Order! Before the House proceeds with the Order Paper, I should like to make the following statement.

I have to inform the House that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders has considered the question of the notification of an hon. Minister or an hon. member of another hon. member’s intention to criticize him in debate.

It is the established convention of this House and of the British Parliament that an hon. member who intends to make critical statements about another hon. member, should give notice of his intention to the hon. member he intends criticizing so that the hon. member may, if he so wishes, be present when he is criticized.

†As this is a new Parliament with many new hon. members, and especially in view of the present practice of the House of referring Votes to Standing Committees for consideration in the Senate Chamber, the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders felt that it should confirm this convention, and has requested me to bring it to the notice of hon. members and to request that it should be strictly adhered to.

If an hon. member to whom notice has been given in terms of this convention is not present when the hon. member who has given the notice addresses the House or a Committee, the latter hon. member will be regarded as having complied with the convention.

In conclusion I wish to point out that, as May states in his Parliamentary Practice (19th edition) on page 206, parliamentary conventions such as the convention to which I have referred, are not enforced by the Chair but by the public opinion of the House.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I should just like to make a few brief announcements and at the same time appeal to the Opposition not to seek to reduce my salary! I am still learning this job. Nevertheless I shall reply to hon. members politely and I think we shall conduct a fruitful debate.

As a result of the ever increasing operating costs of bus services and the consequent increase in bus fares which in turn involves increased bus subsidies, the State President has appointed a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. P. J. Welgemoed, MP, to inquire into, report and make recommendations regarding bus passenger transportation in the Republic of South Africa.

It is significant to note that it is the first commission of inquiry which has been appointed by the Department of Transport on which all the various population groups are represented.

The seriousness with which the activities of the commission is regarded, is reflected by the fact that the chairman has been requested to submit interim reports on the methodology of tariffs and of subsidies respectively as well as on regional control. The latter interim report should deal with the purposeful co-ordination of bus passenger transport within specified regions. Where such transport cuts across the country’s borders, it must form part of a total overhead transport plan in respect of that particular region. I would like to receive these interim reports early in 1982.

The names of the members of the commission are as follows: Mr. B. L. Carlsson, Passenger Transport Association (SA); Mr. A. J. de Villiers, United Municipal Executive of South Africa; Dr. G. C. Prinsloo, South African Bus Operators’ Association; Dr. F. B. Berkhout and Mr. E. G. Kemp, Department of Finance; Mr. G. G. H. Botha, Department of Manpower; Mr. F. L. Erasmus, a Coloured commuter; Mr. R. S. Nowbath, an Indian commuter; Mr. D. O. Lenamile, a Black commuter; and Messrs. R. A. F. Smith and H. J. Claassens, Department of Transport. The terms of reference of the commission are published in today’s Gazette.

†Secondly, the general standard of the tourist industry in South Africa and problems experienced by tourist operators in providing efficient transport facilities that can enhance our image internationally and that can fulfil the needs of the tourist in every respect, made me decide that an in-depth investigation of these problems is necessary. The State President has, consequently, appointed a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. R. Knobel to inquire into and make recommendations on problems experienced by tourist operators in the Republic of South Africa. These problems include the availability of good quality tour buses due to the restriction on import permits for that type of vehicle.

The commission’s terms of reference cover a wide field. For the sake of completeness, I now furnish the names of the members of the commission: Dr. H. Hamburger, Department of Co-operation and Development; Mr. H. Hamersma, S.A. Railways and Harbours; Mr. A. H. le Roux, Department of Internal Affairs; Dr. A. M. Pretorious, Department of Finance; Mr. J. B. Reitz, Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism; Mr. D. B. Forssman, S.A. Tour and Safari Association and Mr. G. W. T. Behrens, former Deputy Director-General of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism.

The terms of reference will also be published and have already been given to the Press.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to claim the privilege of the half hour.

I have already privately given the assurance to the hon. the Minister that he can relax at this stage of the proceedings, because it is not my intention to propose a reduction of his salary this time, unless my attitude changes, depending on the hon. the Minister’s behaviour during the rest of this debate. But at this stage he need have no fear in that regard.

The hon. the Minister has made two announcements this morning, both of which are important. I believe that we will now have another two commissions. This Government is very much becoming a Government which is intent upon appointing commissions. Government by commission in South Africa is very much in the vogue at the present time, and so today we have two other commissions. However, I am pleased to note, certainly in so far as the question of urban transport is concerned, that there is an element of urgency in the statement that the hon. the Minister has made in that he has indicated that he has called for interim reports from the commission to be given to him early in 1982. I hope that the commission that is going to be involved in a very important aspect relating to transport services in South Africa, will get on with its work. I also welcome the fact that this is a commission which by its membership is representative of all sections of the population in South Africa. Its terms of reference cover an extremely wide field, and one hopes that the commission will expedite its work and that the interim reports will be delivered to the hon. the Minister and be made available to the public of South Africa at the earliest possible opportunity.

Having said that, there are a number of matters that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. I want to deal first with the part played by the Department of Transport and, in particular, by the National Transport Commission in relation to the economy of South Africa. I often find it impossible to reconcile the attitude and activities of the National Transport Commission and of the Department of Transport with the Government’s declared commitment to a free enterprise system in this country. The Government has committed itself to free enterprise on numerous occasions, and never more so than at the Carlton Conference when the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the formulation and implementation of what he termed “an economic strategy”. He said then—

He went on to say—

I wish the hon. the Prime Minister would get that message through to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, his department and to the National Transport Commission, particularly to those who deal with the operation of the Road Transportation Act. The Minister of Co-operation and Development spoke about “tortoises” in his department that impede progress. I have news for this House, Sir. Tortoises do not only exist in that department. When it comes to the expansion of the free enterprise system in South Africa, perhaps the biggest tortoise of the lot can be found in this hon. Minister’s department, in relation to its policy and attitude in matters relating to road transport in this country. The proliferation of road transportation boards, and the commission itself, are often the stumbling blocks to free enterprise in our transportation system. They cling to a policy that defies definition, other than that it is a stubborn and confused hostility and opposition to any real initiative from the private sector in road transportation matters. There has probably been no better example of this in recent times than the situation which arose in Johannesburg recently when the local transportation board declined an application to run a fleet of 100 mini-taxis in down-town Johannesburg, and the National Transport Commission upheld the decision on appeal, and did so without giving any reason whatsoever. Here is a commission whose function is, inter alia, to promote and encourage the development of transport and, where necessary, to coordinate various phases of transport in order to achieve the maximum benefit and economy of transport services in the Republic. That is part of its terms of reference and one of the reasons for its existence. But here is a commission which, in the instance in Johannesburg that I have cited, was totally impervious to all the cogent facts in favour of a cheaper multiracial mini-cab service cruising within the city limits of Johannesburg.

The Driessen commission of inquiry into local transport endorsed the mini-cab concept as far back as 1974. It specifically recommended the replacement of what it termed “all-purpose taxis” by at least two specialized types! (1) a mini-taxi mainly for city centre transportation, and (2) a larger vehicle suitable for conventional taxi services. I see, Sir, that part of the terms of reference of the commission, the appointment of which the Minister has announced this morning, relates also to taxi services. It will be most interesting to see how this is reconciled with the existing attitude of the National Transport Commission and the local road transportation board. In the case of the application for a mini-taxi service in Johannesburg, it is interesting to look at the line-up when the matter came before the board. Those who were opposed to the application were three existing taxi companies and, believe it or not, Sir, the S.A. Railways and Putco—all vested interests. Those who supported the application were the CBD Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Sapoa, Jamet, the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board, and the Johannesburg city council was prepared to provide the necessary taxi ranks. However, this was all to no avail. The intention of the applicant was to use slightly modified Leyland Mini 1000’s, seating two people, with limited luggage space. Fares would be cheaper, and the emphasis would be on quick, short-haul trips, and cruising. The service would coordinate with and complement that of the feeder networks of the S.A. Railways and the bus services, and would not compete with Putco. What is more, Mr. Chairman, is that one must look at the background of this situation, and the needs of the community in the centre of Johannesburg. Firstly, parking facilities in the central city area are woefully inadequate, and as a result of that traffic flow is slowed down considerably by large cars, carrying businessmen and others to appointments, having to cruise the streets. A second factor is that when one looks at this situation, quite clearly a light, flexible taxi service would ease this congestion, take up little space, save fuel and improve productivity. Indeed, Sir, if one looks at the urban transport situation and taxi services, there is a great need in Johannesburg, as in all the cities of South Africa, for enlarging the whole market of taxis, and the whole problem of urban transport points to the need for allowing free competition if it is not to become more acute and more insoluble.

If one looks at private transport services in our South African cities and compares these with the rest of the world, what do we find? We find, for example, that in Washington and London there are 12 taxis for every 1 000 people. In Salisbury there are four taxis per 1 000 people. In Johannesburg there is one taxi per 1 000 White people. This is part of our urban transport problem and, as I have said, what applies to Johannesburg applies equally to other cities of South Africa. However, as long as the Road Transportation Act is used to protect vested interests we shall never find a solution to the problem. This is why I have raised this particular instance, where it seemed a clear-cut case that the economy, the needs of the country and the whole situation invited the operation of this sort of transport service within the larger cities of South Africa. Yet the attitude of the board and of the commission was to oppose it as a result, I believe, of the vested interests which were involved. The Minister, when he talked recently to the Bus Operators’ Association, said—

I want to tell the Minister that it is not working that way and that, on the contrary, its present method of operation and application is stifling transport development and free enterprise. The Minister needs to give very serious attention to this matter. Again, I hope that perhaps the commission whose appointment the Minister announced this morning is going to look at this aspect of the matter, which is a very vital part of our entire urban transportation situation.

There are other matters which I want to deal with, and which relate also to urban transport. One is the report that Putco is now seeking a 35% increase in revenue in order to cover operating costs, and I believe that applications are being made to the Johannesburg, Pretoria and Durban road transportation boards for this revenue increase. I just want to point out that the Government is, of course, very much involved in the situation, and Putco has indicated that it would expect some of this revenue to be forthcoming in the form of a subsidy from the Government, whilst the balance is obtained from the commuters themselves. I need hardly tell the hon. the Minister and the House how delicate this issue is and how much an increase in fares would be resented by commuters at this particular point. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to take the opportunity, in this debate, to indicate what the Government’s attitude is towards the whole question of increased bus fares and the subsidy itself, and what the attitude is towards placing a further burden on the shoulders of the commuters who make use of these bus services.

Whilst on the subject of Putco, let me say that Putco might also be included—in fact, will be included—in the investigation carried out by the commission. I presume this to be the case. In the light of the fact that the commission is going to be investigating this matter, I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate what interim steps he will take to freeze the situation, because if he is going to wait for the commission to report, Putco might decide to impose a further burden on commuters, and that is not something one would like to see happening. I should like the hon. the Minister specifically to tell us what his attitude is going to be to an increase in fares in the interim period, before he has received the commission’s report. I should also like the hon. the Minister to take this opportunity to indicate what the Government’s attitude is to the operation of the company itself, and whether the Government is taking steps towards exercising some control over that company. The point has been made by the Secretary for Transport that because of the Government’s investment, and because of the need to safeguard taxpayers’ money—in the form of the heavy subsidy paid by the Government to Putco—the Government may be moving towards participating in the management of the company. Towards the end of last year the Secretary also indicated in a statement that negotiations with the company were taking place. I therefore believe that it would be appropriate for the hon. the Minister to deal with this issue in the course of this debate.

I have dealt with the commission which has been announced, and I was going to ask the hon. the Minister, in any case, what progress was being made because he had already, some time ago, given some indication in a press statement that he had the establishment of such a commission in mind.

