Mr. Speaker, I amend, with leave, the Notice of Motion printed in my name on the Order Paper by substituting “19” for “16”, and I move accordingly—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

In the limited time available to me this afternoon I have a number of matters I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. One of them, a matter I have raised with him before, concerns the situation that at present exists between the S.A. Railways Administration and private enterprise with regard to road transportation. I want to start off by making certain that the hon. the Minister understands his responsibilities in this matter. He is the hon. Minister responsible for the Railways, but he is also the hon. Minister whose responsibility it is to ensure that the interests of the transport industry as a whole are looked after in order that South Africa can be served by the best possible, most efficient and most economic transport system.

This acceptance of responsibility should imply a realization, on the part of the hon. the Minister, that the Railways is not the only transport operator in South Africa and that private enterprise has a tremendous investment of many millions of rand in transport and has a vitally important role to play on the South African scene. I regret to have to say that the hon. the Minister, on occasions, appears to forget that he has a responsibility to the whole industry. He obviously wants the Railways to make a profit, because part of the assessment of his efficiency as a Minister must rest on the profitability of the Railways. If the Railways makes a profit everybody is going to think he is a good Minister, a good guy. However, this must not be done to the detriment of the industry as a whole. I believe that, on occasions, the hon. the Minister is falling into the trap.

I see again this week that at a transport conference the hon. the Minister produced this extraordinary statistic that the Railways use of diesel fuel is nine times as efficient as that of road transport in South Africa. It is, of course, complete nonsense to make generalizations of this nature. There is no doubt at all that in certain instances, for many types of traffic such as the long-distance haulage of coal or mineral ores, this statistic could very well be true. However, in many other instances, specifically let us say for shorter-distance hauls of loads that are not bulk loads, it is totally untrue. I should like to challenge the hon. the Minister to produce the calculations on which he has based this nonsensical argument of his. I should then like to submit these calculations for scrutiny by experts nominated by private enterprise road hauliers, who could then submit their case. I challenge the hon. the Minister to submit these calculations. I go so far as to say that the hon. the Minister should have done this already in order to put himself in a position where he hears both sides of the argument and can then make a balanced assessment of the situation. I can assure him that any competent economist will prove that only in certain limited circumstances is the usage of diesel fuel that much more efficient on rail than on road.

He goes on from this—and this makes it worse—to the tortuous reasoning indicating that when one takes the Railways’ electric and steam services into consideration, rail generates approximately 26 times as many ton kilometres per unit volume of diesel fuel as does road transport. This is very misleading. It paints a completely false picture which is unfairly loaded against private enterprise road transportation. I think the hon. the Minister should stop using this statistic because all it does is prove the old adage that statistics never lie but that statisticians sometimes do. I do not quite know where the hon. the Minister obtained these statistics, but I believe that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research was doing an assessment of diesel usage, especially as far as the Railways is concerned. I believe the results have been published for a select circle, but I have not had an opportunity of seeing it myself. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell me whether he is going to produce this, because I believe it would add more facts, for the whole industry, to the argument that the hon. the Minister has been presenting. I am sure it will not bear out this alleged 26 times or the nine times statistic.

I want to go further on this whole question of private enterprise and the road transportation industry. I urge the hon. the Minister to do something about the way in which the Road Transportation Act is being implemented. This is the new Act which came into operation on 1 January 1978. The way the Act is being administered, and some of the regulations which have been promulgated in terms of the Act, do not reflect the intention behind the legislation. The intention behind the new Act was to create a situation of freer competition within the industry, and at the same time to do away with a lot of red tape. In many instances exactly the opposite situation has resulted. There is less competition and there is more red tape. I sat on the commission that advised on the new Road Transportation Act, and I know that the philosophy behind that Act was to create a situation of freer competition and less red tape. However, this is not happening. On the subject of red tape I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he takes a look at the revenue from permit applications that the department receives from all the local road transportation boards. If he were to compare the 1977 figure, i.e. the figure before the Act came into operation, with the 1978 figure, I think he would be very shocked. In fact, I think he would be absolutely appalled because the figure has taken such a tremendous jump, at least according to my information, as to indicate that there is much more red tape involved now in running a transport business. The industry now has to pay so much money for permit applications that it can be considered as nothing less than a tax on private operators. I am told—and this is a very rough “guestimate”—that certain Road Transportation Board offices are collecting up to R10 000 a day. I might be completely wrong in this, but I think the hon. the Minister will have to admit that those figures indicate that the red tape involved in getting permits these days leaves the industry worse off than it used to be.

I am now going to make a statement that will probably upset the hon. the Minister, but it is quite true. In many instances Road Transportation Board offices appear to be nothing more than branch offices of the S.A. Railways, especially when it comes, for example, to the question of temporary permits.

You are overstating your case.

The hon. the Minister says I am overstating my case, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister when he last had a look at one of the offices of a Local Road Transportation Board. Time and time again, without even being asked, the S.A. Railways are referred to when applications for temporary permits come before the board. I would have thought it was up to the S.A. Railways itself to lodge objections if it felt that something was not in its interests. The S.A. Railways, however, works hand in glove with the Road Transportation Board. They work hand in glove all the time, and I am not, in the least, overstating my case when I say that the Road Transportation Board offices are virtually branch offices of the S.A. Railways.

I now want to go on, in similar vein, to a slightly different subject. I cannot understand at all why it is necessary for the Railways to build up its road transportation service when it is quite apparent that private enterprise is quite capable of handling the job. My party does not believe in State monopolies of this nature. I believe that in building up the Railways road transportation service, a service that could well be handled by private enterprise, the hon. the Minister is harming the best interests of the South African economy.

I now come to a matter that has been mentioned in a previous debate this year. I urge the hon. the Minister not to amend the Act to do away with the inter-city express road services now operating right throughout the country. I am the first one to admit that these services were not envisaged when the Act was introduced. When we made it possible for vehicles of one ton or less to run without permits, we did not envisage the possibility of these one-ton vehicles pulling trailers with an equal or greater capacity than the vehicle itself. The inter-city express road service involves companies operated by private enterprise, vehicles with a capacity of one ton pulling trailers. The interesting thing about these services is that the tariffs charged are based on the S.A. Airways tariffs for air freight and yet transport users, in many instances, use the inter-city express service rather than the S.A. Airways air service simply because it is that much more efficient. It has been proved conclusively that there is a need for this service, a service which neither the Railways itself, nor the air freight services, can offer. If the hon. the Minister really believes in the philosophy he has sketched in the past, i.e. that freer competition in the transport sector is in the interests of South Africa, he should allow these services to continue. It is interesting to note how they are serving not only the main centres, e.g. Cape Town to Durban, Durban to Johannesburg and Johannesburg back to Cape Town, but also places like the mining areas in the north-western Cape, places like Aggeneis. I think that the hon. the Minister should take note of what is, in fact, a very sophisticated, modern, new service which should be included in the future planning of any overall transport scheme for South Africa. On this whole question of the Road Transportation Act and the relationship of the department, the S.A. Railways and private enterprise, I think it is necessary for the hon. the Minister—particularly let me say, in view of the fuel crisis—to consult with the bodies representing private enterprise hauliers with a view to taking another look at the way the Road Transportation Act is being administered. If necessary, changes just have to be made.

I want to go on to a minor question relating to the operation of road transportation boards. This matter has to do with taxi apartheid. I believe it is incumbent on the Government to start encouraging a situation where taxis do not have to be apartheid taxis. We have discussed this matter in the past. I can, in fact, recall telling a ridiculous story concerning people who arrived in Cape Town docks on a cruise liner. It so happens that other countries do not have the sort of laws we have in this country. The incident concerned a Black man with a wife who was White. They got off the boat to go and have a look at the Mother City of South Africa, Cape Town. They were, however, not able to travel in the same taxi. Although they were man and wife, they had to go in separate taxis. I do not think the foundations of the nation will totter if we do away with taxi apartheid. I know that many taxi operators right through the country would welcome a move which would allow them to transport passengers of any race group. I do think the time has come for us to get some active leadership and encouragement from the Government away from this sort of discrimination.

I want to turn to another subject, a subject that was last raised in debate in this House in 1974 when a very heated debate on this took place. I refer to the whole question of the Garden Route freeway. Out of the blue this has suddenly been gazetted this year. The Government is apparently going to go ahead with the Garden Route freeway in spite of the fact that ecological surveys are still in progress and have not been completed yet. I am told that even the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy was not aware of the fact that this highway was going to be gazetted.

The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that there is considerable opposition to this freeway from people all over South Africa and particularly from people in the area. They do not believe it is necessary. It is interesting to note that even the George Divisional Council, I think it was, in the constituency of the hon. the Prime Minister, while they were in favour of the freeway in 1974, are now totally opposed to it. They have had another look at it and now say that it is not necessary and that all that is necessary is that the existing road be widened. The upsetting thing about this is that, in spite of all these protests, the hon. the Minister and his department have just gone ahead. Public opinion is important. The hon. the Minister, the Government and all of us in the House, are there to carry out the will of the people, to do what the people want us to do. It is quite apparent that the people do not want the Garden Route freeway. It is a monstrosity. Yet we go ahead with it. I should like to get some sort of motivation for this from the hon. the Minister, because he is not usually the sort of Minister who bludgeons things through. He is not the sort of man who normally goes against public opinion like this.

Is that a reflection on other Ministers?

Yes.

I want to know what the necessity for this is. I should like to know what the justification for it is. It is quite apparent that tremendous damage is going to be done to the ecology. I think it is going to have all sorts of side effects. I think that it is going to do damage to the tourist trade, for example. It is going to destroy the aesthetic value of many of the most beautiful parts of South Africa. I realize that, as regards freeways, the fuel situation has changed things; I agree that freeways do save fuel—I have just seen the publication produced by the department on this matter. I do not, however, believe that the volume of traffic involved justifies it in these circumstances.

There is another situation that has arisen—and in this case I do not think it is the fault of the hon. the Minister, but of the Transvaal Provincial Administration. This has to do with the PWV10 road to Johannesburg. I have already spoken to the hon. the Minister about this and I was very encouraged by the reply I got from him. In this case we find that it is the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal who wants to build the PWV10 road. It will run to the outskirts of Johannesburg. Then, through Johannesburg itself, there will be a connecting road which will be the responsibility of the Johannesburg City Council. That road is the M6. The road will then continue on the other side as, I think, the PWV8. The fact of the matter is that the residents of Johannesburg have said that they do not want this road. I was approached by a group calling themselves the Northern Areas Group of Johannesburg and I have a formal request from them. This Northern Areas Group is a combination of the nine residents’ associations of the northern part of Johannesburg which is affected by this motorway. This group is so upset about this that they feel it is necessary that the hon. the Minister gives consideration to amending the Urban Transportation Act to permit representatives of residents’ associations to serve on JOMET. They feel that things might be happening behind their backs. I am not levelling any accusations at the hon. the Minister, but they feel that they want to have official status when they present their views. They do not believe that they are getting a fair show at the present time. They feel that something is going on—and again I do not think this is the responsibility of the Department of Transport as such—and that the building of that road is going to go ahead. In an interview I had with the hon. the Minister, he gave entirely satisfactory replies about this, but I should appreciate it if he is prepared to give a public assurance that he will not make money available, or approve anything more than the interim plan that has already been approved—a plan which is against the wishes of majority of people in that area. That assurance would serve to help a lot of people to feel very much happier about it. As the hon. the Minister knows—because I told him at the time—a lot of property owners in the area have been very badly affected by the fact that even though the construction of the road may only be a rumour, they cannot now sell their properties as property values have been affected. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to give me that sort of assurance.

I will be participating again later in the debate, but for the time being I think that I have raised quite a few matters which requires the hon. the Minister’s attention.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned several subjects which I trust the hon. the Minister will react to in the course of the debate. We are now discussing the Transport Vote, and one would have thought that it could be discussed in peace and quiet because so many positive things could be said about the Department of Transport. Consequently I find it strange that the hon. member for Orange Grove, as well as his colleague opposite, want to take advantage of every opportunity to make political capital out of this. I have no fault to find with the thoughts which the hon. member for Orange Grove expressed, but he again dragged in apartheid with regard to taxis, with one purpose only, and that was to see whether he could not in some way score political points off the Government. I want to express the hope and trust that since it is possible to advance many positive ideas in the discussion of this Vote, a more positive and fruitful attitude will be adopted by the Opposition.

I should like to concentrate on the most recent addition to the extremely wide field of operations of the Department of Transport, viz. urban transport. Urban transport is something which intimately affects each one of us in this House, as well as the entire population. Whether in Welkom, Bloemfontein, Cape Town, Johannesburg or any of our larger centres in South Africa, urban transportation and its attendant problems are of crucial importance. I believe that with the development that is taking place in South Africa with regard to the increase of vehicles and all the attendant problems, we are going to be concerned more and more in future with the problems of urban transport. It is probably unnecessary for me to give an account of the in-depth study and wide-ranging discussions across a broad spectrum which preceded the introduction of the legislation in question, except to refresh the memories of hon. members by pointing out that the legislation arose from the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Urban Transport Facilities, which was appointed in March 1972. The report which this committee published—the well-known Driessen report—and the White Paper on it, aroused unprecedented interest in South Africa, to such an extent that the draft legislation was the subject of discussion at two symposiums, one in Cape Town and one in Johannesburg, before a Bill was introduced in this House. The legislation undoubtedly met with general approval. The reason for this lies in the fact that every right-thinking person who finds himself in the urban milieu on a permanent or even part-time basis, has become aware of the increasing problems that traffic jams in peak times, inadequate or impractical public transport facilities, the development of residential areas situated even further away etc. entail for him. That is why it is so heartening that the National Transport Commission, assisted by the Urban Transport Division of the Department of Transport, as well as the provincial administrations, local authorities and all the other bodies having an interest in and involved in this matter, have already achieved so much within such a relatively short space of time and in spite of manpower problems being experienced throughout South Africa and a shortage of funds—this is very important.

Permit me to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate and felicitate the bodies grasping this real problem most sincerely on what has been achieved over a very short period of time. There are already metropolitan transport areas with Johannesburg, Cape Town, Pretoria, Durban and Port Elizabeth having been declared core cities, advisory boards and/or technical committees introduced for these areas and wide-ranging transport studies are being carried out. Studies carried out in the case of the Johannesburg area, have already resulted in the acceptance of an interim transport plan. It is hoped that in the course of this year the studies will produce similar plans for the other declared areas.

Good progress has also been made with research in this sphere and apart from the ongoing transport research being carried out at present at the University of Pretoria, Unisa, Wits, RAU and the University of Stellenbosch, the CSIR’s National Institute for Transport and Road Research is also working on several research projects in this sphere commissioned by the National Transport Commission.

