of his friends along. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask a final question. As regards the planning of the buildings across the way, and in anticipation of their deciding later this year to bring a Black Minister into the Cabinet of the State President, I should like to ask the hon the Minister at this early stage whether he is going to make provision in Parliament for where that Minister is going to sit?

He can come and eat with me!

Where is he going to be accommodated? Furthermore I should like to ask the hon Minister how much additional seating space is being provided in this magnificent building which is under construction. Could he please tell us?

Mr Chairman, all I want to say is that the composition of the President’s Council is the subject of a whole enquiry. It has all been reported in the press. There is speculation of one kind and another but I cannot reply in any way other than to say that there is nothing final as far as this matter is concerned.

The less you say, Hendrik, the better.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to know whether the hon Leader of the House is going to reply on this aspect of the about-turn of this Government in respect of the arguments that were raised in this House of Assembly during the time of Mr Fanie Botha already. Then it did not concern the so-called “dun-eet” (dinette), but about guests in the public dining room. On that aspect the hon Leader of the House argued last year that it was, in the words of Mr Fanie Botha, a club. I can quote his words to him (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1985, col 5680):

That was on 17 May 1985; less than a year ago. Now we simply want to know what the situation is. That entire party swallowed this argument. [Interjections.] They took part in the voting. We all voted against the PFP. We were impressed by those arguments. It is not an argument that was used donkey’s years ago, but an argument used only last year. [Interjections.] What is going on in the mind of those hon members on the Government side? What do they think they are doing with South Africa under these circumstances?

Now we have the situation in which it seems to me that you, Mr Chairman, are going to put the Vote before the hon Leader of the House has given us a reply to this very relevant question. We feel that we are entitled to our privacy and to consider this facility as a club of this House. What happened to that very sound argument? The hon Leader of the House must explain it to us. At a certain stage in 1984 he said the following to us:

This is astonishing, Sir.

Now we have sacrificed the “dun-eet” as well. Is there racial harmony and stability now. [Interjections.] I hope that the hon Leader of the House will at least rise to his feet now and reply to these arguments of the CP. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, when that argument was advanced there were no coloured members of Parliament. [Interjections.]

That was in 1984.

No, the PFP’s request at the time was to bring guests into Parliament. [Interjections.] The hon members say that we now agree with the PFP.

That was on 17 May 1985.

I am talking about the 1984 case. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik said there were some things that are of great value to him. One of them is the “dun-eet” (dinette) and the other is the “dik-eet” (dining room), which have been sacrificed. Is this place not then of greater value?

It has lost its sovereignty!

Fine. In the referendum 66% of the population voted in favour of people of colour having a say in Parliament. [Interjections.] One can use the same arguments and say they may go and eat in the “dun-eet” and the “dik-eet”. If overcrowding occurs then we must act. We must see to it that there is no overcrowding. [Interjections.] It does not threaten my survival. The hon member for Brakpan, however, says that we are also experiencing unrest and rebellion now. Is the hon member trying to tell me for one moment that if his party were governing this country there would be no unrest here. [Interjections.] That is a short-sighted remark. The hon member has no idea what the unrest is all about.

Order! The unrest is not under discussion now. What is under discussion is Parliament and its facilities. The hon Leader of the House may proceed.

No Sir, I do not want to proceed any further. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon Leader of the House a question concerning our waitresses? They work hard and they are on their feet all day. Their salaries are modest and in those circumstances one finds oneself in a tight spot if one loses R100 or R200. I asked the hon Leader of the House whether they were now receiving more or less money. I asked him whether they were now losing R200. I do not know how much they earn. I am asking him, as Leader of the House, what he is going to do about this matter. He is the big boss around here.

A few days ago, when I heard from some of the ladies that they were being paid less—no amount was mentioned—I said I was going to convene a meeting of the Parliamentary Catering committee. This is the channel which I must use to rectify this matter. They —the CP—are represented on this committee …

You said just now that you did not know what they received.

I do not know what salaries those women receive because …

But you said they are now receiving less!

Some of them are being paid more. [Interjections.]

Order! If one hon member puts a question to another hon member, ordinary courtesy requires that he give that hon member an opportunity to reply to the question. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, a few days ago, when I received the message from the girls, convening a meeting was the right thing to do. I can tell the hon member that his representative at that meeting will be able to come and tell him what was wrong. I am also saying that if they are now receiving less—and now I am thinking for example of the travel concessions which they have lost—I have already decided to propose at that meeting that the matter be rectified.

That is all we wanted to know! [Interjections.]

Good Lord, does the hon member think that I would do someone in by decreasing their salary and not make it up in some other way? No, Sir, that man … [Interjections.]

Order! There are only hon members in this House.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The provisions of the South African Transport Services Amendment Bill entail amendments to three sections of the South African Transport Services Act, 1981, Act 65 of 1981.

Owing to wide interest displayed by the private sector in the possibility of hiring immovable property of the Transport Services for the purpose of business development, section 9(26) was inserted by Act 5 of 1984 with a view to putting the question of legal power to allow such leases beyond doubt.

For various reasons section 9(26) does not provide a suitable legal framework on which the Transport Services and developers can contemplate launching developments of the type envisaged. Clause 1 of the Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs will eliminate these problems and allow the type of development contemplated.

The standing committee concerned has discussed the aspects surrounding the proposed amendment in detail and I should like to thank the committee members for the constructive manner in which the deliberations were conducted.

In clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill it is proposed that the maximum fine of R50 for hawking on trains be increased to R500. The South African Railways Police have found that hawkers contaminate liquor with drugs with the idea of robbing passengers once they have fallen asleep. The present maximum fine for offences of this nature does not serve as sufficient deterrent.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House will support the Bill, although there are quite a number of explanations which we shall require from the hon the Minister.

When Act No 5 of 1984 was introduced into this House in the form of an amendment to the South African Transport Services Act, Act 65 of 1981, we obtained an amendment from the hon the Minister to the effect that any immovable property which was to be used for the purposes of commercial development or exploitation by private enterprise, would have to be subject to any town planning scheme within the scope of the relevant local authority. Now, however, we have a new Bill which changes this aspect entirely. The original Act read as follows:

When we received this Bill this year, it changed this aspect entirely in that it was no longer confined to the letting of immovable property but allowed for lessees of immovable property to develop, use or sublet such property for any purpose. This gave a completely different point of view as to how alterations in respect of the use of the property could be made. We therefore had great misgivings about this Bill, particularly after reading a proviso in the Bill. The proviso raised a very important point of principle in South Africa. The proviso in the original Bill which was given to us, read as follows:

That is the form in which it came before the standing committee.

Those of us who have served in local government throughout South Africa know that this privilege of being able to control town planning and town planning procedures inside one’s own town is something which the local authorities have been fighting for for years and which they now have. Here we had an organisation which wished us to pass in this Parliament a Bill which would allow only for the local authority to be consulted. This would mean that after the local authority had been consulted, even if the local authority did not approve of what the SATS wanted, they could go ahead and do as they liked. This was our objection on the standing committee.

Let me say that in this respect the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs played a very important role in that full discussion was allowed on this matter. I want to compliment the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs on the manner in which he conducted this whole matter because there were a large number of people who objected to this particular clause and, as a result of the resulting discussions, it was amended. Certain persons made proposals and eventually the SATS had to accept their proposals.

It even went so far that the United Municipal Executive also signified that it was not prepared to accept the conditions as laid down in the Bill in its original form because it would create tremendous difficulties and would undermine the question of town planning completely. Let us take the city of Johannesburg as an example. There the railway station is right in the middle of the town. The area covered by the Johannesburg Railway Station is almost as big as the town centre of Johannesburg itself. There is a possibility that the SATS could develop it by a new method of town planning which has not been seen in South Africa before, namely by the granting of air rights. It would have been possible, had this Bill been passed in its original form, for the SATS to build an additional, completely new town centre on the Johannesburg Railway Station as it exists. This would have led to tremendous difficulties.

However, as a result of the representations made, the Bill was amended to what it is today. There were still certain misgivings, particularly on my part, as to how this would develop. I did state that the Action Committee of the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government had been approached and that it had decided to support the principle of the use of the property belonging to the SATS for any purpose other than railway purposes after agreement had been reached with the local authority or, in the absence of such an agreement, with the consent of the relevant administrator on such conditions as he deemed fit.

That is the procedure which any individual or body has to follow that wishes to bring about a rezoning in the town planning scheme, to develop a completely new scheme, or to have a rezoning. SATS must follow the same procedures as any other body or individual. They must make application in the normal way. They will now have to make application to the local authority in the normal way. If the local authority does not grant them the right to go ahead, then they have the same right of appeal to the administrator and to the township boards of the various provinces as any other individual or body has.

It worried me, however, that there would not be an opportunity for certain other things to happen. I submitted that the process of reaching an agreement with a local authority as regards the proposed development could not be equated with the democratic process in which the people affected by the development should be given the opportunity to object to such development.

Let us again take the Johannesburg Railway Station as an example. There are a large number of traders who have built up businesses around the Johannesburg Railway Station to cater for the passengers who come and go to and from Johannesburg in their thousands every day. There is a different type of business to be found around the Johannesburg Railway Station to those in the rest of the city. If the SATS had been given the right to do what it wished to do with regard to the Johannesburg Railway Station, it could have destroyed those businesses which have been there for a long time, and those traders would not have had the opportunity of going through the democratic process of being able to object to an application for rezoning. Fortunately—I will mention it in a few minutes time—we have been given an undertaking—and I want to deal with the hon the Minister about this—that that undertaking is going to be fulfilled.

The fact that a person or a body who obtained the rights in the manner envisaged will benefit at the expense of other people cannot be argued away, and on that score I hope when the hon the Minister gives his undertaking he will ensure that that right is not done away with. The situation is that I still think that the Bill is wrong in that it uses only the word “business”, because I think it should also include business offices and residential areas, but apparently they did not want that.

The legal representatives of the SATS gave evidence before the standing committee. They said that they were going to operate in this particular way. This is the undertaking that I want from the hon the Minister. They said that it would be the SATS that would apply for a bundle of rights. The lessees would not be allowed to apply for those rights, because it would be far better for the SATS to apply for the bundle of rights and, once they had received that bundle of rights, then they could get their lessees to build in accordance to that bundle of rights. It is essential that the SATS will always carry that out. One cannot allow private organisations to do just what they like by letting one’s property to them and saying: You can go and do what you like and apply for what you like. Once they have that bundle of rights they will lease the property to whichever organisation there is and the lessee will then have to act accordingly.

Let me just say this: The SATS is a semi-State organisation. It is true that it is a business organisation, but it must be particularly careful when it does get this bundle of rights to ensure that things are done in the proper manner. I want them to be done in such a way that the local authorities will still be able to carry out the procedures which they have at the moment. If the SATS applies for a bundle of rights they must not be in a hurry to get them over and not care about the other members of the public. There must be hearings; there must be an opportunity given to the public to make objections to the applications for the bundle of rights. They must be carried out in the spirit in which the town planning schemes of the various towns of South Africa have been devised. They must not set themselves up above the people, but they must be part of the people.