What I now want to deal with is the question of third-party insurance. In this connection I want to refer the hon. the Minister to comments he made, towards the end of last year, at a banquet given by the Automobile Association. On that occasion the hon. the Minister hinted at an increase in third-party insurance premiums in view of the increase in traffic accidents and the injuries and deaths arising from such accidents. On that occasion the hon. the Minister also referred to the commission of inquiry into the Act, saying that it was investigating, inter alia, whether it is desirable to make balance of third party insurance compulsory instead of a voluntary option, as it is at present and whether the Act should be changed in order to introduce the no-fault rule so that apart from the blameless party receiving pay-outs in the event of an accident, even the party at fault in an accident can also receive pay-outs. A further matter which was apparently to be the subject of inquiry, was whether the present consortium of sixteen third-party insurers would be expanded to admit other companies. I ask the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of what his views are on these matters and to tell us whether the commission of inquiry he referred to has finished its report.

A further point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is the question of the high incidence of traffic accidents involving heavy-duty vehicles. This is one of the hazards on our roads at the present time, and attention needs to be given to the tests that heavy-duty drivers have to undergo before they get their heavy-duty drivers’ licences, in order to ensure the maximum possible safety on our roads. My information is that the year before last, for example, almost 40 000 heavy-vehicle journeys were interrupted by road accidents in which no less than 863 heavy-vehicle drivers were either injured or killed. This is a very high incidence indeed, and it does seem that the whole question of testing the proficiency of the drivers of these vehicles needs to be given some attention. I understand that the setting up of uniform and scientifically justified tests has been undertaken by the Human Sciences Research Council and I should like to know whether the results of these tests have been made known, whether the tests can be uniformly applied and what action the department is taking in order to ensure that proper, scientific tests are given before heavy-vehicle drivers are given their heavy-duty licences.

A final point I should like to make also relates to urban transport. I am referring to the situation regarding the municipal bus service of the City of Durban. The local transport management board, which controls the bus service, has come out strongly in favour of a desegregated bus service. This has been the subject, because they have indicated that economically it is just not possible for the City of Durban to have an efficient bus service if they are going to be expected to run separate buses for separate race groups. I should like the hon. the Minister to give an indication as to what his policy and attitude is in regard to this sort of situation …

It should be local option.

… because I think it is a matter in respect of which the Government should give some sort of lead. It clearly affects the efficiency and availability of urban transport in a large city like Durban. I should like to know what the hon. the Minister’s attitude is in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, allow me, in the first place, to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his first handling of this Vote. We know him as someone who can spot a problem and deal with it too. He proved that this morning when he announced the two commissions. I also want to thank the Director-General, Mr. Eksteen, and his staff for the excellent annual report they placed at our disposal, in which the activities of the department are explained very clearly.

In the short time at my disposal I am only going to refer to a few aspects of the hon. member for Berea’s speech. The question of road transport and the free enterprise system is a matter which also weighs very heavily on this side of the House. As the hon. the Minister announced, it is part of that pattern and I shall also refer to this later on in my speech. However, there is a matter which one cannot always bring home to the hon. members of the Opposition and which one cannot always understand coming from them. It seems to me as if on the one hand they always expect the spirit of free enterprise to predominate, but in the same breath the hon. member for Berea today advocated for example that Putco be under the auspices of the State or that the State should exercise control over it. On the other hand they do not want to co-operate with us in our efforts to disperse industries. They want them to be concentrated in the large urban areas, but at the same time they expect the Government to provide the necessary infrastructure. One really cannot understand that mentality on the part of the Opposition. In the course of my speech I shall refer to a few other matters to which the hon. member referred.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister and the Committee. In the first place I wish to point out the necessity for a national transportation policy. In the second place I wish to request the creation of a transport advisory council in which the private sector must be closely involved. After all, the life of every person is affected by transport in some way or another. Our economy, our agriculture, our industry—they are all very closely intertwined with transport. The spot of snow and rain which fell during the past day or two in the central parts of our country again proved how important a role transport plays in the life of every person. It would be interesting to ascertain to what extent these events affected the peoples’ lives during the past 24 hours.

The growth and development of the country make very heavy demands on our available resources and particularly our transport system. In the present economic situation a relatively low growth rate of between 4% and 5% is expected in the immediate future with a resultant limited expansion of the transport infrastructure in future. As I see it investment in transport during the following decade will be lower if it is borne in mind that our country must determine certain priorities. The priorities we shall have to determine in the near future will be in connection with social services. I foresee that for the rest of this century very heavy demands will be made in respect of housing, education and training, health services and, probably most disconcerting of all, State security. These fields will therefore include greater portions of the national budget. In our neighbouring States, on the other hand, we can expect that although these sectors will be high on the list of priorities, there will be greater investment in transport as a part of comprehensive attempts to cause their economies to develop rapidly.

Another feature of the economy during the following two decades will be the increased growth in the income of the Black population in comparison with that of the Whites. This increased income has very serious implications for us, especially when Black incomes reach the point where it will be possible for them to own a private motor-car. This development will also have an effect in the opposite direction, in that it will bring about a drop in passenger journeys in respect of public transport with an accompanying increase in the number of journeys made in private motor-cars. This will immediately lead to the volume of traffic being greater, and as a result the number of traffic accidents will also increase. For this reason investment in routes between rural and urban Black residential areas and urban Black places of employment will undergo a shift. The present number of private motor vehicles per 1 000 of the population is estimated to be approximately 500 for Whites and only 20 for Blacks. Experts predict a sharp increase in the number of motor vehicles owned by Blacks. Although research is being undertaken by various organizations, there are as yet no reliable quantitative estimates of these extremely important increases. The research undertaken in other countries is of no value to us. In my opinion an even further shift in priorities can be expected, namely investment in transport by road and rail from the rural areas to the urban areas. We are fortunate that considerable progress has already been made with the planned rural and inter-city transport systems. Many of them are nearing completion and others have already been completed. To a great extent they will be able to meet the requirements. However, the big problem is going to arise in our larger cities where large-scale investments have lagged behind as a result of the present urban financing system. In 1970 the urban population was estimated to be 4,5 million. There are people who maintain that by the end of this century between 35 million and 40 million people will be living in our cities. Therefore, when between 70% and 80% of our population is living in the cities, we will be faced with this extremely serious problem. In my opinion another shift in emphasis can be expected from capital investment in road and rail systems to the financing of the operation of public transport, especially in our cities. However, such a shift is undesirable, but it is brought about by force of necessity as the hon. member for Berea has just pointed out.

The difference in the operating costs of public transport and the income from tariffs which must be kept low for social reasons and to discourage the shift from public transport to private transport, must be recovered in some way or other. We know that large sums are already being spent by the State on subsidies in respect of Coloured and Black commuters.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has-expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising merely to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Sir, I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity.

The amounts spent on such subsidies for commuters will escalate. Bus boycotts, to which the hon. member just referred, and increased expenses will call for higher subsidies. The payment of subsidies is at variance with the Government’s principles, and in any case it does not square with a free enterprise economy.

I do not believe anyone will disagree with me when I say that transport is the life-blood of a modern community. It is a prerequisite that our limited transport means should be used to optimum effect in the future development of our country. It was only natural that in the past the various modes of transport developed in a way that each deemed to be in its best interests, but the time has now come for us to have a more balanced transport system in our country. We must consider other methods so that we can reap the benefits.

I say it is wrong to travel by road if we can make use of transport by sea. It is wrong to use a train if we can make use of road transport. For this reason co-ordination and rationalization are the key words for the future planning of our country and its transport system.

I am convinced that we are all aware of the commendable attempts by the Government to rationalize our Public Service. For those of us who are interested in transport, this restructuring of the department was particularly interesting, and in my opinion the time is now ripe for various organizations, private as well as public, to be afforded an opportunity to meet around a conference table and to attempt to formulate a national transport policy.

In the time at my disposal it is not possible to discuss this subject in detail, but I should like to emphasize the objectives which I think should receive attention. These objectives may be subdivided into the social objectives, the environmental objectives, resource management, efficiency, limited public expenditure and the best interests of the workers.

Let me explain briefly what I mean by this.

Under social objectives I understand the social welfare aspects of transport, and in particular public transport needs, especially in regard to those people who do not have their own motor-cars. When I speak of environmental objectives, I have in mind that the community should be protected against the unjustified onslaught of transport on the environment. Resource management is of cardinal importance. We have scarce resources. In this regard I am thinking in particular of energy. Our resources must therefore be utilized as efficiently as possible. Efficiency is necessary to bring about a safe and effective transport system, and to maintain it.

Because public funds are always limited, and will remain so in the future, it is also necessary to realize that public expenditure must of course be limited, and that subsidies can only be paid when it is absolutely essential. It must also be ensured that these objectives are pursued in the best interests of the worker, and are used in the best interests of our industries.

Transport is a matter in which the public takes an enthusiastic, and sometimes an emotional, interest, as everyone considers his own proper mobility to be an important preference. A rational policy framework is therefore essential in order to introduce the implications of transport in the course our country is taking, and the economic prosperity of all our planners. For this reason the formulation of policy should throw light on the ways in which social and economic changes could affect the pattern of demand and general attitudes towards the provision of transport. The main aim must therefore be to formulate a co-ordinated transport policy, which will strike a sound balance between the abovementioned objectives, while also taking into account the Government’s overall economic and industrial policy.

In this regard I am thinking, for example, of the evaluation of our policy, as it has developed over the years and as it exists today. For example I am also thinking of the economic factors which prescribe the national factors in the formulating of the policy. I am thinking of the demographic aspect, the industrial distribution of our country’s population and its industries, and the transport policy regarding public transport by road, and how it encroaches on the private passenger vehicle. I am also thinking for example of the aids used to control traffic and to promote the flow of traffic, the maintenance of roads and transport in general and the laying down of a method by which priorities for road and transport projects can be determined. I am also thinking for example of the other modes of transport, those involving rail, air and sea transport. There are also the present policy aspects of the transport policy, and the research which has to be done in this regard.

Last year I found it very interesting to listen to the previous Minister of Transport Affairs, who raised certain ideas in connection with a transport advisory council. It would seem to me as if such a transport advisory council, consisting of transport representatives from the private and the public sectors, would be the ideal body to give attention to a national transport policy for the Republic of South Africa. Therefore I should also like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that this matter receives his attention as soon as possible. Today he has already given us proof that he is dealing with this aspect. That is why I think a national transport policy has now become a matter of urgency.

I should have liked to have expressed a few ideas regarding third party insurance. However, I notice that my time has almost expired. Perhaps I could just add the following. Since the third party insurance fund was converted into a statutory body in 1969 we have achieved great success—although we inherited a position of virtual bankruptcy.

I do not have the time to go into details, but I can just tell the hon. members that owing to the favourable financial position of this fund, concessions could be made to the public by means of which individuals could enjoy greater insurance coverage. For example, there was the cover made available to members of lift clubs, passengers, all members of the Defence Force and the abolition of the R60 000 limit. It should be noted it was possible to succeed in reducing third party premiums to the same level as they were in 1964, when a 20% increase was requested, in contrast with the ever-increasing costs and prices we normally experience in connection with goods and services. Here we have one example where Government control over matters which belong in the private sector, was applied effectively, and if there is proof of our success, it is in respect of the MVA fund. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I too would like to wish the hon. the Minister well in his new portfolio. I assure him that we shall not give him a hard time as long as he continues doing what he has done in the past in agriculture and follow a policy of…

Not putting up prices.

… approaching problems in an objective and flexible manner. I think so far this session, from the way we have seen him handle some of the Transport Affairs Bills, he is a man who is prepared to listen to another man’s point of view. I appreciate that not only on behalf of myself, but also on behalf of my colleagues. I also want to agree with the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Kempton Park when they congratulated the hon. the Minister for setting up a commission to look into transport matters. I believe that it is needed because, as the hon. member for Kempton Park has said, the time has come for us to take a broad look at the whole transport problem in South Africa. I feel that the hon. member for Kempton Park has made quite a valuable contribution here in that he has raised very important considerations. For instance, he pointed out that at the rate that South Africa was growing at the present time our economic needs were such that we had to consider exactly where our available capital, especially capital that is raised by the State, should be spent. He said that a lot of money had been spent in the past on transport facilities, and this is quite correct. Now, with the demands that are being placed on our economy, there are going to be greater demands for education—I think that is a major item that he did not mention, but which I submit for the Minister’s consideration—as well as housing, national security, etc. I therefore think that it is only correct that we should re-examine just how much money we are spending on transport.