Attention is also being given to the possible introduction of systems—this is important, because this is a new trend being considered—of staggered office hours in urban areas in order to bring about a levelling-off of the peak traffic period in the early morning and late afternoon. For this purpose, broadly constituted committees have already been established in Johannesburg and Durban to study this matter in depth. This is necessarily a multi-faceted matter which can only be taken further with the greatest circumspection.

Furthermore, good progress has also been made with the development of a management information system for public urban bus transport enterprises to enable the National Transport Commission to consider the possible allocation of funds on the basis of a uniform exposition of operating results to such enterprises for the maintenance or improvement of existing public transport facilities or for the introduction of new services.

In the latter regard it should be noted that it is a worldwide phenomenon that public urban bus transport enterprises as well as suburban train services and other transport modes increasingly have to contend with a loss of passengers to the private motor car. The result of this is, on the one hand, the dilemma in which bus transport businesses are increasingly finding themselves, in that they are being forced either to curtail their services or to increase their tariffs. Both solutions can be counterproductive. On the other hand there is the dilemma of increased traffic congestion, the wastage of scarce and expensive fuel, the increased usage of road networks and the gradual retrogression of central business areas as economically viable areas.

The single aspect I have broached here is not at all indicative of the whole field which has already been entered into to a greater or lesser extent, but I think hon. members would agree with me that it is reassuring that positive action is being taken in this sphere. It cannot be denied that the hon. the Minister and his department, the National Transport Commission and all others involved deserve praise for this effort. I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my sincere thanks and appreciation to these bodies to which I have referred. That is why it is encouraging that a considerably larger amount of R8 350 000 has been appropriated for urban transport for this financial year, in comparison with the R2 064 000 for the previous financial year. This now enables the National Transport Commission to grant limited funds to metropolitan transport areas with which to carry out projects arising out of planning. It is obvious that this amount falls far short of what is required, measured against the R44 million—at 1974’s prices—referred to in the White Paper on the Driessen report. However, it is understadable—and I want to emphasize this—that the Government has to determine its priorities with reference to a multitude of considerations and for that reason—I trust that all hon. members in this House agree with me—I have no reservations as to the correctness of these priority assessments. The fact of the matter is, however, that in respect of all our capital resources in South Africa, approximately three-quarters of the gross domestic product in the Republic is produced in and around our larger urban areas, and that the effective functioning of our metropolitan areas is therefore of the utmost importance in the pursuit of several other national priorities. Fuel conservation is also a factor which cannot be discounted when the appropriation of funds for urban transport is considered. It is therefore encouraging that the Government has accepted the recommendations of the Van der Walt work group, a work group appointed by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to institute an investigation into further fuel conservation measures. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member for Welkom an opportunity to complete his speech.

I want to thank the hon. member most sincerely for doing so. This shows that if one has good insight one realizes, as the hon. member does, that a good speech should be completed.

I accept the recommendations which advocate, inter alia, the active pursuit of the objectives contained in the Driessen report with regard to fuel conservation in our cities and in the long term. Against the background which I have just outlined, I want to make a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister to continue with his valued efforts to bring the appropriations for urban transport into line with the guideline amount of R44 million which was accepted in the White Paper, to which I have already referred. In the meantime the National Transport Commission will of course only be able to make grants to metropolitan transport areas on a limited scale for the execution of projects of a non-capitalintensive nature, for example the elimination of traffic bottlenecks in existing urban road systems, the construction of parking-and-ride facilities, the introduction of bus and priority lanes, the improvement of traffic control facilities and the introduction of a system of staggered office hours, etc. As far as the foreseeable future is concerned, it seems clear that as fuel prices become an increasing factor in the national structure, public passenger transportation ought to come into its own again. However, it is of cardinal importance that everything be done to create the necessary infrastructure to meet the anticipated needs in this regard. I have also heard that the National Transport Commission has already directed that a re-evaluation of the viability of the so-called electrically driven trolley bus in our urban transport structure be carried out, a revaluation which obviously should not only be based on a cost advantage analysis, but should also take into account the existing and anticipated future energy situation. Hon. members are probably aware of the fact that this method of public transportation has been phased out throughout South Africa except for a few routes in Johannesburg, despite the fact that we have available in this country an adequate source of relatively cheap energy in the form of electrical power. By saying this, I certainly do not want to create the impression that the local authorities concerned or transport enterprises were shortsighted in their approach to the matter. On the contrary, I have no doubt that operating problems and rapidly increasing replacement costs at a time when the oil prices could still be regarded as reasonable, made the further utilization of the trolley bus, as well as that of its rival, the tram, unrewarding.

With regard to lift clubs, it seems clear that this is another area which should be exploited to alleviate the pressure of traffic on our urban roads. One only has to note the large percentage of private motor-cars, containing one occupant only, on our urban roads during peak times, to realize the possibilities in this regard. The fact remains, however, that the average South African, just like his counterpart in the Western world, is attached to his private motor-car and that at some point in time—and this is important—action will undoubtedly have to be taken in terms of the provisions of the Urban Transport Act to limit the unnecessary use of these motor-cars at the expense of public transport vehicles, which in many cases are quite comfortable and, generally speaking, considerably cheaper.

Naturally I could but mention a few facets of the problems in the field of urban transport and merely outline what has been achieved since the Urban Transport Act, 1977, came into effect. It is clear that a start has been made with the meaningful and systematic development of a wide-ranging urban transportation policy and its implementation and that important facets, for example control of the unchecked influx of private motor vehicles to central business areas during peak times, the provision of sound floor area factors within urban areas, the achieving of a higher occupation figure of public transport methods, etc., are being given constant attention at present. It is and remains an undeniable fact that transport is not only an important criterion whereby to measure the prosperity of a country, but is also the catalyst for further progress and the resulting increase of the standard of living of the population.

In conclusion, therefore, I trust that urban transport will be supported financially to an increasing extent in order to prevent our being confronted here by a transport problem which, in the case of the USA, was described by the Crowther study group in 1963 as follows—

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. member for Welkom and to have been able to listen to such a constructive contribution from him. On this occasion I want to confine myself to a matter concerning my constituency and its immediate vicinity about which the hon. member for King William’s Town and I have already made representations to the hon. Minister which we are still discussing with him at present. Under the existing administrative dispensation, all road transport licences are dealt with by the East London Road Transport Board for the Border area as such. This board occupies premises of which the term of lease expires on 30 June this year. After consideration of the relevant facts the hon. the Minister decided that this office should be closed on 30 June 1979 and that all future applications be dealt with by the Port Elizabeth office. This decision was taken, inter alia, on the basis of the fact that the number of applications have dropped to such an extent that it is no longer worthwhile to maintain this office. The drop in the number of applications has been caused by the Ciskei Government’s takeover of applications affecting that area as well as the automatic exemptions in terms of the amended Act. When this decision became known, the City Council of East London sent me a telegram in which they stated that the city council was very sorry to take cognizance of the decision and requested that the matter be taken up with the authority concerned. It was said, among other things, that this decision was without doubt a further blow for East London. This telegram indeed reflects the general attitude prevailing in East London. Every step taken by the Government which affects East London, is seen as another blow for the city. It is also being insinuated that the Government is slowly but surely withdrawing itself from its association with this beautiful city. It is constantly being said that if East London could obtain certainty as to its future, it would be placed on the path of economic prosperity. On Monday we had the privilege of listening to the assurance given on this matter by the hon. the Prime Minister during the discussion of his Vote in this House. His statement was accorded the newsworthiness it deserved when the following banner headlines appeared in the Daily Dispatch of 24 April 1979—“Assurance given on East London’s future.” On the same page, however, just next to this fine and positive message given to the area, another article appeared under the heading: “Malcomess: We need action.” From this report it appears that the hon. member for East London North said, inter alia, the following—

The article continues—

The reaction of the right-thinking people of the area was published in the newspaper the following day. Mr. Meisenhall, chairman of the Afrikaanse Sakekamer and also the general manager of the Ciskei Development Corporation, commented inter alia, as follows—

The mayor of East London, Mrs. Elsabe Kemp, who is very active in promoting the progress of the area said the following to the newspaper—

However, the drama continued in that the following words appeared in banner headlines on the front page of that same newspaper—

It related the comments of a few hon. members on this side of the House who hail from that area. The report is rather a long one. A quarter of the report is devoted to the comments of the hon. members, whereas three quarters of it gives prominence to the negative attitude adopted by the hon. member for East London North with regard to this area. In this regard the hon. member’s ideas were strongly supported by the Daily Dispatch. In order to further this negative thinking, the editor of the same newspaper wrote the following in his “editorial opinion” under the heading “No answer, Mr. Botha”—

This is the negative attitude which people have to contend with. The editorial continues—

The impression is therefore created that those hon. members on this side of the House who represent that area, do not have the interests of that area at heart.

That is exactly right.

For that reason it was necessary for me to raise this matter in this House for reasons of courtesy, because no one is more aware of the work which is really being done in this regard than those hon. Ministers who continually have to listen to the representations made to them by hon. members on this side of the House with regard to that area. It is against this background, and this struggle which one has to wage in that part of the world, that I once again want to ask the hon. Minister in public whether he will not consider once again whether something cannot be done so that at least the connection of the Department of Transport may be maintained in this area, even if it is impossible for him to allow the office as such to remain there in its present form.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend replying to the hon. member for East London City because my bench-mate, the hon. member for East London North, will be speaking later in this debate.

I should like to come to the speech made by the hon. member for Welkom. I was most interested in his maiden speech as chairman of the NP’s transport group, and in particular in what he had to say about the National Transport Commission and the Urban Transport Commission. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he has read this Department’s annual report in depth because I have done so, in particular those sections which deal with the division of national roads and the division of urban transport. I must say that I was a bit concerned to find no evidence of what I would call an in-depth study into ways and means of reducing the transport industry’s demand for fuel by reducing the overall demand for transport throughout the country through correct regional transportation planning.

I would have thought that at this time, when South Africa is faced with a fuel crisis—if one may call it that—the hon. the Minister of Transport and his department would have taken the lead in activating and co-ordinating such an in-depth study, especially in view of the hon. the Minister’s responsibility for these two divisions to which I have referred, divisions which this report clearly shows are spending vast sums of money on their particular endeavours.

I should also like to refer to another booklet which I received from the National Transport Commission. I must say that it is a very nice booklet It is entitled Freeways: the biggest single saver of fuel. I do not for one moment doubt that freeways do save fuel in so far as they avoid traffic jams and do enable people to travel from point A to point B at an optimum and more efficient speed. This does, of course, affect the consumption of fuel. This division of the Department of Transport is constructing freeways, and last year they spent something like R136 million on these particular projects. However, the construction of freeways does not, to my knowledge, in itself reduce the overall need or demand for transportation. As I have said, it merely enables a commuter or transporter to travel from point A to point B in a more economic and efficient manner.

While I am talking about the design of freeways, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister just what priority rating fuel conservation has in the design of our freeways. The hon. the Minister will recall that during the debate on this Vote last year I raised the matter of the Sterkspruit interchange midway between Durban and Pietermaritzburg. I said that the commission was planning to close down that interchange in order to bring the freeway up to their so-called freeway standards. In the process, hundreds of people living in that area would have had to travel an extra 7 km per day to get to and from their work because of the closure of this interchange. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for acting on my request, and the local people have asked me to pass on their thanks to the hon. the Minister as well. This inconvenience has now been averted and the people can now get on and off this freeway at the Sterkspruit interchange.

What do we find this year, however? The ring road around Durban, the N3, has been opened, and we find that where this ring road meets the southern freeway from Durban, at a point near Louis Botha airport, there are no on and off ramps for all the traffic coming from the north to get to the airport. In order to do so the traffic has to travel approximately 2 km further south, to the Isipingo interchange and then travel another 2 km back to the airport. Hundreds of vehicles are doing this every day, wasting 4 km of travel because of this freeway design. I ask the hon. the Minister how this can happen. I also read the report on the Division of Urban Transport’s work and found that a lot of research is being undertaken, as the hon. member for Welkom has also stated. There is, in fact, an amount of R450 000 being given to the National Institute for Transport and Road Research, a division of the CSIR. This research is being done on a broad field. Certain of these projects are quoted, but I do not intend discussing them here. Looking at these, however, I see that there is no emphasis at all on looking into ways and means of reducing the overall transport demand, as I have called it. The emphasis is rather placed on looking into the different ways and means of coping with the existing problem instead of trying to prevent the problem from occurring. What should actually receive the urgent attention of all concerned is what I have termed suitable regional transport planning.

What I believe the department should be doing at the present time is to activate and coordinate an in-depth study, on a national basis, into sound regional transportation planning. I believe this should be done in cooperation with the Department of Planning and the Environment, the Department of Economic Affairs, the Department of Plural Relations and Development, the Department of Coloured Affairs and the Department of Indian Affairs.

The Natal Provincial Council has, I believe, taken the lead in this regard. I should just like to state that the Natal Provincial Council is run by the NRP, a party which, along with its predecessors, has done very well indeed for some 68 years. [Interjections.] In this respect, I believe, they are leading South Africa. [Interjections.] I have here a report which was published in 1973. It is the report of the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission. It is their report No. 24. I commend it to the hon. the Minister because I believe that he and his department can learn from the contents of this particular report. I should like to quote briefly what it says in respect of decentralization as far as the Durban and Pietermaritzburg areas are concerned. It says here—

I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that a lot of what the Urban Transport Commission is planning today, I believe, is aimed at restricting mobility of transport within the urban areas. The report goes on to say—

And further—

This is, I believe, happening today. We can see it, for example, in Johannesburg and in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging triangle. I believe there is a lot of sense in this. The report states further, with reference to decentralization—

I believe we can learn a lot from this type of thinking, and also from what has happened in the United Kingdom on this regard, where many years ago the concept of new town planning was developed. In this concept it is stated that before a city gets to the stage of having these complex problems with which the Urban Transport Commission is now trying to deal, the planners must project their thinking into the future and start to plan a decentralized new town within the particular region. This is so important if people are to enjoy what we call a decent quality of life. One of the reasons why there are so many people living in the peri-urban areas today is because they are running away from the poor quality of life in city centres.

In my own constituency, believe it or not, there are Coloured people who are travelling 40 km a day from the south coast to work in Durban because the housing situation in Durban is of such a low quality that they would travel those distances and have their children living in a decent area, albeit way down south, rather than have them living in the urban areas available to them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti must pardon me for not reacting to his arguments. I have a few other matters that I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister in the short time at my disposal.

The first matter I wish to raise is the air freight facilities at Jan Smuts Airport. Jan Smuts Airport today handles by far the major portion of all air freight. According to the latest annual report there has been an increase of 3,4% on the figure for the previous year, namely 69,06 million kilograms. In perishable air freight, too, that is to say international export, there has been a considerable increase, namely from 19,25 million kilograms the previous year to 19,57 million kilograms. The Department of Transport has constructed an extremely effective building complex for the efficient handling of air freight to supply the needs of the exporters and importers. The handling area alone occupies 55 000 sq. metres, with a cooling chamber area of 935 cubic metres.