I implore the hon the Minister please to ensure that regulations are laid down in regard to the manner in which these applications must be made. The SATS enjoys a tremendous privilege by having property in South Africa which was acquired as long ago as a century and in the intervening period which has given them prime sites all over South Africa. There is no reason why these should not be developed, both to the benefit of the SATS and to the cities concerned. However, the SATS must be careful to ensure that the rights of the ordinary man in the street who has a business are not destroyed by virtue of the fact that the SATS is there.

You are making a good speech.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the hon the Minister’s remark.

As long as the hon the Minister gives that undertaking and makes absolutely certain that the people of South Africa understand that that is the manner in which it will be done, I hope the problems will be overcome.

The new Bill that we have before us has a very important principle in it, and I want to bring this to the notice of hon members. We now have the following provision: “Provided that such development shall only take place after agreement has been reached with the relevant local authority.” In other words, the onus is now on the local authority to grant the bundle of rights which has been applied for. The local authority will also then have to pass a resolution to the necessary effect. In other words, it will be completely and totally public. Everything will be aboveboard and there will be no feeling whatsoever that there has been some underhand work on the part of a particular Government department. Only once it follows more or less the same pattern according to which local authorities now carry out town planning, will there be a feeling of trust among the public. It is only fair that, if agreement is not reached, the SATS be given the same right as that which an individual or body enjoys when it makes application for rezoning, namely to appeal to the administrator or to the township board. Furthermore, I was very pleased to see that, for the purposes of this legislation, cognisance was taken of the fact that there are areas in South Africa that are not included in any particular town planning scheme of a town. In these cases application for development of such areas must be submitted to the relevant administrator. The hon the Minister should realise, however, that we now have administrators who are virtually employees of the State. They are no longer accountable to the elected members of provincial councils, and these members can no longer object to or bring this matter up at provincial council level.

That is the situation at the moment. If there are problems in regard to a particular area, these problems can be brought up and discussed publicly. So there is an even greater onus on the Minister in respect of areas that are not located within town boundaries to make absolutely certain that the rights of the public in that area are not prejudiced. For those reasons, then, and on those conditions, we accept this Bill.

I also want to say that it has been proved once again that the standing committee system has certain great merits. For instance, when Bills like these come before the standing committee they can be considered, alterations can be made to them, and amendments proposed in respect of them can be passed. The result of this is that a far better Bill comes before this House than would otherwise have been the case.

However, this particular Bill has two parts to it. The first part deals with town planning and the acquisition of rights by the SATS, and the second part has to do with hawking on trains. It is true that the SATS are having trouble with hawkers at the moment. There is much more to this situation than meets the eye, however. For instance, there are trains such as the one that runs from Kimberley to Bloemfontein and back again on which there is no form of refreshment whatsoever. There are also other trains on which no refreshments are offered. The SATS now has the right to authorise a person to hawk on a train. The idea behind this in the first instance was to prevent people from hawking on trains such as suburban trains on which a large number of hawkers were selling drugs, liquor and all sorts of other things which should not have been sold on the train. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister—this is the same appeal which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central made—that the rail passenger services section of the SATS consider the whole question of allowing hawkers to operate on certain trains on which catering services are not provided. I think this would be of benefit. It applies more particularly to the people who travel second and third class than to other people. So I appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that when the SATS deal with this particular problem of hawking, they also consider the people who commute on trains on which no refreshments are offered.

We will support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Bezuidenhout very much indeed for the compliment he paid to the standing committee and to me personally. I must say, however, that the standing committee’s success is largely due to the fact that hon members like the hon member for Bezuidenhout and others are prepared to play their full part in the standing committee, and to the fact that they are prepared to co-operate when good, common sense prevails. Once again, I thank the hon member for the compliment he paid to the entire standing committee.

The hon member is perfectly correct in suggesting that when the original Bill came before us there were certain provisions which the standing committee could not accept. I think that this Parliament would have had great difficulty accepting it. It was of course not only the City Council of Johannesburg that objected. I believe there were other major metropolitan authorities in South Africa, members of the United Municipal Executive and others who strongly objected to the original proviso.

Even Bellville!

Yes, even Bellville, as well as Port Elizabeth and many others. I do think, however, that what is also important is that one should bear in mind that the give and take attitude which prevailed on the standing committee was not only confined to the members themselves. I think one should also pay a compliment to the fact that the SATS themselves, through their officials, were prepared to accede to reasonable requests. Therefore, Sir, I believe they are after all the people who would really like to have this new clause inserted in the Act because this can mean a lot to them. They ultimately realised that one had to have the co-operation of one’s local authorities in matters such as town-planning schemes and so forth.

*And so I also want to tell them that we appreciate their attitude. Moreover, if this is the spirit in which the business of the SA Transport Services will be dealt with in these standing committees—also by the SA Transport Services itself—I think it augurs very well for the future.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout made the point that the SA Transport Services had some prime sites in the country. He also made the point that one should bear in mind that there were other business people who should not be adversely affected as a result of this new provision. Now, Sir, as far as I am concerned the SA Transport Services, although they are a State organisation, are still competing in a market which has many difficult facets pertaining to it today. If they have land or other property which can be put to good use by them and which can assist them in obtaining additional income, I see no reason at all why it should not be done. That principle has been ratified before.