He also mentioned that the income of Blacks was increasing rapidly and that there was therefore going to be a demand for urban transport, especially around our major cities. I was also most interested to hear him say that it is a principle of the NP that they should not pay subsidies as a matter of broad principle. I find this interesting, because from our point of view we in these benches also agree with the principle that in a free enterprise society and economy one should try not to have to pay subsidies. However, we appreciate that there is a need in a developing country for the State to subsidize certain sectors, and we certainly subsidize transport tremendously in South Africa today.

Coming back to the commission, I appeal to the hon. the Minister and to those who are going to serve on the commission to make it quite clear to the public exactly what it is costing the taxpayer to subsidize transport in South Africa. I believe it is in the order of over R400 million a year and, including the Railways, R600 million a year, and R600 million a year for subsidies on transport is a tremendous amount of money. Therefore I believe that we as politicians should not make a political football out of transport, as has happened in the past. I do not believe that the commuter should be manipulated by politicians over such an important matter that is costing the State R600 million a year. So often in the process the community gets excited about this whole matter and, in fact, ends up by destroying the very service which they themselves as taxpayers are paying for. I believe therefore that this commission could play a very important role to inform the public of exactly what is being done for them. However, I agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park that we should try and move towards a system where the State is not so involved in subsidizing transport. I therefore believe that this commission should go into the matter and ascertain whether we can deregulate transport even further than we have been able to do up to the present time.

The hon. member for Berea raised the matter of the Transport Commission investigating the permit system where people apply for permits to operate buses, etc., and I agree with him—and I also submit it to the hon. the Minister—that there is a possibility for even further involvement of private enterprise in the transport system. If one studies the current report, one can see what has happened as a result of the Road Transport Commission’s report. It resulted in our present Act, that was first promulgated in 1977. We can see here that as a result of the amount of deregulation that was a direct result of that commission’s report, there has, in fact, been a decrease in the number of applications for public permits. In the Johannesburg area alone, for instance, the number has decreased during 1978-79 to 1979-’80 from 60 800 to 41 400. In Durban the decrease was not as great. There the decrease was from 15 500 to 14 000. However, the fact of the matter is that as a result of that deregulation resulting from the freeing of road transport, we have a reduction in the pressure that is being placed on the hon. the Minister’s department, because the result of deregulation means that there is less work to do. That was one of the major complaints that we who sat on the commission heard from the public, namely that they were being tied down by red tape of obtaining permits. I think we must benefit from our own experience in this regard. In fact, on page 83 of the report it states—

As I have said, I believe we must learn from this experience, and I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister that when it comes to passenger traffic, to consider, as the hon. member for Berea has said, deregulating. This is a thought I want to put to the hon. the Minister, that if there are so many people wanting permits in order to provide passenger transport, it must mean that there is money to be made, because they are wanting to do this for no other reason than to make a profit. If we believe in a free enterprise society, as the hon. member for Kempton Park says his party does, and as my party does, then I believe we should consider deregulating transport and, as far as possible, allowing the private person to supply certain services. I must say that I am very pleased to see the number of taxis that are now being operated, by Blacks especially, being converted from motor-cars into kombi’s. I believe this is a good trend.

I think we must accept that when it comes to the large metropolitan areas, the best form of mass passenger transport is by rail. When one looks at the area where I come from, the Durban and Upper South Coast area, one finds that the numbers of people that are being transported by rail each day are tremendous. Despite the tremendous work that the Railways are doing, we still find that during peak hours people are virtually being pushed into the carriages because of the large numbers of passengers. When we get that sort of transportation needs, it must be met by rail. On the other hand, in our large metropolitan areas many people are living great distances from the rail and cannot get there conveniently, and this is where, I believe, the private person can provide a service.

Apart from rail and road transport there is also air transport. I have very limited time in this debate, but if one looks at this report again, one finds that there has been a great increase in the numbers of flights, passengers and freight that have been handled by our scheduled and non-scheduled private commercial air services. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider possibly freeing the commercial air services in South Africa to a greater extent, so that we can get more private enterprise involved in these transport operations and in this way to relieve the State of this tremendous demand on it for capital. As the hon. member for Kempton Park said, the future needs for education and housing put a tremendous demand on the State.

In the last minute that I have, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if there is private enterprise that has the capital to invest, he should allow them to do so.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea expressed concern in respect of subsidies for Putco. Subsidies come from the tax fund.

Really?

Yes, a monkey like you does not know that …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “monkey”. [Interjections.]

I withdraw it unconditionally, Mr. Chairman.

The subsidy which is being paid, is paid from taxes being levied on old women, pensioners and other groups such as Blacks, and on food in the form of sales tax, and from that sales tax must come a subsidy of R600 million in respect of a deficit on the Railways. Sir, let people pay for what they use. To my way of thinking it is wrong for a pensioner to have to contribute, in the form of taxes, to make subsidies available to people who travel to places where they should not be. And, Sir, I shall tell you where they should not be.

Let us take the Johannesburg-Soweto area, in comparison with the city. I want to talk about urban transport, and the current infeasibility of the Driessen report, as a result of the fact that there is no money to implement its recommendations. One can have the best planning in the field of transport, and one can have the most economical transport in the world, but if the planning of the cities to which the people are being conveyed, is not taken into consideration, the transport system will not succeed. Therefore an investigation into transport alone does not provide the answer to our problems, especially in Johannesburg. For example, Soweto is situated 30 kilometres from its working area, in Benrose. Every morning a man who lives in Soweto gets up at 4 o’clock. He only gets to work at about 8 o’clock, 30 kilometres from where he sleeps and lives. Around Soweto there are large pieces of land and industrial areas not yet being utilized, because in the years around 1964 political parties wanted to force the previous Minister to keep the Eastern Bantu Township to the east of City Deep. Those political rows caused those people to return to Soweto, and now we find that the factories and the market are 40 kilometres from the largest portion of the population that has to get there, i.e. the Blacks, with the fewest transport facilities.

In a 10 minute speech one cannot deal fully with the matters I wish to touch on this morning, but I want to say this: The pattern of a city needs to follow its transport pattern. One need not turn an entire city upside down to bring about a transport pattern for traversing the city. People adjust their habits to the transport system which is arranged. In time one teaches the community to adjust to the transport pattern.

Let us consider the situation. Within the next few years Soweto will have a motor vehicle population of 1 million and the expenditure on roads, etc., will be R5 000 million, just so that those people can be conveyed to the city centre, whereas a great many of them do not even want to go to the city centre. Many of them will therefore cause a great deal of congestion in the city centre, which is not really their destination. We shall have to find another solution to this matter. It is not only going to be transport planning which will provide the answer. It will call for total planning of the Soweto-Johannesburg complex, and that planning must be undertaken in co-operation with transport bodies.

Let us consider what is happening in Johannesburg. Let us consider a place like Uncle Charlie’s. To me it is a great blow to hear that we are not going to get money to complete the roads around Uncle Charlie’s this year. I think there are priorities …

Is that so?

… which must receive attention, because there are tremendous bottlenecks in regard to the Soweto complex. As I have already said, from 6 o’clock in the morning the roads from the south and the west to the east are 120% overutilized while the road to the south is only 40% utilized. If attention were given to my idea, there would be a two-way stream. A resident of Soweto would only need to travel 7 km at the most by bus, while Whites could come from the other side. There would therefore be a two-way flow of traffic. In the present Benrose area there is at present 260 ha of vacant land. High-density housing for Whites could be erected there, because all the services and facilities are there. However, everyone thinks that new industrial townships must be established and that these areas cannot be used for housing. What would this entail? There would be high-density housing and people would live next to the railway line. They could even get to the city centre without using a motor-car. One could then go to town by train and be able to get anywhere in the city by bus or on foot. Such a person would not need a motor-car. That ground is completely vacant, and many mine dumps are unutilized. A planning problem which has been left to the Johannesburg city council over the years, and which is not going to be solved by the city council of Johannesburg, can only be solved in the planning office of the hon. the Prime Minister. After all, the hon. the Prime Minister has told his planners to give their attention to the planning of the entire country so that all these problems can be seen in perspective. However, if by 6 o’clock in the morning we already have 120% overutilization of the roads around Uncle Charlie’s, as a result of the fact that people cannot find a road in which to turn off there and traffic jams result, what will the position be by 9 o’clock and 10 o’clock in the morning in the years which lie ahead. There will be a huge traffic jam at that bottleneck, with 34 000 motor-cars on their way to Randfontein. In addition there is the Potchefstroom junction. We must bear in mind that there are 137 000 Coloureds, many Indians and 1,3 million Blacks who will be using those roads and who will have to use the circle at Uncle Charlie’s to reach the city centre. How can we therefore delay the building of the planned road system, and do so simply because there is no money? My request is that attention should please be given to the Uncle Charlie’s project. This southern by-pass has given problems for many years, with all the roads meeting at that point. I am asking that we give attention to this. I know it is being said that there is a shortage of money. However, we must consider the subsidies we are paying towards transport services. If someone wants to make use of transport services, he will have to pay for them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to react to the speech of the hon. member for Langlaagte, as he was discussing an issue peculiar to his part of the world. I immediately want to get on to the subject of the area I represent, viz. the Port Elizabeth area. I want to talk about the whole new concept that has been created by the Government with regard to metropolitan areas. In a previous debate Government Ministers have told us about the carrot and the stick. Apparently carrots are going to be given in respect of decentralized or decontrolled areas and the stick is going to be applied in metropolitan areas. The Port Elizabeth area is one of the metropolitan areas concerned. There are of course four of them, viz. the PWV area, the Durban-Pinetown axis, the Cape Town axis and the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex. Those are the four metropolitan areas of South Africa. The interesting point with regard to this hon. Minister’s Vote is that, if the Port Elizabeth metropolitan complex is to get the stick as the other metropolitan areas are, I believe we should have some infrastructural developments there. This is where I wish to refer particularly to the Department of Transport. Of the four metropolitan areas, the Port Elizabeth area is the only one with an airport,, the H.F. Verwoerd Airport, which does not have regular international flights to and from it. Basically there are few or no international facilities available at H.F. Verwoerd Airport.

We know of course that from Jan Smuts Airport many flights depart to all points overseas. We know that from Cape Town there are regular flights to Europe. Cape Town also has flights to South America and thence to North America. We know that from Durban there are flights going to the Indian Ocean islands and to other points, and also of course direct flights to Europe. The Port Elizabeth area, however, which is the fourth major metropolitan area, has no international flights at all from its airport. Even East London in terms of the policy of the Government has regular international flights, because Border Air Charter has a regular flight to Transkei. The airport at Port Elizabeth does not, however, have international facilities. With the natural growth we must expect in metropolitan areas according to the Government, we must prepare for the day, which I hope will not be far removed, when there will be international flights from Port Elizabeth direct to Europe. I believe that the Port Elizabeth complex has grown considerably over a period of time. The latest boom conditions have of course particularly affected the motor industry which has caused the Port Elizabeth area to experience an upsurge. I think that the hon. the Minister’s department must now start to plan and build international facilities for the H.F. Verwoerd Airport to cater for international flights. We know, for instance—the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens quoted these figures the other day—that the international flights emanating from Cape Town are on average fuller than the international flights emanating from Johannesburg. I believe that at this stage a direct flight from Port Elizabeth would perhaps not be filled to quite the same extent as the average in Johannesburg, but that point will soon be reached. International facilities and additional buildings take a lot of planning, they take a lot of financing and they take a lot of time to build, and I believe that, if we start now with the planning for international facilities for Port Elizabeth, they will be ready in time for international flights emanating from Port Elizabeth.

The second question I want to raise concerning Port Elizabeth relates to flight safety and facilities for all-weather landings at H.F. Verwoerd Airport. The hon. member for Walmer had a question on the question paper about H.F. Verwoerd Airport and he extracted the answer that all-weather facilities exist on runway 26. That is the only runway at H.F. Verwoerd Airport which has these all-weather facilities. In particular I refer to an instrument landing system or, as it is commonly called, an ILS. There is an ILS on runway 26, but there has been a request that ILS facilities should be provided on runway 08 as well.