When the building complex had been completed and the cooling chambers were ready for use, I was approached by a firm called Air Cargo International to assist them with their tender for the cold storage facilities at Jan Smuts Airport. I immediately raised the matter with the Department of Transport. I also made further inquiries and ascertained that there were two tenders, namely by Air Cargo International, who tendered an amount of R40 600 rental per annum, and one by another firm, Indo-Atlantic, which tendered an amount of R62 400, in other words, R20 200 more than the firm Air Cargo International. The Director of State Purchases subsequently accepted the highest tender, namely the one submitted by Indo-Atlantic.

Naturally, I did not see my way clear to meddle with the decision by the State Purchaser. I reported to the firm accordingly. I learned, however, that the firm which had not been allocated the tender, was by no means satisfied. I later learned that there was talk of a possible court case, a court case that Air Cargo International wanted to bring against the Minister of Transport and the State Purchaser. I should very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister what has become of that case and if there has been such a case, what the outcome was. Furthermore, I wish to hear from him how these cooling chambers are being managed at this stage, whether other exporters can also make use of them, and on what basis this can be done. I think the time has come for this matter to be clarified and I request the hon. the Minister please to inform us fully on this aspect.

The second matter about which I wish to express a few thoughts, concerns our airports in general. I want to put it to the Committee that a state of affairs is today developing at our airports, particularly at the airports situated in our metropolitan areas, and particularly Jan Smuts, D. F. Malan, Louis Botha and J. B. M. Hertzog, as well as at most of the other airports. These airports, and particularly the international airports, are very busy. Indications are that these airports have to handle more and more passengers because air travel is increasing in popularity and fuel problems are causing people to turn to air transport. During the year under review there were 73 000 landings and take-offs at Jan Smuts alone. At D. F. Malan there were 58 000 and at Louis Botha, more than 41 000. At Jan Smuts there were, furthermore, more than 21 000 international landings and take-offs. The number of passengers has also increased vastly. At Jan Smuts they are handling 3,43 million passengers, not including passengers in transit. D. F. Malan handles more than 1 million passengers and Louis Botha, 1,15 million. During this period Jan Smuts has handled almost 1,5 million passengers on the international flights.

In my view these numbers emphasize the necessity for the Department of Transport to provide proper airports so that the large numbers of passengers can be properly and efficiently supplied with facilities. I think we have reason to be proud of the airports under the control of the department. Heavy expense has been incurred and nothing has been spared in building functional airports that from an aesthetical point of view, compare to the best in the world. Moreover, a general effort is made to keep these airports, and particularly the sections used by the passengers and the public, clean, neat and hygienic. Many facilities are provided. There are shops, restaurants, chemists, etc.

However, a phenomenon is developing which, I believe, merits the attention of the hon. the Minister and of the department, now even more than in the past. Some of our airports are being swamped by visitors, by people visiting purely for the sake of curiosity, and by people coming to see off or welcome friends and loved ones, to such an extent that the travelling public are being deprived of the essential facilities and, largely as a result of this, are being inconvenienced. There is also a considerable undesirable element of loafers frequenting our airports. This leads to all sorts of malpractices such as theft. They lie on the benches and chairs, they sleep there, they misbehave there, they pack our restaurants, and they make it difficult for the travelling public to be served.

I regard all our airports and particularly our international airports, as the major display window of our country and her people. I therefore make a plea today for greater control at our airports, which are being crowded by visitors, by the curious and by undesirable elements. I wish to recommend to the hon. the Minister that in future we should charge non-passengers a reasonably high entrance fee. I realize that it is difficult to exercise control, particularly since there are many entrances to the airports and in many cases this makes control almost impossible.

The point I wish to make is that the number of entrances can indeed be reduced if some are used only as entrances and others only as exits. I further wish to point out that not all entrances are used by the public. It is therefore only necessary to man the essential points of entrance and to charge entrance fees there. A system of entrance fees will not solve the problem altogether but it will nevertheless afford substantial relief. Apart from that, uncontrolled crowding is also a security risk. Here I have in mind the boy who recently managed to progress as far as London. I understand someone else has also succeeded in doing that. I believe this all constitutes part of this problem. I am therefore making an earnest plea for control of access to airports by the levying of entrance fees. I trust the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to having this possibility investigated in depth. I should like to see our travelling public being offered only the best at our airports. After all, they are the people who pay for it. I think we owe it to them in the first place.

Having said that, I want to raise one further matter, but I am afraid I am not going to have time. I just want to congratulate the department on the road between Villiers and Heidelberg where an experiment is being carried out to get the traffic to flow in a single lane. When one travels from Durban to Johannesburg, it is a frustrating experience to drive from Estcourt to Villiers. But on crossing the bridge at Villiers, one gets onto this road where they have managed, by means of demarcation, to make the traffic flow. I think that is an achievement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Kempton Park. As usual, he made a very well prepared and well-considered speech that was pleasant to listen to. He has suggested certain levies, and in the course of my speech I am going to suggest certain other levies to the hon. the Minister.

It frequently happens these days that more and more academics and other people concerned with the practical side of transport, request that there should be an in-depth study of transport. One of these was Prof. M. S. Judd, a senior consultant engineer in Cape Town, who stated in Cape Town during the past week that the time had come for us to start designing a new concept for transport in South Africa. In this regard I wish to refer to the excellent brochure issued by the department. I also wish to avail myself of the opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Minister himself, the Secretary and the members of the National Transport Commission on this absolutely choice, well prepared and extremely informative report. I also wish to avail myself of the opportunity of quoting from it in order to motivate the request I am going to make to the hon. the Minister later on. On page 1 of this report, one reads—

If one refers to page 5 where projections are made for the future and where it is pointed out what the effect is likely to be on the economy of the country, one realizes that we in South Africa should again take a close and penetrating look at our future policy and our future planning in respect of our roads and transport network. If one considers the solutions suggested in this regard on page 10, in which the effect it may have on our fuel conservation is spelled out, one realizes that we need to give new effect to this in our planning. What struck me in particular, is the statement that the benefits of the freeways envisaged for the future can be the greatest fuel conservation factor we could have in this country. That being the case, we should see to it that these and other benefits to be derived from this, are fully utilized in South Africa.

On the other hand, one unfortunately has the problem that the construction of these freeways with its attendant benefits, is being handicapped by a shortage of funds. This is abundantly clear from the declining revenue of the National Roads Fund as reflected on pages 16 and 17 of the same report. If one considers the budgets of the four provinces for the year 1978-’79, one sees that it was R126 million for the Cape Province, R66 million for the Orange Free State, R166 million for the Transvaal and R171 million for Natal. Together with the budget proposals for the Department of Transport made by the hon. the Minister in the House, this brings the amount to R702 million. That amount is higher than the amount in last year’s budget for any other department, excluding Treasury and Defence. This brings home to one the nature and extent of transport in our country. It brings home to us, too, that we shall have to try and devise other means to make funds available for the construction of new roads. I therefore wish to request the hon. the Minister that the National Transport Commission be asked to investigate the feasibility of the introduction of a system of toll payments on all our national freeways and also where it is otherwise practical, for example at the proposed new tunnel in Du Toits Kloof. They should also investigate the practical benefits of such a system and, in the third place, the concomitant financial aspects.

At the same time, I wish to request that if the hon. the Minister were to give favourable consideration to the suggestion, he also consider, pending the report of the investigation, sending a study group of members of Parliament to gain first-hand experience and knowledge through visits on site so that they can discuss this report armed with knowledge and experience when it is made available. The hon. the Minister may perhaps think that this is not practicable, but I think he will agree with me—and I am sure members of the Transport Commission will definitely agree with me—that when it comes to technical details which will one day have to be assessed, it is extremely difficult for a novice to live with them and to discuss them with insight. For that reason I think that this is something which the hon. the Minister should consider in the second place.

In support of my request, I now want to mention a few facts and quote some examples. In the first place I submit that a toll system is not foreign to our country. It is, after all, one of the things that was peculiar to our early history. But it is also not foreign to the Western world. In Italy, 4 700 km or 87% of their national main road network is geared to a system of toll payment. In France, 3 000 km, or 66%, of their national network is geared to a toll payment system. 848 km, or 90%, of the national network in Spain operates on a toll payment system. In Japan 2 510 km, or 90% of their national main road network, is on the toll system and in the USA the figure is 7 000 km or 6% of the national network. Considering the financial aspects and the millions of miles covered by vehicles, it is evident that these countries have progressed much further than we have in this regard.

I further wish to draw an analogy between the position in Hong Kong and that in the Cape Peninsula and Du Toits Kloof. In Hong Kong there is a tunnel between Kowloon, the mainland, and Hong Kong Island. The construction cost of the tunnel was R80 million. The maintenance cost is approximately one-tenth of the revenue from the tunnel. The daily traffic through the tunnel amounts to an average 82 000 vehicles in both directions. A toll levy of 5 Hong Kong dollars—approximately R1—is payable. I want to indicate to hon. members what the position would be if the same system were to be applied in South Africa. There is a daily flow of 100 000 vehicles in the Cape Peninsula to the centre city. If a toll levy of 20 cents per vehicle per day is made payable, it will yield quite a few thousand rand per day which will go far to help finance the road network in the Cape Peninsula for which no funds are available. If a toll levy of R2 per heavy vehicle is introduced for the new Du Toits Kloof tunnel, on the presumption that a heavy vehicle runs at a cost of 50 cents per km, it would save a heavy vehicle at least R7 per trip to make use of the tunnel instead of the overhead road. If a toll levy of 50 cents per motor-car is imposed, it will entail a saving of R2,50 to the motorist. This saving is effected because the tunnel makes the route 14 km shorter.

I wish to suggest that if the National Transport Commission does investigate this matter, it should be kept in mind that in fairness there will always have to be an alternative route so that a person who does not want to pay the toll levy, should not be able to complain that there is no alternative route available. I think there is merit in this proposal and I therefore make the request to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate that I should now reply to certain aspects and matters raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Vasco, who has just spoken, mentioned a very interesting subject, viz. the toll system. I want to tell him that this is a matter towards which I am very sympathetically disposed. An important reason for my sympathetic attitude towards it is the fact that millions of rands are being spent on the Du Toits Kloof tunnel or on freeways, for example. The person who pays the toll pays for something he uses. He derives direct benefit from the capital which has been spent on a particular project. I do not want to elaborate any further on the merits, advantages and disadvantages attached to it. The hon. member did that very effectively, but I just want to tell him that because we anticipated that this would be considered at a later stage—provision has in fact been made for it—we held out the prospect of making room at a later stage for the erection of such a toll-gate at the Du Toits Kloof tunnel, for example, if such a decision were to be made. The argument which is so often advanced against it is that it would delay the traffic to a certain extent, but I have seen many such toll-gates all over the world, and I have found that if they are well enough organized, there need not be any delays whatsoever. I have a different problem in this connection, of course. If we introduced such a toll system in this country, I think it would be wise to introduce it at various places in the country at the same time, because if I introduced such a system only at the Du Toits Kloof tunnel, the people of the Western Cape would ask why only they had to pay toll while other people did not have to pay toll.

Fleece the Transvalers!

If I introduced it on the circular road at Durban, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, or whoever, would ask why only the Natalians had to pay toll. We shall therefore have to consider introducing it more or less at the same time at various places when we accept it in principle one day. However, I should like to tell the hon. member that I shall instruct the National Transport Commission to investigate the whole matter, so that we may perhaps discuss it in greater detail at a later stage.

The hon. member for East London City mentioned a matter which the hon. member for East London North had already discussed with me. The hon. member for East London City and the hon. member for King William’s Town came to discuss this matter very exhaustively with me in my office. I now want to tell him and those hon. members who take an interest in the matter that there is no lack of sympathy for the circumstances in East London. However, because of circumstances, as I explained to the hon. members, there is no longer any justification for maintaining an office of a road transportation board in East London. The first reason for that is the fact that the Ciskei has been excluded from the area which used to fall under the East London Road Transportation Board, and the second reason is the coming into operation of the Road Transportation Act of 1977.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said that the operation of that Act held more disadvantages than advantages. One of the reasons why there has been such a drop in the number of applications is the fact that the exempted area has become so much larger. In terms of the Road Transportation Act, there is an exempted area with a radius of 40 km. There is also an exempted area with a radius of 80 km for the transportation of one’s own goods. Because of these circumstances, there is really so little work in East London that we do not see our way clear to maintaining that road transportation board any longer. It is really not justified. Hon. members, and even those people in East London who may be affected by it, will agree with me that we cannot allow a board to be maintained there just for the sake of having a board, but that such a board must also have enough work to do. For that reason, the National Transport Commission made a submission to me recommending that the Road Transportation Board in East London be closed as from 1 July this year. I have agreed to this recommendation.

Before closing the Road Transportation Board, of course, we negotiated with many bodies such as the municipality, commerce and industry—all the various parties—concerning the proposed closing of the Road Transportation Board in East London. The fact of the matter is that we undertook that there would be a meeting of the Port Elizabeth board there every month.

Hear, hear!

There is one person at least who is glad. The Port Elizabeth Board will then—and I want to emphasize this—sit in East London at least every month. However, if circumstances justify it, more sittings will be held in East London. It is also being arranged—in fact, it is already being done this way—that applications for temporary permits may be addressed to the Port Elizabeth office by telephone or telegraph. I have great sympathy with East London. No town or city likes to see its activities being curtailed or diminished. Still, I do not believe that East London and the people in the vicinity of East London will be so greatly inconvenienced. Hon. members must remember that the Road Transportation Board which sits in Cape Town serves an enormous area, including Calvinia and the North-West and all those towns which are situated hundreds of miles from Cape Town. They must all obtain their road transportation certificates here in Cape Town. Compared with that, the distance between East London and Port Elizabeth is not a large factor.

East London is somewhat bigger than Calvinia.

I accept that, but I am not talking about the size of a particular town or city as such; I am talking about the inconvenience that people have to suffer. The East London office included King William’s Town, for example. That is why the hon. member for King William’s Town also came to me, because it is part of his constituency and is in the vicinity of East London. The fact of the matter is that the hon. gentlemen all agreed with me and that they are all satisfied that there simply is not enough work to justify the continued existence of a road transportation board there.

The hon. member for East London City asked me whether something else could not be put in its place. We considered the possibility of opening a one-man office to operate as a representative of the Port Elizabeth Council, but we came to the conclusion that this would not work either. It would not be worthwhile. What we do have in East London is a transport inspectorate. At the moment, this inspectorate consists of a senior transport inspector and four transport inspectors, in addition to clerical assistants. Their offices are conveniently situated in the city of East London and they are available to furnish the information which anyone in the city of East London or its environs may wish to obtain with regard to transport affairs. Naturally, these inspectors have all the information, or rather, I hope so, with regard to transport matters. It is also possible, because of circumstances and the environment, that that office may be expanded. I just want to add that what we want for East London is stimulation, stimulation which will generate more job opportunities. The Government is very well aware of the enormous manpower resources in that region. The hon. the Prime Minister has also referred to this. What we would like to see in East London is activities which could generate job opportunities for the people in the environment. This cannot be brought about by the Road Transportation Board, because the Road Transportation Board is only a small organization consisting of a few members and their clerical staff. Therefore there is no question of the Road Transportation Board helping to provide more job opportunities in East London. However that may be, I have already explained to the House that because of circumstances, it would simply not make sense to continue with the activities of that board. We should rather concentrate on the other direction, the one of the inspectorate, to provide the necessary service to East London which may be to the benefit of that region.