Furthermore, Sir, the hon member for Bezuidenhout also expressed his concern about the existing business people. I do not blame him for adopting that particular attitude. At the same time, however, if the SA Transport Services provides additional facilities for businessmen in this country surely it is going to mean more competition and it can also help us to reduce inflation. They will themselves be able too to provide facilities for the travelling public at a place where they often meet, which, I believe, is no more than right under the present circumstances in South Africa. I believe the existing businessmen have really nothing to fear. We are continually going to have more and more businessmen coming into the market, and this can only augur well for the whole of South Africa, and, I believe, also for our general economic development.

*In this Bill due allowances have been made for the local authorities, as well as for the administrators and the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning and all the activities for which this Department is responsible. I therefore think the standing committee handled the legislation under discussion very well. It spent a fair amount of time on it, and I am delighted that we have at long last reached this stage of the legislation.

†I say this, Sir, because according to my information there are many prospective business persons who display considerable interest in this new development. They are very, very eager that the SATS should make the facilities available so that they can develop. I think it is to the advantage of the whole country because they are not going to use capital required by the SATS; it will be private capital that will be available to the market and that will help us to have a moderate increase in the tempo of development in South Africa which we so badly need at this particular stage.

As far as hawking is concerned I think it is a good change. The hon member has expressed the thought that the hon the Minister should look into the issue of having legalised hawking. I think that is a good point. It is of course something which the SATS will have to look into because they themselves do a lot of business on stations and so forth. This will probably be done on a tender basis and one hopes that this will come to fruition.

As far as the urban commuter trains are concerned, I think hawking is going to be very, very difficult indeed. I do not think one should allow hawking there because that is actually where the trouble starts.

*It is a pity that people exploit a situation by mixing drugs with liquor and giving it to people to make them sleep so that they can rob them. It is a pity that this kind of thing happens. One can only express the hope that it will be properly controlled.

†We are happy therefore that this Bill is at last before Parliament and I wish to reiterate my appreciation at this stage also for the support given by hon members on the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, the hon members for Bezuidenhout and De Kuilen explained fully what this Bill was all about. I do not want to repeat what they said, but I just want to mention that when these bottlenecks, to which reference was made, came to the fore during our first meeting as a standing committee, we made a certain proposal which was unanimously adopted by the committee at that stage. It is interesting, when there is any criticism or opposition from members of the other Houses, to see how hon members of the governing party immediately throw in the towel. After it had seemed to us all as if the department would be able to eliminate these shortcomings, and was also willing to bring about the necessary changes, it was suggested that the whole matter be referred to the Co-ordinating Council for Local Authorities. That is, of course, a mixed council. For that reason the hon members of the NP, and of course those of the Official Opposition, immediately threw in the towel and the proposal was accepted that the matter be referred to the Co-ordinating Council for Local Authorities.

The point I want to make is that the House could have passed this Bill more than a month ago were it not for the fact that owing to an obsession with mixed councils this Bill was referred to a subordinate body. We serve on the standing committee that is an arm of Parliament, or forms part of Parliament, and we refer a Bill to a subordinate body, and what happens? After a long delay to hear whether consensus has been reached by the Co-ordinating Council for Local Authorities, the members of that council come along and say they could not reach consensus. After another few weeks have passed, we are eventually back where we started and the hon the Minister’s department places before us a proposal that is eventually embodied in this Bill. The idea expressed on the first day on which the standing committee sat is embodied in this Bill, and on the very first day the standing committee already knew that the department was competent and willing enough to make the necessary change.

Months must elapse, however, just so that this Bill can be submitted to a mixed, subordinate council which then cannot reach consensus. That is how we are wasting time in South Africa. Eventually we are all back to square one, the department makes the necessary recommendations and they are embodied in the Bill. Today the CP is supporting this Bill in this House.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for De Aar is assuming a very strange attitude at this stage. [Interjections.] When those hon CP members sit in the standing committees, they have a duty to speak. Some of those people are often not prepared to speak about matters.

You are telling a lie!

Why are there standing committees? A standing committee is there so that consensus can be reached. It is there to gather all possible evidence from every possible body involved in a matter. We cannot come from a standing committee to this House with legislation which has not been discussed clearly with the various bodies.

The hon member for De Aar now wants to maintain that only Whites ever use the trains and make use of SATS. I want to tell the House that more Blacks, Coloureds and Asiatics will …

The Bill is not about trains!

I am speaking now, and I shall continue to speak! The hon member must keep quiet when I am speaking. I shall simply not allow the CP to put me off! I am in the NP, and I shall speak on behalf of the NP—the hon member can be sure of that. [Interjections.]

It is in fact the Blacks from places such as Soweto who do not have buying facilities nearby. They have to convey their parcels and other things over long distances and in the end they are the people who cannot obtain those things. That is where the hawking on the trains has its origin.

The new arrangement will usher in a new era as far as property development in mainly urban areas is concerned. SATS has supported us in this matter. They said they had a responsibility towards local authorities and the property industry. I understand they have also become a member of Sapoa—the South African Property Owners’ Association. SATS envisages enormous advantages in the new development, as the hon member for De Kuilen said.

Not only does it provide an additional income, but also a chance for urban renewal. All the hon members in this House know as well as I do that railway lines are unsightly; it is not always pleasant to see open railway lines. They also cause divisions between urban areas. I am thinking, for example, of how Doornfontein, a developing community, is cut off from a city like Johannesburg because the people have to cross the railway lines. Braamfontein and Newtown are two separate areas today, but now they can be linked again. Planning can now be done in a responsible way.