This request emanated from the SAA Pilots’ Association. The hon. the Minister’s answer was that provided the funds were available in the 1984-’85 financial year, they would start installing those facilities then. I think this is a little bit too vague and too long-term. Port Elizabeth is being regarded as a metropole, but East London has ILS in both directions, whereas Port Elizabeth does not. It has ILS in one direction only, and that is on runway 26. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to please step up this progress and to improve the facilities at the Port Elizabeth Airport and to let us at least have all-weather facilities from more than one direction.

I now come to the second subject which is a more national subject, and not purely a local issue. I wish to refer to a notice which was published by the hon. the Minister in the Government Gazette on 12 June 1981 concerning civil aviation safety regulations. There are a couple of points which I wish to make in regard to this notice published by the hon. the Minister. A number of things will be happening in terms of the regulations, e.g. establishing communications between airport managements and air carriers, liaison with international organizations on civil aviation safety matters, liaison with Government departments concerning matters of civil aviation and the involvement of airport managements and air carriers in the application of a comprehensive civil aviation safety programme. The thing that I want to talk about in regard to this notice relates to the Civil Aviation Safety Committee which the hon. the Minister has created. I am a little concerned about the constitution of this committee. Theoretically at least, it is entirely possible that the whole committee will consist of people who have no flying experience at all. The committee consists of the Commissioner for Civil Aviation, an officer designated by the Chief of the South African Defence Force, an officer designated by the Commissioner of the South African Police, an officer designated by the Commissioner of the South African Railways Police, an official designated by the Director-General of Transport, an official from the SAA, an official from the National Intelligence Service, the Chief of Civil Aviation Safety and a member of the United Municipal Executive. I am sure that all these people are very worthy and want to be—and should be—on the committee, but I believe there is a definite gap in the creation of the committee in terms of people with actual flying experience, of flying know-how, which I think would be very important for this committee. I should like to suggest that we should have a member from the SAA Pilots’ Association on that committee. These are the very people that asked for the ILS at Port Elizabeth Airport. I think somebody should represent them on the committee. They are, after all, just as deeply involved in safety as anybody else. They are responsible for the passengers they have to transport. I am also a little concerned that the commercial interests have no representative on the committee. This can affect their standing quite dramatically. I should therefore like to recommend that the Commercial Aviation Association should also have a representative on the committee. This becomes particularly important when one realizes that if there is any overstepping of the mark in terms of these regulations, the hon. the Minister has put in a paragraph stating that the person who contravenes these regulations, would be liable on conviction to a fine of up to R10 000 or 10 years’ imprisonment. These are very Draconian penalties. I agree with him that these heavy penalties should be placed on a number of aspects affecting civil aviation safety. There are, however, a number of other regulations which are not nearly as important. I would have thought that a more balanced series of fines, from smaller fines for smaller offences to these large fines for serious offences, would have been more to the point. Therefore I think the hon. the Minister should have a look at that particular aspect. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend following the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central in what he said. In the main, the hon. member discussed a local matter except for the last portion of his speech. However, I wish to commend the hon. member on the very calm and civil manner in which he addressed the House. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Chairman, today I want to discuss the capital city of South Africa with the hon. the Minister. Some say Cape Town is the mother city and that it is also the most beautiful city in South Africa. Some say that Port Elizabeth is the friendliest city in South Africa, although not all its MPs are! I also think that one can justly say that Pretoria is the most neglected city in South Africa when it comes to subsidies and Government aid. I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who also resides in Pretoria, is here today and I want to have a discussion with him.

When it comes to the problems involved in urban transport you will permit me to go back in history a little. As far back as 1961 the first White Paper I know of was published in connection with urban and metropolitan transport related problems. I think that that was in consequence of the Borckenhagen Commission’s report. At that stage this problem was seen in such a serious light that a committee was appointed. That committee was directed to issue a report within six months of its appointment. Nothing came of that urgency and those demands for haste. What do we find? We find that it was only in 1975 that the Driessen report was published. One of the most important aspects of this report was that the proposals of the Driessen Commission had to be implemented as quickly and with as little delay as possible to allow the minimum expense and the maximum economy. Our taxpayers in Pretoria saw and read these things and applauded. However, this jubilation did not last long, because the Act only appeared on the Statute Book in 1977. There are hon. members here today who remember with what enthusiasm the then Minister of Transport, Mr. S. L. Muller, stood up in this House and submitted this fantastic report. He also piloted the Bill through this House. We thought the day had dawned which would bring greater things for Pretoria and other cities, but for Pretoria in particular. It was proposed that to implement these recommendations would cost R92 million per annum, and if we could provide this we could turn Pretoria into a city where one could even travel by motor-car. Of this amount of R92 million, the local authority itself had to provide R18 million. This would be done in certain specified ways. The Government then said we were flying a little too high. We should remember what happened to Icarus when he flew too near the sun. They said: “Forget it; you could fall hard. Let us make it R52 million, and your local authorities must take care of R8 million. That R8 million you can get from additional parking tariffs because you can increase those tariffs slightly. You can also increase the rentals on parking areas slightly. You could also impose a levy on loading zones.” The fifth suggestion was: “You can levy certain tolls when certain types and weights of vehicles are in certain areas.” We then thought we would get that R8 million, but what became of these wonderful ideals and this marvelous planning? If we consider it de facto, we find that in the 1978-’79 financial year the Government began fairly well with R22,8 million. In 1979-’80 there was R8,4 million, in 1980-’81, R18 million and this year there is a budget of R20 million.

One cannot trust the Nationalists. [Interjections.]

Taking into account the amounts from 1979 up to the present budget, this means that Pretoria has been robbed of an amount in the order of R14 million. This is only what has been promised but never given.

What is the result of this? The result is that whereas we had budgeted for a certain number of new buses, we were unable to buy 50 of those buses. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has ever travelled in a bus in Pretoria.

What are you talking about!

I want to invite the hon. the Minister to travel with me in a bus. We have buses there which are over 20 years old. Can you imagine the maintenance costs of those vehicles? Those buses are arks on wheels. [Interjections.] What is the hon. member for Langlaagte complaining about? And the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central? He is also complaining, but they do not have problems in their regions. They should come and see what is going on in Pretoria. We had to build a new bus depot at Garsfontein, because at the moment an empty bus has to travel from the central area of Pretoria to the eastern suburbs. It must travel empty for 15 to 20 km, but if we build a bus depot there, then it can travel all the way to and from the city with a payload of passengers. As a result of all the promises we made a beginning, but now matters have come to a standstill; we can do nothing about it.

Then the Railways came along and expropriated our workshops at Belle Ombre because they said they had to build the railway fine from Ga-Rankuwa and build a new station at Belle Ombre, and therefore we had to move our workshops. With what? That is by no means the worst of it. Every hon. member sitting here who is reasonably civilized has been to Pretoria … [Interjections.] … and surely they know that if one arrives in Johannesburg from Pretoria one has all those beautiful roads. The same applies to Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. Now try getting into Potgieter Street off the Ben Schoeman highway. Look, one travels in a number of lanes does one not? But that is as far as it goes. Then there are little lights in the road over which one has to drive. This also creates problems, but that is not the worst of it, because then the hon. the Minister’s entire goods station has only one exit gate, and the traffic coming out of it also enters Potgieter Street in the morning. The gate is very narrow. You should see the sort of lorries that come out of that gate and land up in Potgieter Street.

But if we build another gate, you steal the staff. [Interjections.]

This project costs R6 million and we were promised a subsidy of 60%. Everything is at a standstill; a snail’s pace!

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg is not present at the moment, but every morning in the peak hour, 4 800 motor vehicles from the Verwoerdburg area come to Pretoria and Pretoria Central. They have only three access roads and one of these is Potgieter Street. At one time we undertook the Fountains project, approved by the National Transport Commission—R9 million. So far not even a sod has been turned. At Laudium we are developing an essential new Indian area. Everybody knows Kwagga Road; it runs past the power station. We cannot widen Kwagga Road. That project will cost in the vicinity of R4 million. The provincial administration is finishing its part, but what about us? We are sitting doing nothing. We cannot touch anything.

Order! Can the traffic not be diverted to Delmas? [Interjections.]

When it comes to a railway line to Delmas, I could tell you what happened to my entire constituency, but we shall get to that later.

We in Pretoria realize that the hon. the Minister does not have the Reserve Bank at his disposal. The hon. the Minister must at least agree with us that our hopes have been raised; total expectations were raised. Planning was undertaken and there was reaction. We cannot go any further, and if the hon. the Minister cannot help us, before very long he and his colleagues will have to ride to the Union Buildings on horseback. They will not get there very quickly. I want to tell you here and now how Pretoria has been swindled. In the budget for the 1980-’81 financial year, R1,89 million is being set aside for transport planning for Pretoria. However, what is Johannesburg getting? Johannesburg is getting R4,958 million. That is not the worst of the matter. That brown sand city, that curry city, is getting R3,67 million. Why is Pretoria getting only R1,98 million, while Durban is getting R3,67 million? [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Roodeplaat will understand if I do not follow him in his special plea for Pretoria. I know Pretoria has its problems, and having sat here in this House for some time I realize that its problems are not only confined to roads in that area.

I should, however, like to raise two subjects with the hon. the Minister in the short time at my disposal, both of which relate to the Commission of Inquiry which the hon. the Minister has announced. Firstly I want to say that I hope the sum total of the Commission of Inquiry’s exercise will not be greater regulation, but rather less regulation of the transport services in South Africa. In this regard I believe that this commission should apply its mind to the question of whether transport should not fit in with an overall socio-economic strategy of the Government. Transport is a very valuable component of our total economy, and I believe that, judiciously applied, it could resolve one of the problems. That is the problem of how to make the maximum use of, what I call, the Third World factor in our South African economy—the unrecorded or the informal factor. How can we help those people who are moving from a subsistence economy into the modern money economy? How can we bring them into economic activity at the earliest stage—instead of excluding them—until they have all the access to capital and all the sophistication in the means of production?

We should try to find a system which can bring people without capital into the field of economic activity. We should see to it that we bring them into the entrepreneurial group and not just into the consumer group, because this will help to change the class differentiation. We will have to see whether we can apply this in a way which will have a social purpose.

I believe that transportation is one of the areas in which we can stimulate the Third World factor in our economy, by less regulation and by way of stimulating the unrecorded or informal sector. I believe we have to look for, and find the areas to which we can apply this principle. First of all transportation is an area on which lower income people spend a considerable proportion of their income. It therefore relates very specifically to them. If one is looking for an area of economic activity for those people it should be the area in which they spend their money. Therefore transportation is a natural area.

Secondly, I think we should look at geographic areas in which this process of deregulation could take place. Here, once again, in the areas in which people are in the process of migration, in the process of transition, from a subsistence economy to the urban areas—within the urban areas, in the big towns around the established central business districts—where low income groups of Black people are struggling with the process of job creation and capital formation, I believe, some stimulus should be given to the more informal use of transportation in South Africa.

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister and to the commission that they consider very seriously the question of how transport could be deregulated in order to allow lower income group people, caught up in the process of urbanization, to participate to a greater extent. Quite clearly, if one looks at the process, and if one wants to find a transportation system which is not capital intensive, the vast corporations, the tremendous regulation, the vast capital structures, are not suited to the participation of people in the low income groups. One could rather go for small concerns instead. In West Africa, for instance, one has the mammy wagon-type of transportation, the mini bus type of transportation, which is more flexible as far as its timetables are concerned, and also less regulated as far as its routes and its fares are concerned. It is geared for use by people who can find sufficient money to own a vehicle which can be used for this kind of transportation.

I put this seriously to the hon. the Minister because I believe that this is one area in which Blacks caught up in the process of urbanization, in the process of moving from one form of economy to another, could be brought into the system, not only as consumers, but also as entrepreneurs. It might result into a certain degree of a lowering of standards. This may be the case. Nevertheless, I believe it will form a very valuable social purpose which will not only provide for the needs of the people but which will also be less regulated and less regimented. It will provide for the needs of the users, and it will also bring people into the entrepreneurial system far earlier than they would be brought in if they had to wait to become part of a great, big new capitalist and regulated system of transportation. That is my first plea.