The hon. member for Kempton Park raised a matter which I should like to discuss at some length today. It is quite a dramatic story which I have to tell the House. I do so for two reasons: In the first place because the hon. member for Kempton Park asked me to do so—in fact, when he spoke about it, I encouraged him to ask me the question, because I should like to disclose the information—and in the second place because in doing so, I want to show South Africa and this House what attempts at blackmail are sometimes made against us as Ministers. Mr. Chairman, I therefore want to discuss this matter in great detail, and I hope you will not reproach me for doing so.

The hon. member for Kempton Park referred, among other things, to the firm of Air Cargo. This firm used to have cold storage chambers on the south side of the present airport building at Jan Smuts. This is near the roofed-in area where the aircraft of the Airways are parked. This firm are the agents for the handling of perishable products. For many years they did their work there in a prefabricated building which they had put up themselves. The building had cold storage facilities. The Department of Transport later decided that because of the ever-increasing need for the transportation of perishable products, a building should be erected at the airport, and that this building should be made available to all the agents so that perishable products may be handled there and exported from there. Such a building was then constructed at a cost of more than R300 000. The Department of Public Works built it for the Department of Transport, of course, and as is customary with regard to all other open spaces and buildings at airports, it is leased by tender. All the stores, buildings, restaurants, grounds—everything at the airport that is used by private bodies or by individuals—are leased to these people by tender. When this building had been completed, people were also given an opportunity to lease it by tender. The first time there were two tenders, but they were not comparable. Tenders were then called for a second time, and once again there were two tenders, one by Indo Atlantic for R62 000 a year and one by Air Cargo for R40 000 a year. In other words, the Indo Atlantic tender was almost R22 000 higher than that of Air Cargo. In May 1976—three years ago—the tender of Indo Atlantic, the highest tenderer, was accepted by the Tender Board. Obviously Air Cargo, the company which had had its own building there in the past and had then had to demolish it to make room for the aircraft, was dissatisfied because its tender had been turned down. They were disappointed about it, as one can understand, because they would be told to remove their cold storage chambers there. They then requested an interview with me through the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture phoned me and asked me to receive them and I saw them in my office. Along with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture there were Mr. Julicher, the managing director of Air Cargo, and Dr. Anderson. They then asked me whether I could not find another site at the airport to lease to them where they could put up their own cold storage chambers. I joked with them a little and asked why they had sent in such a low tender, which had therefore been turned down, although they were the biggest agents for the exportation of perishable products. I then told them that I would consider their request sympathetically and that I would see what I could do. I could not give them an answer at that stage, because the Secretary for Transport was not present. Later I received a submission from the Secretary for Transport in which he explained to me that we could not accede to their request because we had a contract with the tenants of the new building, Indo Atlantic. They had sent in the highest tender and the agreement was subject to the condition that these would be the only cold storage chambers at Jan Smuts Airport. The chambers are big, so there is enough capacity for everyone who wants to make use of them. We shall exercise control over the rent which people are charged. From the nature of the case, this building would be controlled by the firm that had sent in the highest tender. The Secretary for Transport told me that we could not possibly accede to the request of Air Cargo, because that would invite court action from the part of Indo-Atlantic, who had leased the building. I thereupon wrote them a cordial letter and told them that I could not allow it, giving the reasons for my decision. I told them that the facilities in the building were available to them and that they could make use of them. Subsequently, in August 1976, I received a document which had been lodged with the Supreme Court in Pretoria. In this application which had been lodged with the Court, I was the first respondent, Indo Atlantic was the second and the State Tender Board…

Is it not sub judice?

No, it has been disposed of. The hon. member need not ask whether it is sub judice. I know what I am doing. [Interjections.] In this application they asked that the award of the tender be set aside. Secondly, they asked that my decision not to make land available to Air Cargo be set aside as well. An affidavit was submitted by Rudolf Friedrich Ludwig Julicher, the managing director of this company. In it he alleged that he had been shocked because, firstly, I was supposed to have shares in a company called Robroy Interests.

Robroy Interests is a family company of mine in which I own about 21% of the shares. That is correct. Secondly, he alleged that Robroy Interests had, inter alia, 250 000 shares in Picbel, that is, in Picardi Investments. He also said that Robroy Interests had 170 000 shares in Karoovleis, a subsidiary company of Picardi Investments. They further alleged that I was a good friend of Mr. Jan Pickard and that Picbel indirectly controlled Indo-Atlantic. The latter is the company which sent in the highest tender and to which the building was then leased.

I mention these things by way of explanation to the House and to the whole world, because we are supposed these days to be covering up and permitting all kinds of abuses. And there we are being subjected to blackmail, of which this is a very good example. The company called Robroy is a family company of mine and has shares in 27 listed companies. Personally I have shares in 18 listed companies. I do not apologize for that. Surely one does not need to be a pauper to qualify for becoming a Minister. They went further and alleged—in these court documents—that in order to promote the interests of Indo-Atlantic, I had induced the Tender Board to accept the tender by Indo-Atlantic. It was on the basis of that that this application had been made. He went on to say that because of my interest in Indo-Atlantic, I was not competent to consider their application for land. This man came to see me with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in my office in the Parliamentary building. He asked me to make a piece of land at Jan Smuts Airport available to him for building cold storage chambers. When I told him that I could not do so, for good reasons which I specified, he went to court and alleged that I was not competent, because of my interest in Indo-Atlantic, to consider his request.

And if the reply to him had been “Yes”?

I assume that if I had said “Yes”, everything would have been in order. If I had told him that I would let him have the land, he would surely never have gone to court However, because I was forced to say “No”, he went to court and alleged that because of my share interest in Indo-Atlantic, I was not allowed to take a decision of that nature.

On top of that, he alleged that the piece of land they were asking for was so unimportant that it did not merit the attention of a Minister. He comes to ask me for land, but in his statement before the court he says that what he asked me for is so unimportant that I should not even give consideration to it I leave it at that. That is just by the way.

Meanwhile, all kinds of allegations of the most damning nature are made against me in this court document. I want to read a few of them to hon. members. It contains the most damning allegations. If this chapter were made public without any further explanation, I would be regarded by everyone as a criminal. I shall read a few of the statements he makes here. Hon. members will then understand what I mean. He says—

That is absolutely untrue. This is the most important allegation in his submission to the court. This is to be proclaimed to all the world. However, it is absolutely untrue. Our Tender Board procedure—and I think hon. members will agree with me—is absolutely above suspicion. I did not even know at that stage who the members of the Tender Board were. After we had received these court documents, and because the Tender Board was a co-respondent in the case, I found out for the first time who they were and met the members of the Tender Board in Pretoria. I had not even known who they were. Neither the hon. the Prime Minister nor any other Minister gives instructions to the Tender Board. Listen to his further allegations—

Just listen to this. They had been alarmed—

Is that a sworn affidavit?

A sworn affidavit, yes. He is alarmed at the fact that Jan Pickard is my friend. My wealth on earth today is my friends. In this House there are 135 hon. members on the Government side and 30 on the opposite side.

Thirty-one. [Interjections.]

I think they can all testify to the fact that this is my wealth on earth—my friends. But this claimant is surprised. It seems that I am not allowed to be a friend of Jan Pickard. He refers to the meeting which took place in my office in the presence of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. He is my witness. It is said—

There is not a word of truth in that, but that is something the court must decide. I merely mention it the way it will be publicized if this document is made public. I am making public today what is stated in this document and I can quote all the objectionable allegations it contains. He goes on to say—

He is referring to a letter which I wrote him—

In a letter I wrote him I said that I could not give him the land, but he could have space in the building leased by Indo Atlantic. He says I am not allowed to do that—what gives me the right to discuss in a letter something which he did not ask me? In the next paragraph he accuses me of having humiliated myself as a Minister by talking to Indo Atlantic. I am good enough to talk to him in my office, but not good enough to talk to Indo Atlantic in an attempt to solve their problems! I read further—

Just listen to this. Having asked me for the piece of land, he says—

It should not require him to write a book that thick either.

He said this after he had asked me for the piece of land at the airport.

The man is a rogue!

That is the story. We considered the matter and took legal counsel. We were advised that we had no problem with the allegation that I had influenced the Tender Board, but that it was in fact open to question whether, in the light of the circumstances, I was competent to take a decision concerning the request that a piece of land be made available to him.

I am sorry that my colleagues are not all in the House, because great importance is attached to this in our law. The test is whether the impression can be created, in the light of the circumstances under which a decision has to be made, that one is prejudiced. On the basis of that, there was some doubt. We decided that we would concede that point to them. If we conceded it, however, they could apply again, and then someone else would have to decide; the decision would probably be the same. On the first point—i.e. the influencing of the Tender Board—we felt that we had no problem. Nevertheless, negotiations took place.

My legal representatives negotiated with Air Cargo—I was not present—and they came to a compromise. With the consent of Indo Atlantic, they made a part of a building available for a period of three years—so I believe—during which Air Cargo would then operate.

After the matter had been concluded, Mr. Julicher wrote some letters to me. He wrote this letter after all these things had been said which would make me look like a criminal offender if they were publicized without qualification and without explanation—

He had previously written a letter to the Prime Minister—at that time it was Mr. Vorster—because when those tenders were submitted, he had used all kinds of influences in an attempt to have his tender, which was the lowest, accepted. After the case had been concluded, he wrote to Mr. Vorster as follows—

I did not reply to his letter, but the hon. the Prime Minister replied to his letter through his secretary as follows—

We thought that this would be the end of the story.

Did you accept his explanation?

Yes, I accepted it and I regarded the matter as closed. At the end of October last year, I received the following letter, which had been written in print-hand—

Sir, I do not want to burden you with the whole letter. I shall therefore read the last paragraph only—

The letter concluded with: “Die uwe, drie senior amptenare.” Sir, I do not want you to be misled by “senior amptenare”. This is the kind of blackmail attempt to which we are subjected. I did not resign. Here I am still standing. I gave the letter to the police. The police identified my fingerprints on it, as well as those of the persons in my office who had also handled it, and also identified the other fingerprints on it. The matter is still in the hands of the police. I have made an affidavit and asked the police to investigate the matter.

Did he withdraw the court case?

Yes, he did. It was part of the agreement that he should withdraw it because we had settled the matter. It was also part of the agreement that he should write a letter to me, as he did. But, Sir, this is not the end of it. In August this year, the lease contract comes to an end, and then a dispute will arise again. The threats are beginning again. A letter was addressed to the Chief Executive, South African Airways, because this is a sublease which is handled by the Airways. His attorney, Mr. E. F. K. Tucker, writes that the lease must be extended at all costs. This is now an open question. There are arguments about the extension of the lease. He wants the lease to be extended and writes as follows, inter alia—

1. (a) That Air Cargo is entitled to remain in that warehouse and entitled to negotiate in good faith with you, without interference from the Department of Transport or any other person or body, on the duration of the extension of the lease; alternatively
2. (b) That the Deed of Settlement has been breached.

Now he comes back to the base allegations he made against me. Therefore I very gladly make them public today, so that the world may know about this, may examine the documents and may read Hansard if they like. The letter goes on to say—

This is another attempt at blackmail. With this I conclude the matter, except for saying that I have received a letter from the South African Agricultural Union. Every influence must be brought to bear, it seems, to help Mr. Julicher in his undertaking, as if other interests did not exist. There are many agents and there is capacity available at tariffs controlled by us—not by Indo Atlantic. The South African Agricultural Union makes a strong plea in its letter, on behalf of Air Cargo, that we should allow Air Cargo to retain this place. This is a further influencing, and I cannot really object to it. He has the right to seek support from bodies.

I want to say that as far as I am concerned, this is the end of my story. These matters have already been handed over to our legal representatives by the department and I am there to promote as far as possible the exportation of goods from South Africa. I shall do so, but in the process I must also ensure that justice is done to all interested parties, and not only to one interested party. If there is any person who thinks that he can dictate what should be done at Jan Smuts airport, then he is making a big mistake. On that note I conclude this matter.

The hon. member for Kempton Park talked about the airport building. At Jan Smuts airport, in which he takes a great interest, we are having many problems. We are having many problems because there are so many entrances to the building. The hon. member is quite right in saying that the crowding of airports creates major problems for us from time to time. Jan Smuts airport is probably a very good example. This airport building has no fewer than 58 entrances. Hon. members may say that a mistake was made with the construction of the building. That may be so, but that happened in the past, and now the problem is there. I want to tell the hon. member that we now have a new policy in respect of the construction of airport buildings. It is now a requirement that the planning should be of such a nature and the building should be designed in such a way that the access can be easily controlled.

Of course, I have other problems as well with the situation which the hon. member outlined. The hon. member must remember that a lot of business is done in that airport building. I am thinking, for example, of the big restaurant in the international section. It would and could rightly be said that if we controlled access to the building in order to keep out a large percentage of the people, we would be keeping out a large number of the clients of the people who are leasing a place there on the understanding that it is open to the public. That is another matter, however. The fact of the matter is that we are really having physical problems with regard to Jan Smuts airport. We are keeping a check on the situation there. I am informed that circumstances are not yet out of control. We are making other attempts to discourage the influx of people on specific days. The fact of the matter is, however, that there is a great deal of merit in what the hon. member said. I have also asked that the matter should be reconsidered to determine whether we cannot find some means of controlling admission to the Jan Smuts airport building. This is not something new; it is done in many countries of the world. In most countries of the world, passengers have to pay an airport levy. However, we are very reluctant to impose such a levy in South Africa. But we are giving attention to this matter and to others.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the time I have already taken up, I want to conclude in order to give other hon. members an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Chairman, with very limited time at my disposal I rise to deal only with two matters relating specifically to national roads. The first matter is the question of the national road between Natal and the interior, particularly the very dangerous stretch between Harrismith and Ladysmith. This is the main road which, as the hon. the Minister will know, serves Johannesburg, western Transvaal, Pretoria, much of the Free State and part of the Cape as their link with the province of Natal. According to information supplied to me, it is probably the busiest stretch of road in South Africa. It carries some 1,5 million vehicles per annum. But whatever the figure, we know from our own knowledge that it is a very busy stretch of road indeed. We also know that it is a very narrow and dangerous road. It is a road which is far too narrow to carry the volume of traffic which it is expected to carry at the present time. In the nature of things it has to twist and bend uphill and down dale. The figures indicate that the accident rate of this stretch of road is very high indeed. I have figures, which are substantiated by an interested party and by the police in both Bergville and Harrismith, to the effect that during the month of February, for example, there was some 21 accidents, resulting in 14 people being killed and 26 people being seriously injured on the stretch of road between Harrismith and Ladysmith. I believe the department has some plan for widening the road or for building verges on either side of the road. While this will certainly help the situation, it still gives one an indication of being very much a stop-gap approach to a problem relating to one of the major roads in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is happening in regard to this particular stretch of road.