That is another reason for referring the legislation back to the standing committee with the approval of the whole top management. We realised that every community and every city council had problems. We should like to co-operate with those city councils, but we also want close liaison with the developers. The properties that are being developed can be an additional source of taxable income to the city councils. The struggling city councils can also be assisted in this way.

SATS does not seek maximum returns, but rather optimal advantages for a community. With this legislation, SATS will create a better image of its activities. It can now assist in beautifying the environment and creating new facilities. Hotels, shopping centres, office units, flats, schools, technikons, parks, parking garages, recreation and amusement centres can now be built in these open areas. Facilities for water sports can be created at harbours. Master plans can now be drawn up in co-operation with local authorities.

The available space above-ground between Doornfontein and Braamfontein can be developed wonderfully. Germiston station can be upgraded. The Golden Mile at Durban Point can be improved. Cape Town station can be made more attractive, and Port Elizabeth can receive attention too. The hon member for Mossel Bay can get new facilities there, where the oil is.

I merely want to mention a few examples of great development that has taken place in other world cities. In New York the Pan Am building of 59 storeys was built across Grand Central Station. They began to build it in 1908. In 1929, 18 centres had already been built across railway lines in New York. The World Trade Centre of 110 floors extends over various railway lines. Madison Square Gardens, with 25 storeys, also extends over railway lines.

Chicago has 60-storey flats and Philadelphia has 30-storey flats across their railway lines.

There is an example in Austria as well. A university for 13 000 students, the head office of the Post Office, a small trade centre and a park of 68 000 square metres, have been built across the Franz Josef Strauss Station in Vienna.

There are also examples in Berlin, Switzerland, Britain and Paris. There is no country in the world where developments of this kind do not take place.

Even in Japan, with their Bullet Train, there is a transport corridor which links transport services. In West Germany a university was built at the Regenberg central station.

It is important that when contracts are concluded, they should be integrated with the property market trends of the specific time to ensure the best returns. The major developer will then be given a fair chance to write off his capital. If he is going to invest R100 million, he can now have 25 to 50 years to make the most of his capital. Once his first contract has expired, he can draw up further provisions.

The scope, the timing and the duration of the project, as well as the value of the property and the making available of the land must be taken into account. That is why we want to congratulate the hon the Minister on our being able to achieve unanimity on this legislation today.

Allow me to say in conclusion that I hope the old locomotives that are standing on stations will be removed in such a way that they do not disappear completely. The locomotive the late Mr Ben Schoeman drove as an engine-driver is on Johannesburg Station. It is a monument to the former Minister of Transport who was laid to rest last week. Because this is the first time since then that I have had the opportunity, I should like to conclude by paying tribute to him as a dedicated and humble person for the understanding he created between employer and employee, the pioneering he did in the labour field and also for his faith and sense of religion. He built monuments. As he himself said, he wanted to make the world and South Africa a better place. That is why we are paying tribute to this great Minister of Transport who filled this post in this particular capacity for a longer period than anyone else anywhere in the Western World. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not think there is any need for me to try to emulate some of the other hon members who have felt it necessary to fill a few columns of Hansard on this measure. We support it and agree with what has been said about the effectiveness of the standing committee system.

I notice no mention has been made of the fact that one potentially controversial provision which dealt with a security matter, namely a definition of photographs, was deleted by the standing committee on the suggestion of the SATS. It would have been controversial with one party. I think the whole committee automatically accepted right from the start that the original wording of the powers to be given with regard to the use of property was unacceptable. It was a good try, and I grant them that it would have been very nice to have the full dictatorial power to do what they wanted. However, they accepted immediately that this was “not on”.

I cannot understand the hon member for De Aar. Somehow the CP always tries to convert everything that happens in this House into a racial issue. There is no racialism in this at all. What happened was that I suggested that we consult, or that SATS consult, with the United Municipal Executive. Another member suggested that the Co-ordinating Council would be better because it included all the local government bodies including the UME. That was the consultation. We did not refer it from Parliament to an inferior body. We asked the department to consult and we received a letter saying that they had not been able during the meeting—and one cannot do this during a meeting—to get the exact wording, but as it is stated here:

So, there was no disagreement or argument. The principle was accepted, put into legal wording by the department and the committee accepted it.

I hope that this House is not going to continue dragging every single issue into the racial sphere.

I do not share the hon member for Bezuidenhout’s fears. He wanted to cling to the normal rezoning process which can take up to three, four or five years. The whole object of this is to create a simplified method, which I think we have achieved.

This party supports the Bill and we hope that it will produce some of the benefits which we foresee in a number of areas where property is being wasted at the moment which could be turned to useful account. Obviously the SATS will be in control of that property. We support the measure as it is amended and we wish them luck with the business venture which will flow from it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Durban Point for his support. I think he replied to the objections of the hon member for De Aar adequately. The hon member for De Aar obviously did not do his homework. It is quite clear that if he had read his letter, he would have known that it was not a case of the co-ordinating committee not being able to agree on the principle. It was the wording that they could not agree on. That was all.

But that is exactly what I said!

No, he did not say that. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I would never have the temerity to say that these chaps opposite me in the CP have an inferiority complex. Far be that from me, but I would like to suggest that the way they act about colour and colour connotation indicates to me that they have a problem. I think it is a problem they must address.

You said the same thing when you were in the NRP!

That is right, and I will continue saying that too! You guys are scared of colour! That is your problem! [Interjections.]

Order! There are no “chaps” and “guys” in this House.

I withdraw that, Mr Chairman.