The second one relates more specifically to the Cape Peninsula and perhaps to an inquiry that could fall under the commission which has now been appointed. I refer to the on-going tension that exists in the Cape Peninsula between the commuter public and the company that operates the bus transportation service in the Peninsula. This on-going tension erupts every now and then, quite understandably, when applications are made for an increase in fares. The comments I make are in no way intended to denigrate the efficiency or the competence of the company providing this service, but to draw attention to this tension and to put certain questions which I believe should be examined in order to see whether the position can be improved. The fact is that City Tramways as part of the Tollgate Group operates the transportation services in the Cape Peninsula. It is an ordinary company registered for gain, a company quoted on the stock exchange. It has an ordinary public and private shareholding and it conducts not only a transportation service, but also a wide variety of trading and property services. As such, quite naturally, it makes profits and distributes these profits to its individual shareholders. This is the nature of the company. It has been a highly successful company measured in money terms. An analysis of its achievement over the last five years will show if one bought one’s 100 shares in 1976, and taking into consideration that there have been share-splits, pay-outs because of assets having been sold and numerous distributions of profits, the result would be that R153 invested five years ago would now give one R1 038 over those five years in terms of capital appreciation plus profits distributed. I am not complaining, as this is probably an efficient service, but …

If one takes inflation into account one would be making a loss.

One would have made a gain of 578% over five years, and I would say this is not a loss even taking an inflation rate of 16% into account. I am not complaining about an efficient business operation. But there are problems that are related to it. As the public sees it this is a highly profitable business operation which enjoys a monopoly. Is it appropriate that it should enjoy a monopoly in providing an essential public service in the city area? The first question therefore is whether it is appropriate that a private company of this kind should enjoy a monopoly. Secondly, in order to operate, it needs special concessions from the other authorities. It needs special licensing concessions from the province and it needs special concessions from the city council. Thirdly, it receives considerable subsidies from the central Government. Much of the subsidies that are put into this company are then redistributed in the form of profits to the shareholders. Once again the public asks: Is this an appropriate way to deal with it? Finally, this company, quite naturally again, pays considerable taxes on its profits. Last year this company paid something like R2 600 000 in taxes. Once again, what is the point of pumping subsidies into a company which in turn the Government at the other end is milking by way of taxes on its company profits? There is therefore no real advantage to the public in these circumstances. The question arises whether this matter should not be looked at. Is this a satisfactory means of dealing with a vital public service affecting millions of commuters each year? Perhaps it should better be dealt with by way of a public utility corporation, a corporation registered under the Companies Act, but then under section 21 of that Act, in terms of which the profits of that corporation may solely be used for the purposes of that corporation. Would it not be a better idea if one is dealing with an essential public service to see that what profits are made are ploughed back into that public service, especially when some of those profits are gained from subsidies, from assistance given by various State bodies and because of a monopolistic situation that exists?

Is that not socialism?

Is a public utility corporation socialism? What absolute rubbish. Public utility corporations are registered under the Companies Act.

Of course that is socialism. They get some profit out of it.

Who owns them?

Anybody can own them. Even that hon. member can start a public utility company. He is a silly man. What this hon. member is saying is that he likes the situation where we give subsidies to ordinary companies so that they can distribute it in profits to the shareholders. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to react to some of the points that have already been raised, and when I have heard further representations, I shall reply further.

I am now involved with the department of which Mr. A. B. Eksteen is the Director-General, and he and his officials simply inundate me with information. As soon as à question is asked, there is a reply. In fact, all the information has already confused me. However, it is a fine department; the people know what they have to do, they are on the ball, and it is a pleasure to co-operate with them.

Arising from what the hon. member for Berea said, I just wish to correct a few things.

†The hon. member referred to the free enterprise system, and I have a great deal of respect for this system. He referred to certain problems, inter alia, to applications for 100 mini taxi’s in the Johannesburg area.

*In Johannesburg there are 314 taxis, including 129 for all races. There are 248 taxis for Blacks only. In Soweto, there are 1 056 taxis for Blacks. The city council and the Transport Commission have to cooperate with the people in respect of the granting of permits. London has a total population of 9 million and has an underground railway system; so they can have more taxis and fewer buses. The present population of Johannesburg is about 2 million—Blacks and Whites—and it does not have an underground railway system. I recently travelled by taxi from Johannesburg to Jan Smuts Airport, and along the way the Black driver told me how difficult he found it to make a living. I told him that we were going to allow even more taxis in Johannesburg, and his reaction was: “Please. I sit around for hours every day, waiting for business.” Hon. members must bear in mind that if more taxis were allowed, it could cause disruption as a result of traffic congestion. The Johannesburg city council says it has got the buses. It is easier to transport people in a bus than in a lot of mini-taxis which could cause greater traffic congestion.

They wait for telephone calls.

However, we are investigating this matter, and I can assure the hon. member that if this would be a solution to the problem and we would not be hurting other people in the process, we could grant permits for taxis left, right and centre. However, we would definitely have traffic congestion during peak hours. Hon. members should pay a visit to the taxi rank at the Carlton Hotel at 11 o’clock in the morning, and they will see how many taxis are parked there, waiting for the peak hour to bring them some passengers. [Interjections.] They can cruise around as they wish, but there is no demand for their services. Passengers use taxis between half past eight and half past nine in the morning and from half past five to half past six in the afternoons. During these periods, there are also many buses on the road, and all this leads to traffic congestion.

The hon. member asked whether we were going to freeze the 35% increase for Putco. Putco is founding companies at present in which some people and also city councils will have an interest. In addition, Putco receives a large subsidy from the Government.

I want to react to what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti as well as the hon. member for Berea said. The Railways shows a loss of R600 million on its passenger services, and on this the hon. the Minister of Finance is already giving us a subsidy of R180 million. The subsidies paid in respect of bus transport are astronomical. The Franzsen Committee made recommendations—the report will be released in due course—to the effect that the employer, the employee and the State should each pay one third. It is more or less in that order. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti, as well as the hon. member for Kempton Park, who also referred to this, are quite right in saying that we cannot expect the taxpayer to keep making up these losses and paying subsidies. However, the commuters have to travel to work and back; they have no choice. That is why the State is sympathetic towards these people. If Putco comes along with an unsubstantiated application for a tariff increase, we talk to these people and we cushion the increase with subsidies up to a point, but we cannot keep absorbing it by means of subsidies. However, the whole matter is under consideration. We do not want disruption and dissatisfaction among the commuters in our country, and therefore we shall be very sympathetic towards the proposals of Putco.

The present Putco, which is now operated as one company, is divided into four separate companies, i.e. a company for the Pretoria area, for the Durban area, for the Johannesburg West area, including the present Soweto, and for the southern parts of Johannesburg and Johannesburg East. Members of the board of directors of Putco must serve on the boards of the various subsidiary companies. I can let the hon. member have the details later concerning the composition of the Putco organization, which is definitely dependent on subsidies from the State.

The hon. member for Berea made inquiries about third party matters. I can assure the hon. member that as far as third party insurance is concerned, we do not intend to make any changes before the recommendations of the commissions appointed by my predecessor have been received, and hon. members must not be afraid that there are tariff increases in the offing as far as third party insurance is concerned.

When do you expect to receive the report?

Perhaps early next year. They have already held their first meeting and I believe we shall receive an interim report next year.

As regards tests for licences for the driving of heavy vehicles, the HSRC is doing research in this connection and certain tests are being performed. The hon. member asked whether I had ever driven a bus. I recently drove a 40 ton truck over 200 km—I did have someone to help me—and I then saw what responsible work this was, especially if one had to drive such a truck through the Johannesburg city centre. The problem is that many of our truck drivers receive a bonus depending on the number of loads they deliver, and they wear themselves out by sometimes spending 10 consecutive hours behind the wheel of such a truck. These are all matters we must give attention to, for when one of our loved ones is killed by such a truck, it is too late. Therefore we must give attention to the things referred to by the hon. member for Berea and we must carry out tests to find out whether such a driver is physically and intellectually able to handle such an enormously heavy load.

The hon. member also spoke about separate buses for separate races. The standpoint of the Government is that we do not want over-crowding. Hon. members will be interested to know that I left home at 04h15 yesterday morning to attend to a matter concerning the Railways. I went to Mitchell’s Plain, and at 04h40 I got on the first train. As the train went along, I saw that it was getting overcrowded. At Nyanga, a Coloured woman told me that she did not like the Black people getting on the train among them. The Coloured people would like to live apart from the Blacks, and I thought it would be an ideal situation if one could have sufficient separate facilities for Coloured people, Blacks and Whites. That would be the ideal. Forget about the White-Black relationship and look at the Brown-Black relationship. As far as aircraft are concerned, we do not have separate seats for Black and White because this is not practicable. If we became a giant in the field of air traffic, and the Blacks asked us to equip a Boeing especially for them only, we would welcome it. After all, this is human nature, and I am not talking now about the White people in our country. I am talking about the Black people of our country. [Interjections.] Where there are problems in connection with the transportation of our people, we have often made concessions and said that if there is no over-crowding and no dissatisfaction, White and Black may travel together. The same applies to the municipality’s decision concerning its buses. After all, the Department of Transport cannot dictate to the Cape Town city council what it has to do. The Cape Town city council has an understanding of the problems of the taxpayer, and they will not allow a bus to travel uneconomically from Sea Point because there are only Whites travelling on the bus. They have found that it is uneconomical to convey only Whites in the buses, and therefore the city council has decided that people of colour may also make use of the bus. [Interjections.]

I think I shall come later to the other matters mentioned by the hon. member for Berea. I should like to thank the hon. member for Kempton Park for his fine contribution. He has made a study of this matter. He is a man who has a very big transport business in his constituency. Sir, I have lost the sheet of paper on which Mr. Eksteen wrote the necessary information yesterday, so I shall first refer to the hon. member for Roodeplaat, and perhaps reply to the other points after lunch. I am afraid there might otherwise be too many points to deal with.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat spoke about the city of Pretoria. I shall give him figures to indicate what we are spending on road research on behalf of the various municipalities. These are funds provided by this department. The onus is always being placed on the Government. 22 agricultural control boards wanted to put up a new building valued at R7 million. I asked them to build it in Silverton, Roodeplaat or Pretoria East. At the moment, every living creature is being crowded into a tiny area in the Pretoria city centre. The buildings of the Department of Agriculture are in the city, and if one made a survey, one would find that every young girl, from the typists to the secretaries, drives to town in a Volkswagen or Golf every morning from Silverton, Pretoria East or Pretoria West. Why did the Department of Agriculture not build its office on the outskirts of the city? When one asks in Washington where the offices of their department of agriculture are, one is told that they are situated about 8 km from the city centre. They situate their buildings on the outskirts of their cities. I see the hon. member for Roodeplaat has just come in. I want to tell him that I was just replying to his representations, which were very feeble! [Interjections.]

I shall refer later to the other points that were raised and to the other representations made by that hon. member. These are matters we are investigating at the moment, and I shall presently furnish the figures to show what we are spending on road research for the various municipalities.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked for certain things in his constituency. He also mentioned the ILS.

”Civil works on the Port Elizabeth Airport for 1985 include the extension of the main runway, with the idea of eventually being able to handle international flights, because it may be necessary to handle 747 aircraft, etc. R2,9 million will be spent on that. For navigational aids, such as the ILS which he mentioned, provision is being made for an amount of R1,2 million. It is also intended to provide lights along the runway to make it easier for big aircraft to land. These will be put up between now and 1985. Then certain other works costing R0,7 million are in progress at the airport. R1,2 million is being spent on the power distribution system at Port Elizabeth. The hon. member made his point. Port Elizabeth is a growing city. If it had snowed in Bloemfontein as well yesterday, we would have had problems with our international flights if, for example, Cape Town had been fog-bound. Then it is useful to have the necessary facilities at the Port Elizabeth or East London airports to provide for emergencies. International flights from Port Elizabeth Airport will eventually be introduced, because overseas flights are increasing by between 5% and 7% a year.