I also want to ask him what has happened in regard to the proposed road over the Drakensberg. I think it was intended to come from Warden and to link up with the existing national road just outside Estcourt in the Estcourt-Frere district. I think this is extremely important. I believe that plans in respect of this new road over the Drakensberg had reached an advanced stage, but I am told that for some reason or another, no doubt relating to finance and other considerations, these plans have been shelved for the time being. It would seem that in this particular case there is a need for an urgent review of this situation, as one of priority, in view of the difficulty being experienced with existing road and its inadequacy. I think this is still further emphasized when one thinks in terms of fuel saving. It has great merit that in the case of a road used so extensively as is this link with Natal, the best possible freeway be provided. I should like the hon. the Minister, in his reply, to give us an indication as to what the plans are in regard to particularly the new road over the Drakensberg.

The National Transport Commission and other hon. members in this debate have paid tribute to the network of national roads we have in South Africa, and I think we are justifiably proud of the work which has been done in that regard and with the results that have been achieved. I think it would be a great pity if the commission allowed itself to be satisfied with stop-gap measures. It has a proud record of beautiful and useful roads in South Africa, and this is an instance where I believe, if there has been advanced planning, that it will be necessary to expedite that advanced planning and to create this new link as a reality. That is the first question I ask the hon. the Minister to deal with.

Secondly, I want to join with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who raised a matter on which I think there would be common agreement by all who know the situation, in commenting on the question of this ridiculous access to Louis Botha airport by the new N2 road. The hon. member mentioned a distance of two kilometres. My own assessment is that it is about four kilometres. When I drive from the Pietermaritzburg/ Westville road to get to the airport I do, in fact, get to the airport, but then I have the anguish of having to drive right past the airport in a strange circle that takes me near to Prospecton, a distance of approximately four kilometres, I think. This seems to me to be a totally ridiculous situation. In the first instance one wonders how it ever arose because even as a layman, looking at the situation, I cannot believe that any planner who really studied the situation could have allowed it to come into existence. So I ask that this matter be reviewed. I think figures have been given that it would cost a great deal of money to build an interchange in order to allow for traffic to go into the airport in a more acceptable way, but I wonder why some measure cannot be introduced at least to restore the glide-off which used to exist, the one going past the existing lock-up garages at Louis Botha airport. That would at least assist traffic coming to the airport. There would still be delays getting from the airport, but normally the time factor is much more important when one is going to an airport, and one should not have the anguish and the irritation of actually having to drive past the airport and then travelling in an extensive circle before actually getting into the airport building. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware of this situation. I do not know whether he has seen it for himself. However, I think it is a matter which needs very urgent attention, because it is a totally ridiculous situation. These are two matters on which I urge the hon. the Minister to take some action and to give us an indication of what action he is going to take.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave spoke in a somewhat different vein to the hon. member for Orange Grove. He did say something about the beautiful national roads being built, whereas the hon. member for Orange Grove emphasized only the disruption of the environment caused by our national roads.

I think this is a much better approach. I should like to say something about the beautification of the national roads, because I think that exceptionally good work is being done by the National Transport Commission. Apart from the great driving comfort we enjoy as a result of national roads, we can say that a great deal of attention is being given, too, to the aesthetic standard of the work being done. During the past decade it has been the world-wide policy of people doing such work to give attention to various aspects of roads right from the early planning stage. There are the political aspects, the social aspects, the economic aspects as well as the physical aspects of a road, all of which have to be studied very carefully. I think it may be said that our National Transport Commission considers all factors very carefully when investigating where a road should run and what its route should be. When determining the actual route it is also much easier to beautify the area afterwards if one carries out a study before the time so that one can allow the excavations and the filling up to fit in properly with the topography of the environment. We have already seen several examples of this new policy applied to the building of national roads in our country. In the design phase of national roads, too, careful attention is given to re-establishing the flora without delay. Attention is also given to this matter beyond the road reserve. The policy is that when gravel, for example, is obtained beyond the borders of the road reserves, the veld in this area is restored very thoroughly. The good soil is first bulldozed to one side, and after the gravel has been removed, it is replaced so that the roadworks leave no scar. The situation can be summarized by saying that it is our objective today to soften the impact of man-made disturbances as far as possible.

Perceptive motorists would already have perceived that a new policy is being followed in this regard. If we examine the difference between the old road and the new road, this new policy is clearly visible. I should like to mention a few examples in this regard. As regards the old roads, there are, for example, the Ben Schoeman highway, the Cape Town/ Paarl road and the Durban/Pietermaritzburg road which were still built in the old way. These may be compared with new routes such as the Heidelberg bypass, the Durban circle road—the Durban people will know it well—the Pretoria/Warmbaths road, the Glentana/Herold’s Bay road in the hon. the Prime Minister’s area, as well as the Gamtoos River/Humansdorp road which was completed recently. With regard to these new roads really excellent work has been done with the repair of the environment after the roads had been completed.

It is interesting to note that it is rather difficult to establish plants in this arid soil where excavations have taken place. The National Transport Commission has already spent a considerable amount of money on research making this type of cultivation possible. I have been informed that up to now they have spent as much as R150 000 on research alone. This type of work is not inexpensive, and I am informed that the National Transport Commission spent R36 000 per km on adding the proper finishing touches and tidying up of a double carriageway. Initially it is, of course, difficult to cultivate large shrubs and trees at these places, but in the course of time conditions improve and it becomes possible to plant larger shrubs and trees, while initially only grass has to be cut. The process will therefore in the nature of the matter extend over a period of years.

In the case of work done by contractors and therefore delivered on completion, I want to know from the hon. the Minister: Who does the follow-up work on those roads?

Unfortunately it also seems that it is not always possible to plant indigenous plants only. I think it would be a good thing if we could plant only indigenous trees. I have also been informed that the department is carrying out further research into the planting of indigenous trees. I read in the annual report that since the trees and shrubs cultivated in this way have to be extremely hardy, and as far as possible, have to be indigenous varieties, the department began a special departmental nursery at Donkerhoek, just east of Pretoria, in 1974. The production of shrubs progressed well there, and 30 000 shrubs were cultivated there in 1975-’76, and 80 000 such plants in 1977-’78. I think it is a very good thing that this work is being done and I should like to know, since this nursery is intended exclusively for the Free State and the Transvaal, whether the intention is to extend this type of work to the Cape Province and Natal as well. Some of the finest exotic trees could be cultivated in these two provinces. I therefore want to congratulate the National Transport Commission on the work being done with regard to finishing touches to roads.

I also want to refer briefly to the progress with the construction of the national road in my area, i.e. on the Garden Route near Humansdorp. A very fine section of road from the Gamtoos River bridge to Krom River was recently completed. But to the uninformed it really seems that except for that section, which was built under contract, the work is progressing exceptionally slowly. I think it would be as well if it could be explained to us why there is no visible progress. I am told that the road up to the Kareedouw junction will be completed shortly. The State President will then be able to drive from Port Elizabeth to Oubosstrand on a national road. I think that this is a very fine progress. From there, in the direction of George, progress seems to be exceptionally slow. I am also told that the last bottleneck on the Garden Route, viz. the Bloukrantz and Grootrivier passes, are also receiving attention at present. I am very pleased to hear this. These are two really difficult passes. I know that it will take a long time to complete the three bridges, which have to be built, but I am pleased to hear that a start is finally being made with that work.

It is also just interesting to note that the beautiful Paul Sauer bridge, which has already been completed, is perhaps going to be retained for a long time yet. When I heard that a new route was being planned, I thought that it would certainly be a waste of money to build a new bridge there. I have now been informed by the National Transport Commission that they are still going to use that bridge as well as the road there for a long time yet. I think it would be money down the drain to replace so soon a good bridge, like the Storms River bridge, which is an exceptionally fine bridge, and which suits the environment, while it can still be put to good use. For that reason I am satisfied that in this way we shall still be able to make do with the old section of the road for a long time yet. But I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress is being made in the vicinity of the national road.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened attentively to the hon. member for Humansdorp. We know him as a person who has a great love of nature and his environment. Moreover he is the author of the book Die Leeu van die Sondagsrivier getem. We want to express the hope and the trust that the progress of the new road construction in that vicinity will leave his beautiful lion unscathed.

I think that up to now there have been two excellent characteristics of this debate. In the first place there is a total lack of attacking ability by hon. members opposite. I also think that this is the first time that we have seen a poor effort by hon. members opposite to get at the hon. Minister of Transport and his department. The other characteristic is the unmasking of the so-called Julicher fellow, as the hon. the Minister of Transport explained it to us here.

I think it is only right if hon. members on this side of the House state clearly that we regard the integrity and honour of the hon. the Minister as above all suspicion. We want to go further by saying that we also regard the integrity and honour of the Department of Transport as above suspicion. If Mr. Julicher and his cronies think that hon. members on this side of the House are going to sympathize with them, we want to tell them clearly that integrity does not permit it.

Over the years it has always been the case that the unknown has held a fascination for man. Consequently it is that same unknown which has so often in the past been the stimulus for the researcher and the historian to enter and unravel new spheres. One of these spheres, which still remains unknown, is the sphere of the Weather Bureau and weather modification. In a Sanae group publication, the following statement is made—

In view of the fact that these currents are the probable factory of the weather conditions over South Africa, it is as well that South Africa, with the aid of the S.A. Agulhas and our Antarctic stations is to give attention, perhaps to an increasing extent, to the knowledge which is to be collected there. However, I found it interesting to examine the origin of the Weather Bureau, and later also the weather modification scheme in South Africa. I found that in the year 1860, the Government of the Cape of Good Hope established a meteorological committee, consisting of eight members, for the first time. Consequently I think that this date could justifiably be regarded as the beginning of an organized weather service in South Africa. Only in 1902—42 years later—was a meteorological department established in the Transvaal to carry out meteorological and astronomical observations. The committee was under the leadership of Dr. Innes. In 1884 a meteorological committee was established in Natal, and in the Free State, regular observations commenced in Bloemfontein in 1878.

On 1 April 1912 the new Union weather service situated in Pretoria, was introduced, under the aegis of the former Department of Irrigation, with a certain Mr. Stewart as principal meteorologist. The first weather forecasts for the Union as a whole commenced on Monday, 15 April 1912, here in Cape Town. In June 1926 the weather forecasting office was transferred to Pretoria, where the head office of the Weather Bureau still is today. I believe that the Weather Bureau was in fact constituted in 1933, when Dr. Schumann became head of the Union weather service, and the name of the weather service was changed to its present name, the Weather Bureau.

Being thoroughly aware of the implications of the weather for the development of agriculture, industry, aviation, navigation, etc., Dr. Schumann consequently campaigned untiringly for the extension of the weather service. With the development of the weather service in South Africa it was logical that South African meteorologists would enter a new sphere, viz. that of the weather modification scheme. I think it is only right at this stage that we place on record in this House what the objectives of the weather modification project are. Unfortunately, as a result of unnatural weather conditions during the past few years, this department has so often become the target of laymen who condemn the department for actions which have supposedly given rise to droughts or excessive rain. The purpose of this project is to attempt to obtain answers to the following questions. In the first place the question must be answered whether rainfall in the catchment area of the Vaal Dam can be increased by way of human intervention. In the second place, if an answer in the affirmative is found to the previous question, the question arises as to whether such an increase can be effected on a consistent and predictable basis. In the third place, if a definite yes is applicable to both of the previous questions, we have to know what degree of increase in precipitation can be expected, and at what expense. The project, which is being carried out purely on a research basis, is being carried out by the bureau of the Department of Transport, with the assistance of the Civil Aviation Division and the Water Research Commission, that maintains certain officials financially in order to enable them to carry out this scientific research work.

I wonder whether the time has not come for this department to carry out this scientific research work with regard to weather modification on its own in future. I think that the mediation of the Water Research Commission could cause the impression to be created that operations in connection with this research project will be speeded up. In other words that the process of a real increase in rainfall will be effected more rapidly.

We are grateful for the way in which the officials in Bethlehem, sometimes under very difficult circumstances, handle the weather modification scheme and carry out research on it in an honest and creditable way. However, I want to break a lance for these people today. I want to state clearly that although no complaints have been received from these officials, they are working under terrible conditions. For that reason I should like to request the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility, in his next budget, of having permanent housing, offices and research laboratories to be built in Bethlehem, so that this valuable and praiseworthy field of study may pay even more dividends in future.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethlehem will excuse me if I do not react to his speech. However, my time is very, very limited, and unfortunately I find that I have to react to a speech made by the hon. member for East London City.

Before I do so, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his very clear and lucid explanation in connection with Air Cargo. I believe that he has done it very well, and I believe there are other hon. members of this House that can profit by the example he has set. When it comes to the hon. member for East London City, I am particularly surprised that he chose this occasion to make a personal political attack on me, particularly as the hon. member for Welkom had appealed—and I believe he is the chairman of the Transport Group—that this debate should be conducted on a level which was not a political one. I fully agree with the hon. member for Welkom. For the hon. member for East London City then to make this kind of political attack is perhaps deserving of some response from the leader of his group. With regard to the matter he raised in connection with the road transportation board in East London, I want to point out that, as the hon. the Minister has himself said, I have spoken to him about it. I also in fact requested the hon. member for East London City, who as far as I knew was not aware at that stage of the problem regarding the closing of the offices in East London, in the interests of East London to see the hon. the Minister and do what he could to help. I therefore find it somewhat odd that he should have taken the stand he has taken here today. Unfortunately, there are other things I want to speak about and therefore I will not take the matter any further at this stage.

The first point I want to come to relates to East London and the airport there which, it might surprise hon. members to hear, has in terms of the SAA schedule up to 1 April of this year—I have not checked on the latest one—had more scheduled jet flight movements than either Port Elizabeth or Durban. I am not referring to the number of flights, but to flight movements. When an aircraft lands, that is one flight movement. In terms of flight movements East London has a higher volume of traffic than either Port Elizabeth or Durban. Since fairly recently I held a pilot’s licence and therefore visited the air traffic control tower at East London frequently to file flight plans and so on, I became aware that the air traffic controllers in East London have to operate at that airport without the benefit of any radar facilities. I believe that in the interests of not only East London but of the country generally and in the interests of safer traffic control in that area—and I am not for one minute suggesting that it is not safe, but at the same time it could be improved—radar facilities should be provided at East London airport. We are all aware that the coastal areas of South Africa experience cloudy conditions more frequently than inland areas. Therefore I believe that the hon. the Minister and his department should give serious consideration to supplying this type of facility at East London airport. I should like to hear his reaction to this.