It is unfortunate that when the Bill was tabled the first time, the SATS adopted a status above that of the local authorities and, of course, that evoked a certain reaction. As the hon member for Durban Point pointed out, however, I think the whole object of the Bill was to try to avoid the long delay in going through the normal town planning procedures and to avoid the costs involved in that. There are some town planning procedures that have cost up to as much as R300 000 in legal fees. The hon member for Bezuidenhout has asked the hon the Minister to ensure that regulations are imposed upon the SATS. I think he has missed the point, however, because in fact, this Bill has given local authorities a greater status than they have at present. If someone goes to a local authority and requests a change of usage in a town planning scheme, then the local authority may only make recommendations. Ultimately, the town planning commission makes the final decision. Am I correct? [Interjections.] It does not matter whether it is the township board or the town and regional planning commission. They make the final decision and the local authority can only make recommendations. Am I right? [Interjections.]

In this Bill, the local authorities and the SATS are on an equal footing and, in terms of this Bill, the local authority may actually make the decision without consulting the town and regional planning commission. I think the hon member must accept that. Moreover, I do not think the onus is on the SATS to make regulations or to canvass the opinion of people within the area. I believe that is the responsibility of the local authority. Local authority councillors are elected to represent the views of the people and, if they are not sure what the position is, then they should call a meeting in order to find out what those feelings are. [Interjections.] I therefore do not take the point which the hon member for Bezuidenhout has made.

I think you have go it wrong.

No, I have not got it wrong. You have got it wrong, my friend.

Regulations exist as to how the SATS must do it.

No, the SATS are on an equal footing with the local authority and it is up to the local authority to canvass the opinion, not the SATS. I think the hon member must accept that. Moreover, I think that failure to reach agreement, leaves this in the hands of the administrator. I do not think one could be fairer than that.

I still say, however, that as a result of the position the SATS originally took on this Bill and as a result of discussions on the standing committee, a Bill has been produced which has given the local authorities far more power than the hon member for Bezuidenhout would actually have wished. I say this because he submitted a memorandum which would in fact have bound the local authorities to the normal town planning procedure. This would have cost both money and time, and this is what the SATS was trying to avoid.

With those few words, I think that we on this side of the House can support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Bezuidenhout; he summarised the matter correctly. As usual he went into the facts of the matter very thoroughly. It is true that the province and the city councils argued that one would be infringing vested rights, to which the hon member referred.

†The hon member mentioned that we should allow hawkers on trains, especially on trains from Kimberley to Bloemfontein on which refreshments are not available. We wrote a letter to the chairman of the standing committee who made the same request after the last meeting of the standing committee—I think the hon member for De Kuilen has already received the letter—in which we said that we were investigating the matter and that there was the possibility of allowing hawkers on trains.

*I should like to thank the hon member for De Kuilen, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs. The hon member for Bezuidenhout referred to the improvement in the standard of legislation we are now receiving from that committee. One must have a good chairman to be able to produce such good legislation.

The hon member for De Aar was wrong. The month-long delay was not attributable to the fact that this matter was referred to a coloured committee. I piloted this matter through the Coloured and the Indian Houses five weeks ago, but I was unable to have it discussed in this House; that is why it is only being done now. The delay to which the hon member referred, however, is not attributable to the fact that it was referred to a coloured committee. The legislation could in fact have been discussed here long ago—the hon member himself saw how long it stood on the Order Paper—but I was unable to be here to dispose of it.

It was interesting to hear from the hon member for Rosettenville about all the places where such stations have been erected. New York erected buildings over stations years ago—skyscrapers, with trains passing through underneath. I am very pleased that the hon member brought all these things to our attention.

The hon member for Durban Point is quite correct when he says this is good legislation; after all, I do not bring bad legislation to this House! [Interjections.]

†The hon member for South Coast summarised the whole matter. He was perfectly correct.

*I want to thank all the hon members for the contributions they made so that this Bill could be disposed of.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Agricultural Pests Act, 1983, provides for control over the importation of plants, pathogens, insects and other things in order that the introduction of harmful insects and plant diseases into the Republic may be prevented.

During an inspection of a nursery, certain propagating material, obtained from plants which had evidently been brought into the country contrary to the provisions of the Act was discovered. As the original plants did not exist any longer, no action could be taken under section 4 of the Act which provides for steps that may be taken to dispose of controlled goods which are imported illegally.

The Act does, however, not provide for any action that may be taken by the executive officer in respect of controlled goods which originate from or are produced or acquired by means of illegally imported goods. The proposed amendment of section 4 is aimed at providing sufficient control in respect of products derived from any illegally imported controlled goods.

Section 7 of the Act provides for orders which may be served by the executive officer on any user of land. Section 13(1)(c) of the Act determines that any person who refuses or neglects to comply with or carry out the provisions of an order, shall be guilty of an offence. Section 4 of the Act also provides for the orders that may be served on persons other than users of land. However, the existing definition of “order” in section 1 of the Act restricts the meaning thereof to that referred to in section 7. Refusal or neglect to comply with an order in terms of section 4 of the Act therefore does not constitute an offence. The said definition also creates legal uncertainty in the application of various other provisions of the Act. The proposed amendment concerning the definition and section 7(5)(a) of the Act will remove this uncertainty.

The Bill is supported by all interested parties and the South African Agricultural Union in particular.

Mr Chairman, this amendment to the Agricultural Pests Act of 1983 is designed to eliminate certain shortcomings in the Act. These shortcomings concern the powers of the State to take action when problems arise as a result of the illegal importation of controlled goods.