†As regards the Pilots’ Association and the Aviation Committee serving on the Safety Committee, I can tell him that we shall go into these matters and I shall give the hon. member a written reply on that.

*Then the hon. member for Langlaagte referred to Uncle Charlie’s. I have here a long explanation of that whole matter. I can tell the hon. member that he was right to mention that matter. A section of the N103 through road is being planned to the east of the Diepkloof clover-leaf over the route to where it links up with the Golden Highway immediately to the south of the Pl-1 intersection, which is known as Uncle Charlie’s. The design has been done by three consulting engineers in co-operation with the Transvaal Provincial Administration, the Johannesburg City Council and the National Transport Commission. We have examined these proposals. The project is divided into three separate but interdependent contracts known as the Southern (A), Central (B), and Northern (C) contracts. The control over the (B) contract is limited mainly to the National Transport Commission, while the (A) and (C) contracts will be handled by the Transvaal Provincial Administration. The distribution of the cost between the authorities is as follows: The Transvaal Provincial Administration and the National Transport Commission will both pay 43,5% and the city council will pay 13%. The estimated cost of the three contracts is R48 million, of which R34 million will be paid in terms of the above-mentioned cost distribution. I shall let the hon. member have the whole exposition and I shall also release it to the Press.

When is it being built?

Once again, that is a question of funds. After the hon. the Minister of Finance gave notice this morning of the introduction of a piece of legislation, I in turn gave notice of the introduction of a Bill to obtain the permission of Parliament for the National Transport Commission to be authorized to borrow money on the open market and even overseas so that these projects may proceed. The cost of road-building is escalating by 25% a year.

After lunch, or when I have replied to another few speeches, I shall come to the question of toll-roads. If the hon. member for Langlaagte can tell me that he will be able to sell it if we install a toll-gate at Uncle Charlie’s, I shall greatly appreciate that. Then he can support us in doing so. Even in the days of the Assyrians there were tollgates. I think they are also mentioned in the Bible.

Yes, the toll-takers are.

That is right. I shall refer this afternoon to the question of putting up toll-gates. [Interjections.] Then I shall furnish more particulars in this connection.

The hon. member for Kempton Park spoke about a long-term transport policy. It is a very interesting idea. I am glad to be able to say that the whole matter can be investigated by the proposed transport advisory board. That board was initiated last year. The present idea is that the transport advisory board should come into being as soon as possible and that its members should be appointed. Then the board will have to investigate the whole question of the transport policy at the national level as a matter of urgency. The board cannot be expected to deliberate on such a matter if a great deal of preparatory work has not been done. The National Transport Commission has asked the department to begin the initial investigations, and good progress has already been made in identifying all the fields to be covered in formulating a proposed national transport policy. As soon as the framework has been drawn up, the attempts at collecting statistics and other information which may be necessary will have to be intensified.

I wish to conclude. The hon. member for Sea Point addressed certain representations to me. At the very end of his speech, he rightly added that he understood that the Welgemoed Commission would go into the whole matter.

†I fully realize that to stimulate activity in the lower income groups, one must have entrepreneurs. This is one way in which someone in the lower income group can without there being capital outlay, help us with the transport business in South Africa. The hon. member made a good suggestion in regard to this, and I shall refer this matter to the Welgemoed Commission and request them to investigate the whole idea of getting small entrepreneurs with little capital to help us in the transport business.

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to speak after the hon. Minister. However, I believe hon. members will forgive me if I do not proceed to reply to their representations!

Listening to the activities of this important department, one thinks of the important role played by the wheel and the importance of these services, but also to the problems which they involve. I shall not refer again to the integration of the Welkom Airport into the network of the S.A. Airways, because I am satisfied that the hon. the Minister and his department will give the necessary attention to the matter.

I should like to plead a matter concerning the National Road Safety Council. If it were announced that a report had been received that more than 20 people had been killed and more than 40 had been injured in violent incidents today, this House would be shocked. In fact, such a report could reach us every day, because that is the average number of people who are killed and injured in the streets and on the roads of our country as the result of road accidents. I realize that anything which has its advantages, such as our transport system or our motor vehicles, is in the interests of our economy. Unfortunately, it is also true that such a system has certain disadvantages. It is our duty to combat those disadvantages. I want to mention just a few figures. These figures speak volumes, but they also contain a message, to hon. members as well. In 1980, 7 527 people were killed and 24 077 people were seriously injured. We must not resign ourselves to this state of affairs. The frequent reports of gruesome road accidents may cause our feelings to become a little blunted in this connection, especially when the victim is not a relative or an acquaintance of ours. However, no one is safe from the danger of road accidents. Hon. members are also vulnerable, even hon. members who talk about it. It is true that the Government has done its duty in this connection, and I want to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department. Through legislation a body has been established with the task of promoting road safety, namely the National Road Safety Council. The council does good work, but unfortunately does not have enough funds available to achieve the optimum results. The Act concerned provides for Parliament to appropriate money for this purpose. I am confident that the hon. the Minister will find it possible to allocate money for this purpose. The income of the National Road Safety Council for the 1980-’81 financial year was R3 285 million, which was derived from the levy of 75% on every third party insurance. However, approximately 70% of this amount is used for administrative purposes, so one can see how much is left for other activities. If more funds were made available, they could also be used in a more cost-effective way.

It is sometimes said that the National Road Safety Council is not achieving its purpose. I must point out that for a long time I was intimately involved in the activities of the council, and I believe that since I left it, its fortunes have probably taken a turn for the better. [Interjections.] However, we must not lose sight of the fact that this is a complex problem that is caused by the behaviour of people, i.e. the drivers of motor vehicles. The hon. members for Kempton Park and Berea referred to the drivers of commercial vehicles, and it is true—it is important—that those people are on the road every day. I think many of them are overtaxed because they want to be productive and spend too many hours behind the wheel of their vehicle. However, that is just in passing.

My limited time does not allow me to discuss the way in which the National Road Safety Council performs the difficult task. Briefly, the action is based on research, education and publicity. Furthermore, there are important matters which receive attention, such as the training of drivers, which has been mentioned here. The increasing number of Black owners of motor vehicles is a contributory factor. In the past, little attention has been given to this category of road users.

The task of the National Road Safety Council must take account of the short as well as the long term. Activities must be aimed at the future; forecasts must be made concerning problems which are on the increase. Dangerous situations must be prevented from arising. They must be combated by timely action.

The Director-General of this department, Mr. Adriaan Eksteen, is also a member of the National Road Safety Council, so he is also intimately acquainted with the comprehensive task of the organization. As has already been said, the staff of this council is now being integrated into the Public Service. I trust that these people will still get the opportunity they need to perform their task and that their initiative will not be inhibited in any way. I do not think this will happen; I hope that the process of integration will in fact enable them to make even greater contributions to the promotion of road safety.

I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to the chairman, Dr. Jannie Roux, and other members of the National Road Safety Council for their interest and energy in promoting that cause. They are really doing important work, but as hon. members know, research and other activities are expensive these days. Without money one cannot accomplish anything. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I trust the hon. member for Welkom will forgive me if I do not follow up his argument but I have my own problems with the hon. the Minister who is here today.

We are very pleased to see the hon. the Minister here in his new role as Minister of Transport Affairs. We consider him to be a very gentle and a very kindly man. He is the sort of man who we would like to know sleeps well at night. I want to tell the hon. the Minister a fairy story, a bedtime story which may perhaps help him to sleep better. He can tell the story to himself a few times over the week-end and he will enjoy it. I call it the story of the Minister and the Vanishing Airport. It is a lovely story. It involves a Minister who once said: We are going to have a new international airport. However, that airport has steadily over the years appeared to have vanished from the scene. This is a very interesting story and I have researched it very carefully. I started with my research way back in 1976 because it was in the early 1970s when I was involved in civic affairs in a community just north of Durban where I still live that we were all talking about a new international airport that was going to be built to the north of us. We thought that it was going to become operative at least by 1980.

I came to this House in 1974 but, as far as I am concerned, this fairy story started in 1976. It was then that I asked for the first time when it was considered that the airport would be completed, whether there had been any delay and when it was considered the airport would become operational. The answer I received in 1976 was that there had been no delay and that the airport would be operational by 1982. Incidentally, I am referring here to the new international airport at La Mercy. What a wonderful thing it would have been if that international airport had been operating yesterday! However, we shall come to that later.

In 1977 I asked the same question and I was told that the airport was still planned to become operational by 1982 but that the date might be postponed due to curtailment of Government expenditure. I also asked what the original estimate had been and I was told R76 316 000 but that with escalation it could possibly cost R108 million.

Now we go to 1978. In 1978 we were given a fresh slant on this matter. In 1978 I was told that the airport could possibly be completed by 1983-’84 but the estimate had dropped. I was then told that the original estimate had been R70 million excluding escalation. Nobody wanted to tell me what the airport really was going to cost.

Now we come to 1979. You know, Sir, this is a Little Red Riding Hood running through the forest sort of thing. In 1979 I again asked—because I am a real old nag—what the position was and I was told that the date of completion depended entirely on funds but that the earthworks for phase 1 had been completed.

To my mind the construction appeared to stop at that point. Therefore, in 1980 I thought I had better ask when construction would recommence. I phrased the question slightly differently. The reply was that construction would recommence in 1981 if funds were provided and that it would be completed four years from the date of recommencement of construction. Well, Sir, as I say, I am a nag. We arrived here early this year and I asked whether the construction of the new La Mercy International Airport had been recommenced; if not, why not, and what was the latest completion date and the cost of the total project. Then I received a different answer from a new Minister. He said that reconstruction had not been commenced since the planning of the airport had only recommenced in August 1980. The reply to the second part of the question was early in 1986, and then he added those magical words that make one sleep better—“if funds are provided.” In regard to the total cost, I was given another evasive answer. I was told that the estimated total cost for first phase development was R52 million based on 1979-’80 prices. I had not asked about the first phase. I had asked what the total cost of the airport was going to be because originally it was going to cost R76 million.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended I had sketched for the hon. the Minister the background to La Mercy International Airport and I had termed it the “vanishing airport”. We get to 1981 and we find ourselves in a situation where there is still grave uncertainty as to whether or not this undertaking has been recommenced, whether or not reconstruction has been recommenced and whether or not this airport is ever going to become a reality. If ever there was an occasion to speak of a new international airport for South Africa, today is the day to do so, especially after yesterday’s happenings at Jan Smuts Airport that resulted in a tremendous number of aircraft that had to be diverted to other airports in South Africa. La Mercy International Airport would, if it were in operation, have catered for all of that without any difficulty whatsoever. It is a well known fact that Durban is very, very rarely 100% closed in, irrespective of weather conditions. It is a coastal area where one can always descend safely over the sea and then track back to a low-lying airport. This I think was the whole reason behind the design of La Mercy in the first place. Not only Durban but also Natal and certainly, I think, the whole of South Africa must be most anxious now as to what the plans are concerning this particular project. We need it. With all due respect to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, I respect his wishes for an international airport at Port Elizabeth, but I think that even he will concede that we do want this because of the proximity of Durban to Johannesburg and the fact that it is a very short over-flight in order to complete an international flight.

Having said that, we are none the less faced with a situation in Durban where we have hopelessly inadequate facilities at the existing Louis Botha Airport. I have raised this matter year after year and, quite honestly, it is a shame that Durban has to be faced with a situation where we have—and I have given these figures once before to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor—something like 54,34 passengers per square metre of available passenger space in the concourse, the refreshment areas and the holding areas of the Durban Airport, as opposed to a situation at Jan Smuts Airport where the figure is less than half that, namely 25,73. I know that those people who travel through Jan Smuts Airport will appreciate that it is an extremely busy airport, but then one must realize that in terms of space per passenger, Durban is twice as badly off as Jan Smuts Airport is, although I do not believe that Jan Smuts Airport is well off, not by any means. I appreciate the fact that plans are afoot to extend the Durban Airport and I also appreciate the fact that they are due to start extending shortly, but the matter that concerns me is the following: Are we adding to Durban’s Airport in order to put off the day as far as La Mercy is concerned or are we merely planning an interim measure here? I do not believe that anything we do at Louis Botha Airport in Durban is ever going to be wasted. Obviously, whatever we do there can be utilized. It can be passed on either for civil aviation, for military use or whatever. But I do not want to see the situation perpetuated in Durban where we have what I can only term as pathetic facilities for the travelling public as opposed to the facilities at other centres. I certainly do not want to see the situation perpetuated where we do not have an international airport in a logical position on the map of South Africa where it can certainly take up anything that has to come from Jan Smuts Airport should inclement weather prevent aircraft being able to land there at any given time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss two aspects of road transport in South Africa today.