I want to get on to another matter relating to flight safety generally. The subject I want to raise is perhaps a difficult subject, but it is nevertheless a subject which I believe needs to be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister and his department. As I have said, this again relates to safety. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider, in respect of all South African airports where scheduled SAA flights take off or land, providing better or more security facilities at these airports for checking passengers arriving and departing. We are all aware of the fact that, when one travels overseas, one has to go through a security check before one is allowed on to an aircraft. I realize that it is something that is not necessarily popular with the average member of the public boarding a flight. He wants to get on as quickly and easily as possible. Nevertheless I believe that in the interests of safety, with the upsurge of hijacking of aircraft throughout the world and the type of terrorism operating throughout the world—and I am not suggesting that South Africa is in a different situation to any other country in the world in this regard—the time has come for the hon. the Minister to provide this type of facility internally at South African airports. It helps if such facilities are provided after an incident has occurred, but it helps a lot more if they are provided beforehand. I think we have been fortunate in South Africa than an incident of this nature has not occurred.

I believe the time is now ripe for the hon. the Minister to give this matter his attention, because if he starts giving it attention now it will obviously still take a period of time before such facilities can be installed. I appreciate that it will be expensive, but in the long run I do not believe that it will be as expensive as a possible incident could be at some stage in the future.

The next item I want to touch on relates to the rather vexed question of transport from airports in South Africa to the terminals. As we are all aware, the normal airport transports services have been discontinued at most South African airports. I have no quarrel with the hon. the Minister in this regard, but the replacements for these services in certain areas leave quite a lot to be desired. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in granting people the right to run a bus service from the airports to the terminals, he has laid down any specifications in regard to the type of vehicles that are used, the seating capacity, the capacity to carry luggage, the head room and the seat space per passenger? There are many specifications which, as the hon. the Minister will well know, can obtain in this regard, but we have the situation in Durban right now that they have a bus operating from Durban airport to the terminal, a bus which is, I understand, built on a 2 ton chassis and is more or less like a shoe-box. One has to bend considerably to be able to move and down the aisle of this vehicle: Even the proverbial little old lady has to bend to enter this vehicle. I understand further that on this vehicle no facilities have been made available at all for luggage. So, one’s luggage more or less gets bundled all around one. The operator has also apparently forgotten that it rains from time to time in Durban, so that if one happens to be sitting near the door of this vehicle when it rains, one gets absolutely soaked. I believe we must have this type of service supplied by private operators. I am fully in favour of this, but I do believe that those operators should be made to meet certain standards. After all, the people who use this type of service are very often overseas visitors. If they are transported in comfort from the airport in a decent bus, it immediately gives them a better impression of the town and the country they are visiting. If, however, they have an extremely uncomfortable trip, they start in the area on the wrong foot and I do not believe that this does us any good at all. I therefore appeal to the hon. file Minister to react to this.

Hon. members will have realized that my main theme in discussing this Transport Vote is safety. As the hon. the Minister is aware, there was a rather unpleasant incident not so long ago when a person was killed falling off the stairs that lead up to an aircraft. I think it occurred at Jan Smuts Airport. I believe that the steps used by S.A. Airways to enable passengers to enter the aircraft need considerable improvement. I am not suggesting that all the steps are in a poor condition, but certainly, as these steps are constructed; one is led to believe that if one gave them a good hard blow, or if somebody heavy fell against them, they could easily collapse, resulting in an accident which would not be of any great help to anybody in South Africa and to the hon. the Minister in particular, as his department could be sued.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London North did perhaps express his dismay and tried to appear indignant about certain remarks made by the hon. member for East London City, but what is in fact important and significant in this regard, is the fact that he did not try to dispute one of the statements made by the hon. member for East London City, with the result that the whole speech of the hon. member for East London City is still intact. Therefore the matter has not really been taken any further. However, I leave it at that.

I want to express a few ideas on the question of urban transport, but before I do so, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Humansdorp by way of a few remarks with reference to the objection raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove to the proclamation of the national road between George and Sedgefield. I should like to reassure the hon. Minister on this matter. There are two things which are clear with regard to the proclamation of this section of national road. The one is that a desperate effort is being made in certain quarters to stir up public opinion in the Cape concerning this proclamation. In the second place, it is clear—I should like the hon. the Minister to take cognizance of this—that responsible public opinion in the Cape is simply not prepared, nor intends, to get worked up about this matter. Responsible public opinion accepts that when the department comes forward with a considered decision of this nature, the matter has first been considered very thoroughly, that great circumspection has been shown, that all the advantages and disadvantages of such a step have been duly considered and a decision taken only once all the advantages and disadvantages have been weighed up properly.

We are aware that from an environmental point of view, this area is a sensitive part of the Cape Province, and for that reason the task must be approached very carefully. However, we also know what personal interest even the hon. the Prime Minister has in the lakes area. We know that he took the initiative in the introduction of legislation to protect those lakes. For that reason we can take it that if the Cabinet, the department and the hon. the Prime Minister in particular have given their personal approval to such action, it will not interfere with environmental conservation, or that there is in any case no alternative. The responsibility rests on the Government and the department to take decisions of this nature. The Government cannot evade its responsibility and duty just because doing the contrary would make it popular.

I want to say that it is true the Cape has, in fact, felt threatened in the past by certain plans of the Transport Commission, but fortunately this is no longer the case. I think that the Cape was really concerned about and felt threatened by the ambitious plans at that stage for a super freeway along the coast from the Southern and Eastern Cape to Natal. However, we can take it that that plan has been shelved for the time being.

I want to praise the Transport Commission and the hon. the Minister and his department for the policy they are implementing at the moment with regard to the proclamation, planning and construction of national roads in the Cape. The fact that certain roads have been proclaimed and the provincial authorities have been directed to build them, the planned tunnel through Du Toits Kloof as well as the national road connection between Worcester and Swellendam, all testify to a very wise and realistic approach to this whole matter and I should like to praise the commission for that.

I should now like to deal with the matter of urban transport, with specific reference to the Cape and in relation to our two urban complexes, viz. the Cape Peninsula and Port Elizabeth. Today the position is that in spite of the oil crisis we have to accept that the motor-car is still going to dominate our lives for the foreseeable future. Because this is the case, the 1977 Act has become a very important piece of legislation in our Statute Book. As far as Cape Town and Port Elizabeth are concerned, I as a Capetonian consider it a pity that unfortunately we did not make use of the advantages contained in this legislation as quickly as possible. Unfortunately these two cities have been a little slow and have allowed other cities to get in before them with the implementation of the legislation. It is a pity that this is the case since the legislation in question entails such great advantages for the communities of these areas if properly utilized. They have not yet been able to utilize the subsidies made available by the State because they did not begin to take the necessary steps in good time.

I want to express the hope that this position will not continue indefinitely, but that Cape Town in particular—here the circumstances are particularly favourable for the implementation of this Act—and its visitors will also enjoy the advantages of this legislation before long. Because there are so many advantages, I hope and trust that the city fathers of Cape Town will realize their duty. Fortunately the position is now that Cape Town has just been proclaimed a metropolitan transport area as well. I trust that further steps will also be taken now without further delay and that we shall very shortly be able to see the advantages of this legislation implemented in Cape Town. The position here is perhaps better than in many other large cities, because we have favourable circumstances here, for example a very good through-road system, an excellent suburban train service as well as one of the few profitable bus enterprises.

For that reason it is important that everyone who ought to accept responsibility for this matter, in regard to which we have really fallen behind, will not waste any more time, but will ensure that the Cape, more specifically the two urban complexes, the Cape Peninsula and the Port Elizabeth metropolitan complex, will also begin to share in the greater advantages of this legislation in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the pulsing excitement of the hon. member’s speech and the only thing on which I should like to comment, is his remarks about the Garden Route freeway, and just point out to him that among others who have objected to this freeway over a period of time were the Wild Life Society, which, as the hon. the Minister probably knows, has a tremendous number of members, the Society for the Protection of the Environment, the Save the Garden Route Committee, the George Divisional Council, the Lakes Board, the Outeniqua Land Trust, the Provincial Department of Nature Conservation and, on top of that, over 50 000 people who signed a petition. I think that we must agree that a considerable number of people did oppose it and that a considerable amount of responsible opinion was expressed. I do not think that that sort of opinion can be regarded as irresponsible.

I briefly wish to raise two subjects that relate to aviation. In the first place I want to deal with the facilities at the Jan Smuts Airport. I should like to suggest it to the hon. the Minister that particularly at Jan Smuts Airport the restaurant facilities need some attention. I went to have a meal there a few days ago and found that the cafeteria there is run in a most sloppy manner, while the food is not very good either. I do not think it does any credit to South Africa at the moment when visitors…

Which cafeteria are you referring to?

I am referring to the big upstairs cafeteria at Jan Smuts Airport. Another issue, which I have raised before, is the question of facilities for the bookshop. What I have to say in this regard is not only true of Jan Smuts but of Durban as well. These bookshops are totally inadequate for the number of people they have to serve. The situation at the Cape Town airport is appalling, and I must request that the possibility of further space for these bookshops should be borne in mind when future planning is done. The quantity of goods they store could also perhaps be limited, because they try to run a gift shop, a book store and a sweet store, and the facilities for that are just totally inadequate.

There is one other issue I want to raise. This involves parking facilities at Jan Smuts Airport. Frequently there is inadequate gate service when large planes land there. On occasion I have had to wait ¾ hour in a queue of cars to pay to get out of the gates. This is totally inadequate, and this condition prevails purely and simply because they do not open enough paying points. I think this situation should be watched very carefully, and if the people who hold the contracts to supply parking facilities cannot do better than that, action must be taken.

The final point I wish to raise, in the very short time at my disposal, relates to the promotion of exports by air. I think we are all at one that it is necessary for South Africa to improve its export performance, and there is no quarrel about this. I know that members of the Chamber of Commerce and many other people in South Africa feel that inadequate attention is being given to the promotion of exports by air. There tends to be an almost closed-shop operation in so far as South African Airways and its pool partners are concerned. This is inadequate for a variety of reasons, and I think the hon. the Minister is aware of this. Many countries to which we could export are not served by either South African Airways or our pool partners. The hon. the Minister probably knows to how many countries in Africa, north of our borders, we are exporting to by air at the moment. Restrictions are such that it is very difficult for private enterprise air freight organizations to operate successfully. This is sometimes due to the empty-leg problem which is also experienced by the South African Airways and by road transport. To my mind there is not enough flexibility either as far as the passenger aircraft, which deal with air freight, are concerned. I believe that smaller aircraft operators have the flexibility to take over certain export operations that the scheduled airlines cannot cope with. I am informed that we are losing a tremendous amount of air freight traffic to various countries in the world purely and simply because there is no encouragement from the South African authorities. I realize that the Margo Commission is just about to report on the whole question of civil aviation, and one hopes that they will come forward with constructive viewpoints in regard to this matter, but I nevertheless should like the hon. the Minister to give this matter his attention.

Mr. Chairman, South African civil aviation has a black record in contrast to the unparalleled safety record of the South African Airways.

To begin with I should like to put two questions to the hon. the Minister in connection with the appointment of the panel of inquiry into near-collisions, collisions which were narrowly avoided. From time to time we read in the Press about nearcollisions, and my first question to him in this regard is: What does the department do when such a case of a near-collision is reported? My second question is: What outside organizations, in addition to the department, are also involved in such incidents?

Recently we had the appalling collision when a private pilot flew into a Johannesburg block of flats and was burnt to death together with two inhabitants of the building. It seems to me as though mountains, hilltops, buildings, trees and in some cases even giraffes and rugby posts have become the targets of pilots.

It often happens that the weather office reports fine weather, and that a pilot, without his making any further inquiries, takes off and undertakes a flight without his realizing that squalls and storms can blow up in the twinkling of an eye and that even a well-equipped aircraft can be blown from its course. This is particularly true of the Drakensberg in Natal which is regarded as one of the most dangerous flying zones in the world. Many of these areas are forbidden. There are unfavourable weather conditions, and the pilots may possibly not be equipped to fly with the aid of instrument panels. If, in addition, the cloud mass drops to below 800 feet, it is dangerous for that pilot to continue his flight. What happens if a pilot blindly continues his flight and is unable to fly in the clouds?

The only alternative is for him to descend as low as possible. Often he descends to the air space above river beds, such as the Umgeni River. Then the fog rolls in from the sea in his direction and once again he finds himself in a really desperate position. What will happen if it starts raining and hailing, and the snow against his cabin window starts making things difficult for him? What does it mean to him when he finds himself in that desperate position while he is possibly flying at a speed of 140 km/h? Sometimes he has to look for an open piece of land or the open national roads. If he wants to land on a national road, the oncoming motor traffic and the power pylons bar his way. All these things make it very difficult for a pilot.

However, what we are concerned with in this regard is the human element. If we examine this list of accidents that occurred, we see that 54% of the accidents were caused by human errors. Over a period of four years the finding throughout the world was that in approximately 60% of all these accidents the human element was at fault One often has to look for the problem in the attitude of the pilot. It is no good merely saying that he must be qualified. His aircraft must be right.

Many of our pilots have psychological problems, and those are the people who, especially as regards civil aviation—now I am not referring to the S.A. Airways—should be controlled. It is often the pilot who wants to impress his friends with all kinds of aerobatics. How often does he not fly in an area which he thinks he knows well, but which he, without his flying instructions, does not know well. Often he has not had his aircraft serviced properly either. My question is whether insurance companies cannot keep a list of irresponsible pilots. Why should able pilots be penalized because of these things?

I should now like to give an example of what happened recently and about which I was informed. The pilot told the central control tower that if he were to follow their instructions, he would fly directly into the clouds. The control tower then told the pilot that if he did not follow their instructions, he would fly directly into a Boeing.

This is the type of thing that happens, which often causes a two-way conversation, something which is not good. I know of a pilot who wanted to land at Louis Botha Airport with the aid of radar. They told him that he could not land. He replied that he was going to do it anyway, and within seconds he was involved in an accident with his five co-passengers.

The present-day costs of completing a course in the use of instruments is approximately R6 000. Although this is a large sum of money, attention should be given to this, because what is an amount of money compared to the loss of human life? If the best aircraft in the world are available for all training purposes, if all the strictest regulations are implemented and there is not a new approach, all these things are to no avail. These pilots should be more responsible.

Recently there was the case of a father who wanted to impress people. His son had forgotten his rugby boots at home, so the father flew over the rugby field to drop the boots, and eventually collided with the rugby posts. The aircraft, however, was a wreck. In Sasolburg, too, a pilot wanted to be bold and land on a miniature airfield where miniature aircraft were moving to and fro. Recently we read about the pilot who borrowed a packet of cigarettes the evening before from his neighbour and who, together with his son and daughter, flew over the house to drop the packet of cigarettes. The result was another fatal accident. He and his children died in this accident.