It can and does sometimes happen that such goods are also contaminated or affected by disease. This contamination, be it of whatever nature, can spread to progeny or to other goods. The amendment makes provision for such progeny and any other products produced by affected material to be destroyed. This was not possible under the original Act. We in these benches have no problem at all with this measure and we will therefore be supporting it.

It is a sobering exercise to make a list of all the problem plants, problem animals and problem diseases which have been imported into this country in the past. One will find that the majority of our most serious plant pests, for example, are imported. One can mention for example jointed cactus, nasella grass, lantana, various species of burrweed, thistle, satansbos, sesbania, American bramble, Mexican marigold, blackjacks, stramonium, cosmos, bugweed, and one can go on and on. All of these have been accidentally imported and have all cost agriculture a great deal of money.

With animals also the same story can be told, where equally serious problems have inadvertently been imported. One can think here of European Redwater, Johne’s disease, contagious abortion and many other diseases. I have personally seen how the European warble fly—this fly annually causes a great deal of damage to the leather industry in Europe and the United States— came into this country along with imported cattle and actually survived the quarantine period so that they incubated out on the farm. Only through timeous action was this pest controlled. It would be a thousand pities, and I am sure hon members will agree, if this kind of pest were to be imported. For this reason we need these stringent control measures. We need to prevent a situation from arising in which even more serious pests can be added to the already long list which we have. Therefore, as I have already indicated, we have no problem with this measure and will be supporting it.

I would like to spend just a few minutes on another agricultural pest which has been very much in the news of late, and that is the African locust.

Earlier during this session I put a question to the hon the Minister—it was answered by the hon the Deputy Minister—asking what poisons were being used in an attempt to control this pest and whether it was, in fact, under control. In his reply the hon the Deputy Minister mentioned that certain highly toxic pesticides with an undesirable residual action were being used. Although some of these had originally been banned, they were currently in use over large areas of the Karroo and elsewhere. Old stocks were being used up. At the same time the hon the Deputy Minister also intimated that although the outbreak was serious he was in fact satisfied that it was under control.

I would like to make two comments: The first concerns the use of these residual poisons. I believe that the use of such poisons is really not acceptable, and there are many very good reasons why this should be so. I submit that the least acceptable reason the hon the Deputy Minister could have given for its use was that the poison just happened to be in stock and that old stock was being used up. I think that this indicates a state of unpreparedness on the part of the department, a failure to anticipate outbreaks of these locusts and a failure to make timeous preparation for them. Indications are that there has in fact been no real control of the outbreak.

I know that it is very easy to be wise after the event and I would like to be constructive rather than destructive in my criticism of the hon the Minister’s department. I would like to suggest that the department review as a matter of some urgency its entire locust control policy in order to be in a state of preparedness for the future. We know that locusts, like droughts, veld fires and other natural disasters, will always be with us and that we can expect that there will be future outbreaks. Perhaps next year will be even worse than this year. We must be in a position to swing into action with effective control measures as soon as the first outbreaks occur. I have the feeling that perhaps we have been caught just a little with our pants down with this outbreak and that we did not have the machine ready to go when the outbreak occurred, and this has cost us dearly.

I would also like to suggest that every effort be made to reduce and in fact completely eliminate the use of highly undesirable poisons and that the new modern non-residual poisons be introduced as a matter of urgency.

In closing I would like to extend the thanks of this side of the House to those locust control officials who have under very difficult conditions and circumstances done their best to protect the farming community against the plague. They have worked long, hard hours under trying conditions and I believe have done their utmost to contain the problem. What we need is the full backing of the department in the future in order to contain the effects of the locusts. The efforts of all concerned are appreciated but we must in future operate more effectively.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Albany for his support for this amending Bill, which is a very important one. This amending Bill deals with the control of pests. I should like to point out to this House the disadvantages of pests and the importance of pest control.

I want to refer to a report which appeared in Die Krat, the newsletter of the Apricot, Pear and Peach Growers’ Association. I want to quote a few paragraphs from it, which point out the importance of pest control.

The heading is: “Onbeheerde invoer kan lei tot Besmetting.” I quote:

In the Agricultural Pests Amendment Bill we are dealing with the envisaged improvement of control over the importation of plant material into the RSA, with a view to keeping the conditions to which I have just referred under control and out of the country. There is no doubt that inadequate control and the contravention of control measures can cause incalculable harm as a result of the introduction of harmful viruses and other diseases.

For the past decade the fruit industry has been involved in a very good plant improvement scheme and a great deal of progress has been made. Results achieved by using improved and healthy material have already indicated that quality and production have been increased to such an extent that fruit producers today no longer need to be convinced of the value of using the relevant plant material. In addition the department has quarantine facilities at the research institute for plant protection which make it possible for all propagation material entering the country to be very effectively tested and evaluated.

Because the fruit industry relies to a very great extent on the export market, and we must compete at international level, it is important for us only to use the best material. Determining the fitosanitary condition of imported cultivars and whether they are true to type must remain the responsibility of the quarantine station at the relevant research institute at Stellenbosch, and consequently we must ensure that the legal machinery makes it impossible to bring undesirable material into the country.

Unfortunately producers and people in the nursery industry sometimes come across very attractive cultivars overseas. Frequently some of the material is smuggled in illegally. Usually this is done by individuals who are unaware of the possible incalculable consequences of such an action. But this is also very often done because a producer wants to be a step ahead with a specific new cultivar on the market, before it is officially released.

The Agricultural Pests Act of 1983 makes provision for control over the importation of all harmful insects or plant diseases. When they are brought into the country through the legal channels and are then discovered, they are destroyed at the quarantine station. Nurseries are inspected regularly by the Plant Pest Control Division.