Road transport in South Africa consists mainly of two important components, namely goods transport and passenger transport. Up to now, the importance of the road transport industry has been rather underestimated, I believe, because in terms of tons per kilometre, it transports 46% of all goods in South Africa. The Railways and its other services handle the remaining 54%. This 46% conveyed by that transport sector has certain inherent problems. I should like to deal with one of those here today, and I also wish to make a request to the hon. the Minister in this connection. Among the firms which transport goods and passengers by road, there are approximately 13 000 that make use of public transport permits. Just over 8 000 firms fill in the P.26 form of the Department of Statistics. So there are 50% more firms than are supplying statistics at the moment. I shall refer again to the problem of statistics at a later stage. At this stage I want to concentrate on the structure of road transport undertakings.

In addition, there are approximately 50 000 undertakings which make use of private transport permits. When we consider, therefore, that more than 600 000 people are involved in the road transport industry, hon. members will realize what an important part it plays. It is important, not only from the point of view of the number of people and the capital involved, but also as a transport system in the whole context of the national economy. In its entire structure, however, road transport has an unfortunate element. This is the fact that 66% of those approximately 13 000 undertakings have only one vehicle each. The annual drop-out rate in that branch of the transport industry is approximately 20% to 25%, depending on our position in the economic cycle.

An industry which is faced with such high figures in this connection is definitely an industry in distress. Therefore I should like to request the hon. the Minister today to make another attempt to ascertain how we can place this industry on a sounder footing. However, great progress has also been made, so I want to pay tribute today to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and his predecessor. I also want to pay tribute to the Department of Transport and its staff for what has been done to place this whole structure on a more orderly basis. At the moment, this industry is represented by no fewer than six separate interest groups. Those six interest groups are the following: The Motor Carriers’ Association, the Professional Road Transportation Association, the S.A. Furniture Transportation and Warehouse Association, the National Association of Private Carriers, the Bus Operators’ Association of Southern Africa and the Passenger Transportation Association of South Africa. From this it is apparent that on the whole, these groups represent only their own interests, and that there is not really an all-embracing body which is able to act on behalf of the industry. The opposite is true, therefore. These are undertakings which, on the whole, promote their own interests only.

The Van Breda Commission, of which the hon. Chief Whip of the NP was the chairman, showed quite clearly in its findings that the various witnesses before the commission gave rather conflicting evidence. What is in the interests of the one is not in the interests of the other, it seems, and this makes it difficult, not only for the Government, but also for the industry concerned, to achieve unanimity. I want to make a plea here today, because this is a problem area, for we also know that these people have been unsuccessful in the past in their attempt to establish a unified organization to represent all the interest groups. In my opinion, such an umbrella organization is essential, because it could provide, for example, a transport policy, and drawing up a transport policy is not an easy task. I have already said that a political and a transport policy are very similar in many respects when it comes to the problems one encounters in drawing up these policies.

The hon. the Minister and some of the hon. members have already referred to the possibility of a transport advisory board. As far as the drawing up of such a policy is concerned, the problem will be whom the Government will listen to and whom it will talk to. The Minister has proved in the past that he is able to get the contending parties to meet around a table. I do not know what he does with them once they are sitting around the table, but we do know that the maize industry is a unified industry today. Since he is now the Minister of Transport Affairs, I want to request him to get these contending parties to meet around a table, too, and to establish an umbrella organization in that way. However, I do not want this request to be seen as an appeal to the Government to use the big stick again to force everyone into the same camp or to force anything down the throats of the road transport industry. We do not have any co-ordinated transport policy as yet. At the moment, there are still a number of unrelated laws which are combined for the purpose of drawing up a transport policy. However, since there is a movement afoot at the moment to establish such an all-embracing policy, it is essential that we talk to one organization. I believe it is important that the existing interest groups be preserved, because these groups attend to the problems of those people. At the same time, however, I believe it is important that there should be a co-ordinating interest group to give attention to policy and competition ratio in particular. Competition ratio is a major problem at the moment, because we have the Railways on the one hand and the road transport industry on the other. From time to time, they talk via the Minister, but I believe it is essential that greater coordination be brought about.

Furthermore, I want to refer to the Atlantis diesel engine, which is generating so much heat these days. This is another one of those aspects which have to be approached on a more co-ordinated basis, especially with regard to the effect of this engine as well as the standardization of a vehicle for the road transport industry. This is a problem, because the small entrepreneur does not trust the big entrepreneur, and vice versa. Since there is some antagonism, I want to make a plea here that everyone, all applicants for private and public permits, should be represented around a table. I want to state very categorically that the belief which is held in South Africa that there is only room for big transport undertakings is quite wrong. Small road transport undertakings play just as important a role as the big ones.

A second point I should like to refer to is statistics. We have heard about a policy, about a transport advisory board and about the competition ratio between road and rail transport in the RSA. At the moment, however, we are having serious problems with statistics in respect of the road transport industry in this country. The statistics which the department is collecting are not sufficient to serve as a basis for drawing up a coordinating policy. As indicated in the previous report of the department, they have one of the biggest computers in South Africa, and additional money will be voted and certain steps will be taken which will force the road transport industry to provide the necessary statistics so that we may obtain a more co-ordinated policy for road and rail transport.

Mr. Chairman, I trust the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed will excuse if I do not comment on his interesting contribution because I want to follow a completely new direction.

I want to talk about the South African Surf Lifesaving Association which is integrated with the search and rescue organization and therefore relevant to this vote. Our coastal regions are extremely vulnerable to exploitation, particularly in the regions of large towns. It is important that our coasts are used and that people learn to appreciate how valuable the heritage is they represent but they will increasingly have to be controlled to avoid cumulative damage. The anomaly is that in certain respects this control is already being exercised and on an immense scale by that extraordinary body, the South African Surf Lifesaving Association. I know that this body has approached the authorities for financial assistance and that these submissions have been well received by the Director-General of Transport and by the hon. the Minister. However, I want to make a plea today that when the amount of financial support is considered it be relative to the size and the importance of the job done. For this reason I think it may be of interest to the House to be given some details about the background of this organization which in some ways is actually unique.

It has been stated that in it South Africa has as sophisticated a surf rescue operation as exists anywhere in the world. Their most recent report shows that during the year reviewed they performed 1 380 rescues and that not a single life was lost on the beaches they patrol. That brings the total number of rescues performed since their inception to over 46 000. The value of the job and its absolute necessity can be considered under several headings. Firstly, from the point of view of tourism which is a considerable earner of foreign exchange. I think the presence of these young men on our beaches on a routine round-the-clock basis gives confidence that the beach is being properly patrolled and so tourists can relax and enjoy themselves. Secondly, many of our own holiday makers come from far inland. They are unacquainted with the sea and its dangers. They too need the services of a dedicated group of young men who have made themselves absolute experts in the art of surf rescue. Thirdly, they perform a control function on any beach quite apart from lifesaving. They are a highly competent and fit group of young men who serve the community in this way. Dr. John Strombech, convener of the National Medical Panel and an acknowledged authority, states unequivocally: “Suid-Afrika se vrywillige lewensredders het verreweg die beste of mees gevorderde mediese kwalifikasies in die wêreld.” This is a man who has been all over the world. During the past year, apart from the attention given to people who got into difficulties swimming, members of the association rendered first aid in over 1 300 cases. These covered everything from heart attacks, epilepsy and broken limbs to a fish hook in the finger and drunkenness. Whether that is one accident or two, I do not know. Fourthly, one must consider the value of the association as a training ground for young citizens. Can you imagine a better training in community service for a boy than joining the association as a nipper, which is under the age of 15, and slotting into the demanding schedule these people have to abide by? The people who run it, the seniors who represent this organization in competitions, joined it at the same age at which he did and came up through the same stages that he has to go through. Automatically he will accept their standards as his own. There is probably no service organization in the country which the public takes more for granted than this one. The young man who joins it involves himself in a disciplined programme of physical training, swimming, first-aid, instruction and examination. He practises rescue skills hopefully in inter-club, inter-provincial and international competitions. As he progresses in the organization he will master a wide range of equipment including radios and different types of boats. Essentially, however, he would be committed to regular beach patrols and to being on duty, whatever the weather, and even if there were to be something else he might prefer to be doing at that particular time, he must be there, vigilant and prepared to do what he spent such a long time training for—ready to save lives.

Attending a meeting of this association was a revelation to me. Every facet of every club’s activities is discussed. Praise, criticism and censure, are frankly and honestly given, and based on systematic reports, just as if it were a well-run business and not a voluntary club.

Lastly, what is it worth to South Africa to have an organization like this, affiliated to world life-saving and honoured and respected as one of the very great life-saving organizations of the world? I do not think anybody doubts its necessity. Everybody realizes that if they did not do this job, local authorities would have to do so, and I am quite sure that that would be a bureaucratic disaster as well as being very expensive. Reviewing the year 1979-’80, the president said—

The president of the association recently went to the United States and discovered there that the surf life-saving organization was actually the best organization to create a small, crack unit of highly specialized people to go out to any disaster. If one thinks of the Laingsburg disaster and the Eastern Cape floods, one can see the importance of this. Those people are thoroughly trained in the handling of any type of boat and are adept at first aid, being backed up by their own paramedical and medical force.

What sort of financial support do these people get? They received R57 000 in the year under review. From its Government, however, the New Zealand association obtained R200 000 and the Australian association R1,7 million. Based on size, we should be getting somewhere between R200 000 and R300 000. I think that one of the unfortunate things is that up to now the association has primarily been financed by the provinces and that the Free State and Transvaal have refused to make any contribution to the funding. I think this is particularly important when one realizes, from available statistics, that it is frequently our up-country visitors who get into trouble and have to be pulled out of the surf so very regularly during the holiday season. I am aware that the authorities have considered the position of the association and have agreed to the request that it be integrated into the S.A. search and rescue operation. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has approached the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs in this connection. It has been recognized that this association performs work of an essential nature, but I believe that it is very important indeed for this organization to get the type of financial assistance that it really needs. My plea is therefore that the request for consideration, when viewed in the light of conflicting claims, be judged on its merits, since these are not just a bunch of beautiful brown young men on the beach. They are actually doing work of an essential nature and are doing it extremely well. They do vital work. They are young people who are not yet in a position to bear a large financial burden, and they therefore look to us to help provide the financial resources essential if they are to expand and maintain the standard of excellence that they have set themselves.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer broached a matter on which we are all in agreement with him. In fact, it is a matter which I raised last year, and consequently I want to agree with him on the importance of the functions of the National Sea Rescue Institute.

This brings me to the ocean, which is in fact going to be the principle theme of my speech today. From his very first years the weather constantly plays a part in the life of a human being, a very important part. It controls his health, his safety, his working capacity and the provision of foodstuffs for his consumption. Consequently these aspects are adequate reason to undertake research on weather trends. The long and close contact with climatic conditions may consequently be the reason why almost every person is a kind of weather prophet on a small scale, with the farmer being perhaps the best example of this because he lives so close to nature and consequently has the opportunity of associating flora, fauna and natural phenomena with the weather.

Incorrect weather forecasts can, of course, be made as well. Some time ago there was a certain excellent weather forecaster. He was able to forecast the weather reasonably well. One day he drove passed a little boy, stopped, and asked him the way. Incidentally, it was a certain Du Toit. The boy told him “Sir, you will have to hurry, for when you return this afternoon you will not be able to get through the ravine.” He then drove away and when he returned in the afternoon, this was indeed the case: He was driving through streams of water. When he stopped beside the little boy again and told him: “Tell me, sonny, how did you know this morning that it was going to rain this afternoon?” The little boy replied: “Sir, do you see that old piebald cow? If she walks around in the morning with her tail in the air, then my father says it is going to rain. And that is what happens, so my father says that she has more sense in her “argus” than Du Toit has in his head.”