It is this that compels us today to admit that every pilot is a human being, and consequently, also fallible. What is important, is the time element. The pilot must take vital decisions within a matter of seconds. To be able to do this, he must be able to read the situation so that he will be able to act very fast. Therefore, it is the real emergency that forces him to react immediately but to stay calm at the same time. No one is able to bring an emergency situation under control in a single moment. It is necessary for the pilot to have a long period of training so as to enable him to face an emergency situation regularly. In his training he should also be motivated to read an emergency situation immediately and to act accordingly.

This is why I am very pleased that there are bodies that inquire into matters concerning civil aviation. A well-known pilot said in this regard—

When we consider the problem of civil aviation, we think involuntarily of the first aviation accident, which occurred 140 years before Christ, when Icarus flew from the isle of Crete. His wings were made of feathers, and there and then he experienced his first and also final and fatal structural failure. He flew so high with those wings that the sun melted the wax and he fell into the Aegean Sea and was killed. That is an accident that occurred at that time. Today, of course, it is completely different. The higher one flies today, the colder it gets; at that time, however, it got warmer. [Interjections.]

Therefore it is necessary in these circumstances to indicate that there is a shortage of professional leadership today. Industry should pay attention to the training of pilots. There are, of course, also medical and psychological examinations which should take place.

We see that in a budget of R24 million an amount of R8,5 million is allocated to professional and special services. Part of that money ought to be used in the interest of research to ascertain the cause of flying accidents.

During the past year there were 176 flying accidents, 76 of which occurred during landing. Seventeen occurred as a result of aircraft leaving the runway. There were also 15 unsuccessful landings. Of the 176 flying accidents, 57 were due to negligence, 49 to bad technique, 12 to unfavourable weather conditions and 12 to mechanical defects. Private pilots were involved in 85 of those accidents. In 57 of the accidents commercial pilots were involved.

Finally, I want to pause at the following three statements. A collision with an immoveable object on the ground, while the aircraft is in full flight, is a collision. A collision with another aircraft in the air, is also a collision. A lack of control or the loss of power forcing the aircraft to the ground, is also a collision. When such things occur, we get graves in the air.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Rosettenville will forgive me if I do not react to what he has said. However, my time is very limited. It has been gratifying to hear the hon. member speak today of affairs in the air, instead of his usual “gerol op die treinspoor”.

I should like to raise something with the hon. the Minister, which I also mentioned during the discussion of the Defence Vote. The hon. the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Defence, then said I should discuss it with the hon. the Minister of Transport. That is the situation regarding the “Safe Ride” campaign for our national servicemen, our young men in uniform in the various branches of the Defence Force. So many of them try to get home over weekends or during short leave periods. The “Safe Ride” campaign, as I said then, is an excellent idea. However, it just has not got off the ground. There is obviously going to be only one way in which to deal with this problem. During the Easter weekend a certain Mrs. Jooste, of Pretoria, tried to initiate a new idea. She initiated an idea called “Call and ride”. This received wide publicity in Natal and operated on the simple basis that lads who wanted lifts could contact certain people by telephone—the telephone numbers were given to them and publicity was also given to these numbers in the newspapers. The motoring public was invited to contact the same people to offer lifts. I was informed by a personal friend of mine in Durban, whose telephone number was one of those referred to, that by the afternoon of Easter Monday she had had literally hundreds of calls from servicemen while she could count the calls from the motorists on the fingers of one hand. That is a tragedy.

There is only one way in which we can solve this problem—and it is one that needs to be solved—and that is to have lay-bys on our national roads near our cities. Such laybys can be constructed easily. One has only to look at the very nice photographs in the book Freeways, the Biggest Single Saver of Fuel to realize that near our cities we have these magnificent highways where lay-bys can be constructed at, I earnestly believe, little cost. The public can then be forewarned by means of a suitable sign, possibly a sign like the Ride Safe sign currently in use depicting a serviceman with a kitbag over his shoulder, to indicate that there is a serviceman pick-up point two kilometres ahead. There can be another sign one kilometre from the lay-by. This sort of thing will help to obviate any accident because the driver will be forwarded of the fact that a serviceman could be waiting for a lift up ahead.

I want to be a little cruel and say that we, the public—and I say “we” because I want to include myself—will ignore what we do not see. If we do not see a serviceman standing by the roadside, we do not believe that there could be such a thing as a serviceman waiting or wanting to go anywhere. If, however, we see him standing there in his uniform, my heaven’s me, our consciences will start to prick us and, before we have driven far beyond him, we will start thinking to ourselves: “What have I done? Although I have an empty seat or even three or four in my car, I have left those lads standing there while I could be going to the very place where they want to go.” This is what it is all about. This is the only way in which we can achieve any sort of success in moving these youngsters around safely—and I want to stress “safely”. I sincerely believe that we can operate these lay-bys without any detrimental effect to traffic. Somebody has offered the comment that lay-bys on national highways can be dangerous. I want to point out that we have a national highway going out of the city of Durban and that that highway has lay-bys on it for buses. Those lay-bys have not proved dangerous at all. I therefore see no reason why we could not have lay-bys for servicemen.

Coupled with this, we have service clubs like the Moths, the Memorable Order of the Tin Hats. We also have Lions, Rotary and others who, I think, would be anxious to assist with this. I feel that, since they are at present monitoring the service stations, the service clubs would be only too pleased to monitor the lay-bys over weekends. Let me go one step further and drag in the political parties. I venture to suggest that even political parties would like to donate funds to provide some form of cover at these lay-bys to protect the servicemen from the vagaries of the weather.

Sir, my time has unfortunately run out on me. I want to thank all concerned for the opportunity granted me to present this point.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon. members for Welkom and Algoa and express a few thoughts on urban transport in connection with which certain proposals were accepted in this House as far back as two years ago. We have been looking forward with great expectations to the implementation of the legislation concerned. Unfortunately there were certain factors and circumstances which delayed its implementation. I believe and accept that the matter of finance was certainly the major impeding factor. In the meantime, however, as many as five metropolitan transport areas have been proclaimed in terms of this legislation. In the past few years considerable attention has been given to transport research and investigations. Urban transport, as incorporated in the legislation in question, is getting off the ground.

In this regard I want to concentrate principally on Pretoria. I understand that it is anticipated that a general transport plan will be available for Pretoria by the end of August this year. It is with gratitude that I took cognizance of the fact that the first part of this report had been before the Pretoria City Council this week. I welcome this announcement, because it is essential that the transport structure in Pretoria be examined as a matter of urgency. Indeed, I think that immediate attention should be given to proper transport plans in all cities. We can no longer afford to give attention to the mass transportation of passengers in a haphazard way. On a previous occasion I referred to the reckless way in which individuals used cars to drive to work. Consequently it is of cardinal importance that transport systems be established in such a coordinated way as to render them acceptable to the road user and so that he may be persuaded in this way to forego the comfort of his motor-car and to use mass transport.

I want to come back to the position in Pretoria. Geographically the beautiful city Pretoria is situated in such a way that its feeder roads are limited as a result of ridges and mountain ranges. If one but thinks of the traffic flow from the north of Pretoria—at present it is being served by two roads only, viz. through the poort and over the neck to Voortrekker Road—one realizes the attendant problems. The transportation of Black commuters from Mabopane alone creates more than enough problems. I shall elaborate on this at a later stage.

I have already mentioned that the transport plan for Pretoria is expected at the end of August. However, this coincides with the street scheme in my constituency which I want to mention for consideration. Tomorrow Voortrekker Road and Ninth Avenue are to be opened as one-way streets. In this way a long cherished ideal of the city council, and of mine, will be realized. I am particularly grateful to learn—in this regard I am referring to the city council’s newsletter of March 1979—that the city council has decided to implement preferential bus lanes in these streets. A report in Die Transvaler of this morning confirms this and mentions that these lanes will be put into service as soon as this coming Monday. I want to thank the city council of Pretoria for this experiment. I know the result will be positive and the envisaged results of faster traffic and saving, particularly fuel saving, will be achieved. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to appeal to the inhabitants of my constituency to make use of this improved service.

There is another important component which should be considered in conjunction with these preferential roads, and that is the parking and driving areas involved. These two projects, the bus lanes and the parking and driving areas, go hand in hand and cannot be separated. Consequently I want to make a plea, since the city council has made this important breakthrough, that the Urban Transport Fund make funds available for the establishment of the necessary parking and driving areas. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether funds could possibly be made available for this purpose before long.

In addition to this I want to refer briefly to another problem with which we in Pretoria are going to be faced within the foreseeable future, and that is the distribution of Black commuters when, with the proposed rail transport system, they alight from or board trains on Pretoria station, at Bosman Street. It is anticipated that in 1980, when the double railway line is to be completed, ten trains will handle more than 30 000 additional passengers on the particular station during peak hours. At present these Blacks alight mainly in Boom Street. In future we shall, therefore, have a movement and shift from and to Pretoria station.

I think the time has passed when the Black worker is simply made to alight at a certain place, place X, and then, irrespective of the weather conditions and the distances and without shelter against the weather and without public facilities, is sent into Pretoria to make his way to his place of employment.

It is, therefore, with gratitude that we have taken cognizance of the interdepartmental committee for the co-ordination and changeover from interim bus transport to rail transport, a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Claassens, Deputy Secretary for the Department of Transport. This committee has appointed a work group which will give attention to, inter alia, the transport facilities between Mabopane and Pretoria, the anticipated passenger numbers and the feeder and distribution services supplementary to rail transport. The latter is of extreme importance. This distribution to and from the various stations can most definitely not take place in a haphazard way. For that reason we are grateful for the appointment of such a work group. The work group has to present its report before or on 31 May 1979. I want to request that, if possible, this report be made available to the representatives of Pretoria, because we should like to cover the distance with the authorities when we are dealing with the sensitive problem of Black transport in Pretoria.

Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to be able to reply more fully now to the matters which were raised here. Right at the outset I should like to thank hon. members for the discussion which took place here. Transport is definitely a very interesting and stimulating subject. The diversity of the facets of transport is a little too great to enable a discussion of all of them here. Transport comprises a great diversity of activities in the air and on land. In addition there is a large diversity of different subdivisions falling under the Department of Transport, which could also be discussed. I should like to express my appreciation to hon. members. I also think that I can say that the spirit in which this sympathetic discussion took place and the statements in regard to the conduct of the department and its various branches, for example the National Transport Commission, Civil Aviation, the Weather Bureau, etc. gave me the impression that everything which hon. members said here was, in general at least, of a favourable nature. For that reason I should like to express my appreciation to the Secretary to the department and his staff who support him so loyally.

The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke in a rather unsympathetic vein about my attitude towards the private hauliers.

I thought he was very kind.

Do you think so? There is something wrong with your judgment.

*The hon. member created the impression that I was obsessed with the interests of the S.A. Railways. What he actually said was that the Railways was not the only transport organization and that there were others as well. I now want to quote to the hon. member what I said last Monday morning at the opening of a transport symposium at the University of Cape Town. I think that if I read this out to him he will conclude that if this is my public statement, things really cannot be as bad as all that. I said—

These were my views which I stated at this congress, and it is also my reply to the comment which the hon. member made on them.

Then you went on to the nine times and 26 times…

I did say that, and it is the truth. Now the hon. member wants to quarrel with me because I said that transportation by rail is nine times more economic, as far as fuel consumption is concerned, than by road. This is not my data, and he and I must not quarrel about it. This is data which I obtained after investigations by experts. On that basis I then arrived at that conclusion. The rest of my calculation is a very simple one. Where I said that while we are only 35% dependent for our energy consumption on imported fuel and on imported oil, it means that in comparison with the railways, which, generally speaking, is only 35% dependent for its energy on imported oil, coupled with the fact that a steel wheel on a steel rail consumes less fuel than the road, if one consigns something per road, it requires 26 times more fuel than when the same goods are conveyed by the Railways. The second part is a simple calculation. The first part deals with particulars which I did not work out, but which were calculated by experts on the basis of experiments conducted over the years.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will make those calculations available to private enterprise to put their economists to work on them to see whether they hold water or not?

Gladly. It is, after all, an open question. There is no secret about it. Anyone may comment on it. I do not wish to make a great fuss about the particulars which we have at our disposal in calculating these things. These are statistics which have been made available to me and I am prepared to make everything available to the private entrepreneurs to react to them if they wish.

The hon. member said that the Road Transportation Act had not really brought about the benefits that had been envisaged. I should like to tell him that there have indeed been many benefits. When I referred to East London a moment ago, I mentioned the fact that that released delivery area has been enlarged and now comprises a radius of 80 kilometres. Over and above that the Professional Hauliers Association and the Federation of Road Transport Association has been established and regular discussions are being held with them. From a general point of view there are many benefits for the private haulier in the 1977 Act, so much so, that we in fact foresee that the Railways’ share of transportation, viz. just under 50%, will diminish even further as a result of the Railways’ policy of accommodation. If goods can be conveyed more economically by means of road transportation over shorter distances, we shall leave it to the Road Transport Services rather than to object or to insist that it should be conveyed by rail. The hon. member is not correct when he says that the Railways and the Road Transportation Boards “work hand in glove with one another”. Naturally the Railways does not object to all applications. The policy which is adopted in this connection, is that where an efficient transport service exists, it would be wrong and undesirable to establish another transport service as well, with the result that both transport services would be operated on an uneconomic basis. However, when the Railways is able to provide an efficient haulier service, they object to it. The Road Transportation Boards are autonomous bodies and it is the responsibility of those bodies to take all these circumstances into account and then to decide.

The hon. member also said that the amendment in the Act pertaining to the “Express Inter-city” service should not be agreed to. We have come across quite a number of irregularities in this connection, and I think we should rather leave that argument in abeyance until such time as I come to this House with legislation in that connection. We can then go into that matter.

While I am dealing with the hon. member, I also want to react to his reference to the coastal road. Various hon. members referred to that road, and I want to ask them to pardon me if I do not reply to each one of them separately. I know for example that the hon. member for Algoa and others on that side of the House also referred to the road along the South Coast here. We are experiencing considerable problems with that road. One cannot satisfy all of the people all of the time; it is just not possible. The Department of Transport is expected to provide efficient roads. It is true that the south coast is a beautiful part of our country, but I should nevertheless like to know whether those people who objected so strenuously to this road, do not want any roads there at all. If there are no roads, how is one going to get there to look at the wonderful scenery, and everything which goes with it? If we may not build the road where we propose it should be built, where should we build it?

Surely there is a road there.

Yes. There is a road, but the hon. member must bear in mind why we build roads and why we improve existing roads. In the first place we build roads when a need for a road exists, and in the second place, because the old roads become obsolete. A road eventually becomes obsolete, wornout, and can no longer be properly repaired. It is then the duty of the department to build a new road.