When plants brought into the country illegally are found, steps can be taken in terms of the provisions of the Act. But when the original material from which those plants have been produced no longer exists, an official cannot take action, because section 4 of the principal Act only makes provision for the steps to be taken in connection with goods imported contrary to the provisions of the Act. The proposed amendment to section 4 of the principal Act will now make adequate provision to control descendants or products originating from all illegally imported goods.

The definition of “order” in section 1 of the Agricultural Pests Act of 1983 is causing legal uncertainty in the application of the measures by order in terms of section 4(1) of the Act. This uncertainty will now be eliminated by the proposed amendments.

I take very great pleasure in supporting these amendments to the principal Act.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Albany and the hon member for Middelburg and also give our support to this short, but very important amending Bill.

Up to now there has been legal provision to take steps against undesirable and infected immigrant plants, and now we want to make provision to be able to take steps against the descendants of such immigrant plants too. I wish it was possible for us also to introduce legislation to deal with undesirable infected immigrants and their descendants in all spheres of life. [Interjections.]

I do not want to add much to what the hon member for Middelburg said. He elucidated the Bill fully.

I just want to refer to a part of the speech of the hon for Albany, in which he referred to the use of certain insecticides in the combating of the recent locust plague—hopefully it is now temporarily over. I think he referred specifically to the use of BHC and expressed his doubts about the fact that the State was making use of that substance.

For my part I want to say that it is true that the use of that substance can have harmful consequences. I also want to say that as the son of a sheep farmer I grew up with that substance, as far back as I could remember or at least since the substance appeared on the market. When it came on to the market we thought of it as a miracle substance which would be of tremendous value to the wool industry in particular.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that as regards his decision in the relevant circumstances which to a certain extent constituted an emergency situation, I did not take it at all amiss of him. Nor do I want to take it amiss of him that he gave the green light for that substance to be used. As a matter of fact, I am sure that if I had been in his position I would have done exactly the same.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Barberton very much for his support for this legislation. This amending Bill concentrates in the main on combating the evil of the illegal importation of plant material. Now that this legislation is coming into existence, I should very much like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister and the staff of his department for this piece of legislation.

People import material illegally mainly for two reasons. The first reason is that they say that the official channels of the department are far too slow. This is partially true because it must be thorough. On the other hand this is not the whole truth, and I can give the assurance that where there is a possibility of improvement, improvements will take place.

The second reason why people import these items illegally is simply for personal gain. These are people who are trying to import and rapidly propagate new plant material, of whatever kind. By doing this, that person achieves two goals. In the first place he is the first person to market that item, and in the second place, by propagating it he makes money.

No matter what the reason is, this cannot be approved of at all. Recently we had the particularly unpleasant experience in the wine industry with the Chardonnay story, which eventually turned out to be auxerrois. The people who import these items, are doing an industry and their country a disservice, and we cannot approve of this under any circumstances. The hon member for Middelburg pointed out the inherent dangers. This kind of behaviour does not only have a destructive effect; it is also self-destructive.

I should like to appeal to those people who would still like to do this, and are prepared to smuggle these items into the country in all manner of ways—even wrapped in women’s underclothing—to refrain from doing so for the sake of the country and a specific industry. For that reason it is a pleasure for me to support this legislation, and I want to ask the hon the Minister to see to it that the measures in this regard will be made even more stringent.

Mr Chairman, with an eye on the clock, I just want to say that we in these benches will be supporting the Bill before us. The reasons that prompted the tabling of this Bill are all well known to us and have been referred to by the hon member for Wellington.

The legislation attempts to close a loophole that has been evident in the Act. I think we have occasion to realise that we cannot just close the door on imported plant material. There is a need for it. Technical improvement can be taken to a point, but thereafter I must point out that production can only be increased by improved cultivars. In the light of this we in these benches will support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Mooi River and I also thank him on behalf of this side of the House for his party’s support. I do not consider it necessary for me to elaborate on the details of the legislation too, because I think that previous speakers have done so thoroughly.

But I should like to take this opportunity to refer to the plague to which various other hon members have also referred, namely the locust plague.

Willie, use the entire half hour.

No, we shall adjourn at six o’clock.

I specifically want to refer to this because I have also been afflicted by this plague in my area, and in our area very effective action was taken against this plague. At this stage I also want to mention that we stopped the plague entirely before it spread to the important maize producing area. [Interjections.] This was done through the effective actions of the department and the local actions of our farmers. Of course, changed weather conditions also played a role in this connection.

I should also like to take this opportunity on behalf of my people to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Agricultural Economics and of Water Affairs and his department most sincerely for their effective action. I understand that during that period they spent over R7 million to bring the plague fully under control.

I should also like specifically to address a word of thanks to my own people in that area who were dealing with that plague—the local locust officials and all the farmers—because they worked together effectively. The hon member for Fauresmith has asked me to mention his name too, because it seems to me as if his people took just such effective action there.

But there is something I should like to ask. Those locusts have laid their eggs in our maize-producing area. Consequently the next plague is going to break out there. For that reason I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to get his department ready so that when this happens next year the department will be able to take effective action, as it did this year.

I also want to appeal to farmers to report that plague in good time. The people in the Karoo did not report the plagues in good time. [Interjections.] Consequently they reached the flying stage. I again want to take this opportunity to ask the farmers to report that plague immediately. I should like to point out that Act 36 of 1983 lays down severe penalties if that plague is not reported.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 18h00.