The hon. member for Pinelands said that there is a road, and I admit that there is such a road. However, we foresee that that road will not always be adequate and that it will not always be possible to maintain it properly. Consequently it is apparent that a new road will have to be built in future. If the world continues to exist it will become a hard fact that that road will in future have to be replaced. There is no doubt about that. It will have to be done because the need for a better road in that area will become greater. At present we are building a wonderful main freeway past Mossel Bay and Groot Brak River…

Hear, hear!

Yes. the hon. member for Oudtshoorn is able to testify that it is a wonderful road. From there the road passes the constituency of the hon. member for Humansdorp. I have full particulars of that road with me here. Inter alia, we are building two bridges at Bloukrans and Grootrivier. When a person is making progress with such wonderful roads in the direction of the Cape, it would be a pity to be left, here at the end, with a piece of bad road simply because the necessary provision for a proper road was not made. Those are the circumstances in regard to that road. A few years ago there was great consternation at this road, and the hon. the Prime Minister, as the MP for George, was in the thick of things. In fact, he asked whether he could not have a turn to speak today. But I think the Whips informed him that there were already enough speakers who wanted to participate in the debate and that he would not be able to speak as well. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is a long polemic was waged at the time before an agreement was reached on this road. I should like to provide hon. members with the full particulars in regard to this matter.

As regards the proclamation of this section of the road, it must be emphasized that the fact that it is being proclaimed now, does not in any way mean that its construction will be commenced. There is no question of our proceeding to build the road now. The hon. member for Pinelands is making a big mistake if he thinks that.

The proclamation is being made at this stage for various reasons, of which I am only going to mention two. These are, firstly eliminate all uncertainty on the part of the public as to the final routing of the road and, secondly, to protect the route against undesirable ribbon development. I may as well mention a third reason too. It is to enable land owners and developers—in the interests of the public—to adjust their planning accordingly in view of the demarcation of the final road reserve. After all, there is going to be planning. The world does not stand still. That is why we have done it. It is a pity that so many objections are being raised now. I do not like a lot of objections to what I am doing because then I feel rather inclined to deproclaim it. It costs only a few rands. However, my responsibilities are far greater than that, and therefore I do not see my way clear to doing so. I should like to sketch the position in connection with that whole section for hon. members. The road between Mossel Bay and Groot Brak has already been opened to traffic, and the road from Groot Brak to Glentana is under construction. The road from Herold’s Bay to Kraaibosch has been completed, and is already in partial use. The road from Kraaibosch to Kleinkrans is being planned, and proclamation 79 has been issued. This is envisaged as provisionally being the last contract on the Garden Route, i.e. between Kraaibosch and Kleinkrans. The road from Kleinkrans to The Crags is being planned, has already been proclaimed by the National Transport Commission and expropriation is proceeding. The province is planning improvements to the existing road. This is a typical example of co-operation between the National Transport Commission and the provinces. The freeway has already been planned and proclaimed, but will not be built for many years because the existing road can comfortably be improved by the province. The road from The Crags to Coldstream has been proclaimed, so that the major river passes can be eliminated by means of bridges, inter alia, at Bloukrans and Grootrivier. The necessary roadworks on both sides are being contemplated during the present financial year. The road from Coldstream to Storms River is being planned. I hope that information, which I have furnished the hon. members with here, will be of value to them.

You have your priorities all wrong.

I told the hon. member for Pinelands before that there was something wrong with his judgment.

It is not my judgment, but that of environmentalists.

“Environmental” is not the only that counts. Unfortunately I cannot use all my time to discuss this road now.

The hon. member for Orange Grove once again discussed the PWV 10 past Johannesburg and asked for certain undertakings from me. I just want to say that the only way in which I am affected by that road is where a traffic plan has been drawn up for the Johannesburg metropolitan area That traffic plan has been submitted to and approved by the National Transport Commission. The only impress which this road bears from the Department of Transport is that a line has been drawn on a map in my possession indicating where this road may possibly be built one day. I have been informed that the possibility of the building of this road has been envisaged in the planning for the next 50 years. On this traffic plan for Johannesburg, which has been approved by the National Transport Commission, that line appears which indicates where the road may be built. That is the extent to which it affects the Department of Transport. As I have said, there has at present been no planning yet, and the construction of that road has not been envisaged at all in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether his board has perhaps approved of anything in Johannesburg which involved an M3, 4, 5 or 6.

Mr. Chairman, I am not all that conversant with the numbers of those freeways. The only other road I am aware of and which I am conversant with, is the M6.

Has that been approved by your board?

I have nothing whatsoever to do with the M6. The M6 freeway is a matter for the Johannesburg Municipality. [Interjections.] We have nothing whatsoever to do with it. The possibility of an M6 freeway, is being discussed, while others say that it will never be built. There is no mention of it yet I just want to add that the metropolitan transport plan which has been approved for Johannesburg, will be open for inspection. Any person who wishes to object to it, will have the right to do so. I therefore wish to suggest that if the hon. member for Orange Grove or any other hon. member wishes to object they may do so when the plans are open for inspection. Actually the hon. member is knocking at the wrong door today. He knows that we have already discussed the matter.

The hon. member for Orange Grove discussed apartheid again. I think he was referring more specifically to taxis. We have a system whereby taxis are reserved specifically for Whites or for non-Whites. In addition we have a system of open taxi permits. These open permits may be used by Whites as well as non-Whites. The system which is adopted is that if I, for example, wish to hire one of those taxis, I as the hirer am entitled to decide whether a mixed group may travel with me or not. Consequently the hon. member is at present already at liberty to make use of such a taxi and allow his own mixed group to travel with him. He is already free to do that. But the entire question of taxis has been investigated by a committee appointed by the National Transport Commission. I have the report of that committee in front of me at the moment I am giving attention to it, but I do not wish to elaborate further on it at this stage. There are certain aspects of the report that have not yet been approved.

The hon. member for Welkom devoted most of is his speech to the subject of urban traffic. At present it is an interesting subject, one which is being investigated in depth. In connection with this matter I just want to confirm that we are, for the coming financial year, making provision for an amount of R8,3 million for urban traffic. Previously the progress made has been rather slow. However, this is another of those cases in which money is a problem. In this case it is not an engineering problem, but a financial one. As regards the application of the recommendations in regard to urban traffic, I see wonderful prospects. Of course one must have the money available in order to implement them. Unfortunately the funds are not very readily available. We hope to acquire more money in due course. As the fuel problem hits us harder, I believe it will become more and more desirable. The application of the urban traffic plan, as foreseen by the Driessen Commission, will contribute to a large extent to fuel saving.

I have the list. The hon. member for Algoa also mentioned that some of the cities have been a little tardy in their reaction. Consequently it seems to me that Johannesburg at this stage has already made the most progress, and will consequently, during the coming financial year, receive the largest amount of money out of the appropriated amount of R8,3 million. Of course there are miscellaneous heads under which money is appropriated. Under the head “Implementation of Planning”, an amount of R3,923 million is being made available to the Johannesburg area for the coming financial year.

The hon. member for Gezina also referred to urban transport. I want to suggest that the other cities, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Durban, should also make as much progress with their planning as possible, so that their claim to the allocation of funds can improve accordingly. The hon. member for Welkom also discussed fuel saving. He mentioned that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs—and this is true—recently appointed a committee on the energy problem. As an outcome of that committee, a further committee was appointed which is to subject the energy consumption by transportation to a closer scrutiny. This committee will be under the chairmanship of a person appointed by the Department of Transport. It will be Deputy Secretary for Transport, Mr. H. J. Claassens. This committee will investigate a large variety of matters, inter alia, the so-called empty leg, which we have all heard of so frequently. To do something about it requires a large measure of coordination and co-operation between the various haulage organizations.

I should just like to quote the hon. members two or three of the matters which will be investigated by the committee. In the first place the speedy implementation of the recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry into Urban Transport Facilities in the Republic. That is priority No. 1. It indicates to hon. members how important this is considered to be. Secondly, the rationalization and scheduling of road transport deliveries between the Railways and private transportation organizations on the one hand, and among private transport organizations themselves, on the other, in an attempt to reduce the number of empty return journeys within the scope of the existing road transportation regulations. This is the second important matter which they have to investigate, besides a whole lot of others. The committee will now devote attention to this aspect of the matter and do something about it as quickly as possible.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked me what priority had been accorded to fuel saving in the planning. Of course fuel saving has in recent times emerged to a position of prominence. I can refer the hon. member to this committee again, which is functioning under the chairmanship of a member of the Department of Transport to investigate all matters affecting transport with a view to saving fuel where this is in any way possible. The hon. member had the booklet on freeways in his hand, in which it was stated with justification that the freeways are in fact able to effect the greatest fuel saving. Recently I referred, in a speech at a university, to the fact that according to expert calculations it is estimated that 50% more fuel is used by a motor vehicle in a congested urban area than when it is moving on an open road at 90 km per hour. This demonstrates what great benefits there are in constructing these main highways.

The hon. members for Amanzimtoti and Berea referred to the link-road to Durban Airport. I must admit that I had the same experience as the hon. members. The day when we opened the Durban bypass—at which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti was present—I drove back to the airport after the opening. I could see the airport, but could not get to it. I first drove past the airport, returned to Durban and drove past the airport again. Eventually, however, I arrived there.

I see you too were confused!

I do not have much time to elaborate on this matter now. We are aware of the problem. We have built a wonderful bypass road past Durban which is of great value to that city. However, we are aware of these problems, and the National Transport Commission will investigate this matter, inter alia, on 1 May. I have every confidence that methods will be found for effecting an improvement. In this connection I wish to read out the following note to this House—

Consequently it is once again a question of money. Nevertheless the National Transport Commission is devoting attention to this matter.

The hon. member also referred to planning, something which I should prefer not to elaborate on now, since my time is limited.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Kempton Park, as well as to the hon. member for Vasco.

The hon. member for Musgrave raised certain aspects of the roads between Natal and the Transvaal. The National Transport Commission has transferred the road between Harrismith and Ladysmith to the provincial administrations. In other words, it now falls under the provincial administrations of the Orange Free State and Natal. The National Transport Commission recently made an amount of R5,2 million available to the provincial administration of the Orange Free State for the improvement of the road between Harrismith and Van Reenen’s Pass, and R4,1 million to the provincial administration of Natal for the improvement of the road between Van Reenen’s Pass and Ladysmith. In aggregate we have therefore given the two provinces R9,7 million for the improvement of the existing road.

In regard to the national road over the Drakensberg, to which he also referred, I want to say that the new road from Estcourt to Frere will be opened before the end of this year. Where the road from Frere crosses the existing road between Ladysmith and Van Reenen, the construction of the bridge over the Tugela River has been commenced. Other work will commence in 18 months’ time. The proposed road from the Ladysmith/Van Reenen crossing over the Drakensberg as far as Warden, will be approximately 100 km long and must be constructed as a single project. I have been informed that it will be very expensive.

I have already dealt with the question of the Louis Botha Airport, to which the hon. member referred.

I have already replied in part to the hon. member for Humansdorp, with the particulars which I have furnished. He referred to the restoration of the environment. He raised quite a few matters, too many in fact for me to reply to, and I shall prefer to send him a detailed reply in writing. When work is undertaken by private contractors, we refer the matter to the provincial administration concerned. The provincial administrations then deal with the matter in co-operation with the National Transport Commission. He referred to the expansion of a nursery. Almost all of the needs are met by the nursery of the Cape Provincial Administration at Paarl. The rest of our requirements we are able to obtain from private nurseries and from the Department of Forestry. He also referred to the slow progress which is being made with the road between Afdraai and Kareedouw and further westwards. Work on that section will commence soon. The construction unit of the Cape Provincial Administration which has to do the work, also has to improve the section of the old road between Humansdorp and the Gamtoos River, after which it will be transferred to the Divisional Council.

The hon. member for Bethlehem referred to the Weather Bureau. I do not want to comment on the good things he said, except to say that we are already devoting attention to the one aspect which he raised. At the end of his speech he asked whether permanent offices or houses could not be built in Bethlehem. My reply to him is that we are indeed giving this matter our attention, and we are negotiating with a view to establishing staff there on a permanent basis and consequently to constructing permanent buildings there.

The hon. member for East London North referred to the facilities at the East London Airport. I want to tell him that I have here a document in which provision is being made for work on the B. J. Schoeman Airport at East London. It includes, inter alia—

An expert will have to explain what that means—

I suggest you discuss that with the air-traffic controllers in East London.

The hon. member asked for safety measures in regard to passengers. I should like to tell him that we are working on this. We have all the facilities to search passengers on our internal airlines. We are still experiencing certain problems, but we will in due course try to eliminate these. The hon. member also referred to transportation to airports. This is actually a Airways matter. This kind of transportation to the airports is not dealt with by the Department of Transport, but by Airways. However, the permits must be granted by the Road Transport Board of the Department of Transport. We shall give proper consideration to the ideas expressed by the hon. member.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Algoa. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to certain facilities at the airports which were allegedly not altogether satisfactory. We are already giving attention to book shops. We have negotiated with King’s Parking so that when a considerable number of aircraft arrive, there is no delay at the exit. I hope that attention will be given to the matter. I should like to say more about the garages. I have quite a few ideas in that regard, but I do not think time will allow me to go into this matter any further. There are so many subjects I still have to deal with.

The hon. member for Rosettenville referred to near-collisions. Such near-collisions are referred to a panel consisting of the Department of Transport, the S.A. Airways and the Air Force. The near-collisions are those where, for some reason or other, a collision could have taken place which could have given rise to a dangerous situation. The panel investigates these collisions and ultimately reports to the Minister. If necessary, the necessary precautionary measures are subsequently taken.

I just want to reply now to the hon. member for Umhlanga. He referred to servicemen. The Department of Transport is only affected when third party insurance is involved, and we amended the legislation in this connection last year. We have certain problems with the lay-bys to which the hon. member referred. The Institute for Traffic Officers and the Road Traffic Safety Council is opposed to this, but we are negotiating on the matter because we know the scheme is not working as effectively as we should like it to do. We are negotiating with the Defence Force, and we shall see whether we could not perhaps introduce a better system.

I have quite a number of particulars with which I should like to furnish the hon. member for Gezina. He spoke last. In this financial year we envisage making the following amounts available to Pretoria: Voortrekker Road and Ninth Avenue, R6 000; Von Willigh Street extension, R360 000; Princess Park bus depot, R105 000; Belle Ombre bus terminus, R45 000, and quite a few others of which I shall inform him in writing. I know that problems will arise at the Belle Ombre station when the thousands of passengers arrive there one day, but we recently, as a result of an investigation, allowed only one bus company, namely Putco, to operate in that entire complex, instead of two since there had been a measure of duplication there, and I think it will be easier for us now to make the necessary arrangements to convey the Black passengers from there.

I thank hon. members for the interesting discussion. There is quite a good deal more which I could have said, but we shall simply have to do so on another day.

Vote agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.