Because one is so dependent on the weather, it is therefore understandable and essential that adequate research should be carried out with a view to reliable weather forecasting. As far back as 1860 the Government of the Cape of Good Hope appointed the first weather commission, consisting of eight members. The other provinces followed that example. This could also be considered to be the first effort at an organized weather service in this country. On 1 April 1902 a weather service was introduced for the whole country.

Weather knows no bounds, nor does it recognize international boundaries. That is why it is essential that there should be good liaison, not only internally, but also internationally, to be able to provide a good weather service. This work is being done by the Weather Bureau as a non-statutory body under the control of the Department of Transport Affairs. The Weather Bureau is responsible for collecting, processing and then distributing information as rapidly and widely as possible. The information must be obtained from individuals and branches of the Weather Bureau because shipping, aviation, defence, the fishing industry and the agricultural sector are all very dependent on weather conditions. In the agricultural sector success or failure of crops is determined by weather conditions.

The S.A. Defence Force has no weather service of its own and the Navy, the Air Force as well as the Army are consequently dependent on accurate weather forecasts from the bureau. Their success is to a large extent determined by those weather forecasts.

To be able to meet these demands which are made of the Weather Bureau, it is essential for the bureau to have an effective network of weather bureaux, weather satellites, rainfall stations, floating buoys equipped with instruments, weather balloons, etc. That network must be spread as wide as possible. This data is then processed and distributed by means of telecommunication systems, the radio, television, etc. For this task the Weather Bureau has a full-time staff of approximately 136 people, 21 weather offices situated mainly at our airports, two island stations, viz. Gough and Marion, as well as the Antarctic station. In addition three sub-categories of weather stations, manned by part-time staff and volunteers, are spread throughout the country. Tremendous progress has recently been made in respect of weather satellites and floating buoys which are equipped with instruments, which today form an integral part of the global weather observation system. The information obtained in this way is processed at the remote observation centre at Hartbeeshoek and distributed from there.

Quite apart from weather forecasting the Weather Bureau also has an extended and comprehensive task of research in many spheres, for example fauna, flora, glaciers in the Antarctica, etc. Furthermore the Weather Bureau is making a tremendous contribution in the sphere of training. At the University of Pretoria, where it is possible to obtain a B.Sc degree in meteorology, the Weather Bureau provides staff to train students in this discipline. This makes a further demand on the staff of the Weather Bureau, which is already under strength.

There is another matter to which I should also like to refer, viz. the weather modification research project at Bethlehem, which is carrying out research, firstly, to find out whether the precipitation in the Vaal Dam catchment area can be increased by human intervention. If this is the case, the second purpose of the research is to establish whether such an increase can be brought about on a consistent, predictable basis. If this is the case, the third purpose of this research is to find out what measure of increased precipitation can be expected and at what cost, i.e. whether it is economically justifiable. In the first phase of the research there is a physical research into the properties of clouds and the precipitation in the area when simultaneous seeding techniques are applied. The intensive seeding of clouds and the subjection of the results thereof to thorough statistical analysis is being planned during the next five years. Attention will also be given to the nature of the precipitation, its intensity and distribution and the effect it will have on the run-off area. This is an important project if one considers everything it could entail, if it could be successfully completed. The question is often asked: “Why cannot the Weather Bureau forecast certain trends, specific to relatively small areas in our country?” There was, for example, the recent case of the Laingsburg disaster. It is sometimes asked whether the Weather Bureau could not have issued a warning. If one examines the southern hemisphere, one will realize that 80% of its surface consists of oceans, and a mere 20% of land. One then realizes that, despite everything which has been done by the Weather Bureau, the information data which can be sent out in respect of that tremendous surface area, is principally restricted to the 20% comprising the land area. If one sees how far the two island weather stations to which I have already referred are situated from Cape Town, one realizes to an even greater extent that it is almost impossible to have absolutely correct information at all times. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the transport system in South Africa is truly remarkable if one takes into account the vastness of this country and the small population. I think we can be very pleased about this heritage from the pioneering days, when perhaps more than the rightful share of the funds was spent on transport facilities. I think we must all say thank you for that, for at least we are not lagging behind in that sphere, as we are in the case of education. In my opinion South Africa also has one of the most effective transport systems as far as the conveyance of people is concerned, because such a large percentage of the total population makes use of public transport. I am, of course, referring here to the Black sector of the population. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the Whites. Consequently I think that this department has a duty to ensure that the public transport system for Black people will keep up with the demand by and needs of those people, so that they do not also have to go through the unnecessary and expensive cycle of enforced private transport as the Whites have had to do. I do not begrudge the Black people motor-cars, but I consider a motor-car to be a very poor investment if it is wasted by driving from home to work. We know, of course, why the White sector of the population is not making use of public transport. This is basically because we are all reasonably well-to-do and assess the cost in inconvenience of public transport to be greater than the actual cost of private transport. Secondly, one then gets a cycle that when greater use is made of private transport, public transport deteriorates and this compels one to make greater use of private transport.

The other problem is the spatial distribution of potential users in residential areas of a very low density which, of course, makes the effectiveness of public transport very difficult; i.e. our cities are not really spatially geared to public transport. There is a further point with regard to the spatial distribution. One does not want to turn this into a political issue but I think it is true that the Government is, because of its ideological point of departure, placing people and places of employment in contrasting relationships to each other. I think the hon. member for Langlaagte has already referred to this. It also places an unnecessary burden on the whole transport system and cannot be regarded purely as a transport problem.

Consequently I want to ask that as long as the Government has to implement these ideological aspects with regard to the location of people, it must happen in such a way that the technical people do not have to be put in a position where their solutions will work only under that one set of ideological circumstances. When our children have forgotten about the old order one day, will have forgotten about the time when our ethnic groups were still afraid or shy of one another and found one another wired, then the politics will have been forgotten, but the structures of the engineers and the technical people will still be there and then it will be very difficult for us to find satisfactory answers to that built-in inefficiency.

I now want to come back to the question of the change-over to, or better utilization of public transport. In this connection one can say that in the low-density residential areas in particular, in the wealthier residential areas, the solution should rather be sought in something like lift clubs or smaller roving taxi types of transport which are not necessarily confined to a specific route. In this regard private entrepreneurs could play an important part, for this also alleviates the burden of the authorities of having of necessity to operate on those less economic routes which usually means that the less affluent people on the more economic routes in actual fact subsidize the more affluent people.

I want to single out another two points on which I myself have already carried out experiments and of which the results look very promising. In the first place there is the implementation of the user-pay-type of financing of facilities and the other is the utilization of multi-purpose vehicles at peak times. We know that at eleven o’clock in the morning there is usually no traffic congestion on the roads in our cities, nor on the Johannesburg-Durban national road on a normal working day. Consequently it is clear that the utilization of private transport at peak periods or before and after long weekends in particular, necessitates the spending of vast amounts on new facilities. Consequently if these people have to pay for the utilization of or for the necessity for the new facilities, one could in that case demonstrate that it is possible, for example, to reduce assessment rates considerably, and even income tax as well, although not to the same extent, so that the choice of the means of transport can be made on a more rational basis and the subsidizing of injudicious users of the transport system will be eliminated by judicious users. User-paying methods must be carefully approached so that they are not in themselves discriminating, as they would be if a levy were to be imposed on fuel alone, for this would mean that a person who stays 2 km from the centre, would contribute twice as much as a person who stays 1 km from the centre, whereas both contribute equally to the need to have the additional lane available during the peak period. After all, one can only be in one place at any given time and basically it is therefore the access to the system rather than distance or the time which is spent on the system which is relevant. In this case peak period licences could perhaps be a better method of assessing regular users. One could also make use of a fine without a stigma or even a toll, when it comes to the irregular users of the facilities. In this regard the research I have already carried out looks promising. The licences are not excessively expensive, but have a considerable effect on reducing assessment rates for example, so that one knows what one is paying for.

Another aspect to which I have referred is the use of multi-purpose vehicles. Here, for example, one could think of small employers’ transporters which could be used later in the day as delivery vehicles. Something I have given particular attention to, is trailer-type buses which are drawn by a towing unit, or rather mechanical horses. Those mechanical horses could fulfil a different function later in the day by towing a different kind of trailer. In this regard even private contractors could be used to make the necessary mechanical horses available while bus trailers could be provided by the municipalities for the mechanical horses of private enterprise are not as busy during the mornings and afternoons as when the trailers are being loaded and off-loaded.

I hope that the above-mentioned guidelines—I could elaborate on them considerably if I had a lot of time—may prove useful to the commission which has been appointed and I am prepared to discuss these guidelines in depth if this is required.

Mr. Chairman, apart from the advice I was given here from the back benches, I want to commence by saying that I consider it to be a very great honour and privilege to be able to speak in this House for the first time, and also to be able to represent the Potgietersrus constituency here.

Allow me to convey my sincere gratitude to my predecessor, Mr. Fame Herman, who represented the constituency very ably in this House for 13 years. I also want to avail myself of the opportunity of wishing him every success as a member of the President’s Council.

In the discussion of this Vote I should like to broach a matter which is of the utmost importance and significance to my constituency. Before doing so, however, I want to focus on a few matters as a background against which I want to motivate my appeal as well as possible. In the first place I want to refer to the speech which the hon. the Prime Minister made in this House on 3 August this year. In this speech a series of extremely interesting statements were made, but I want to refer in particular to the far-reaching significance of the announcement which the hon. the Prime Minister made when he said that the emphasis would in future be placed on regional development which would, inter alia, be brought about by means of industrial decentralization and deconcentration.

I do not want to be guilty here of imparting information rather than giving an analysis now. However, in my opinion a very specific political and economic way or pattern of thinking is to be found in the formulations and statements of the hon. the Prime Minister; a way of thinking which really ought to serve as a directive for us in politics and in economics. What the statements amount to in a nutshell is that we are going to move away from polarization in regional development. What is meant by this is that the way of thinking pertaining to the future development of this country will not be done on an either-or basis but on an and-and basis; i.e. not either the city or the rural areas are being focussed on, not only the one or the other population group is important, but both the city and the rural areas and all population groups are of cardinal importance in the development process.

In my opinion this departure from polarization is concerned with the amalgamation of two poles in a dynamic realism. It concerns a powerful approach to specific realities, in which the emphasis is placed on an umbrella-like economic development, which will affect this whole country and its entire population.

In Hansard of 3 August this year, column 56, the hon. the Prime Minister uttered the following commendable words—

It is this very statement which holds out a great deal of hope and promise for the Northern Transvaal region in general, and for the Potgietersrus constituency in particular. This hope and promise is neither unrealistic nor unfounded, for Potgietersrus is an economic growth point which borders on the self-governing Lebowa. Furthermore, Potgietersrus is situated in an area with exceptional possibilities in various spheres. Naturally it is not possible to furnish all the particulars which I have assembled in these documents before me—a whole pile of them. I have only ten minutes at my disposal, and that is why I must be brief. For that reason I shall single out only a few of the aspects.

In the first place my constituency plays a very important part in the sphere of agriculture. The Potgietersrus district is the most important cattle breeding district in the Transvaal and one of the world’s largest citrus industries, viz. Zebediela, is situated in the vicinity of Potgietersrus. In the second place I want to focus on an aspect which may be unknown to many hon. members in this House, viz. the fact that the Potgietersrus district is considered to be one of the most important mining districts in the Northern Transvaal. Two of the three productive tin mines in South Africa are situated there, i.e. Zaaiplaats and Union Tin. Then, too, there are mining activities at towns such as Warm Baths, Naboomspruit, Roedtan and Marble Hall. The great potential in the district in the form of coal on the Springbok Flats, warrants special mention.

Thirdly, and finally, the mineral springs in my constituency ensure a very active holiday industry. In 1980 446 631 people visited or stayed at the six holiday resorts there, and even more people are expected at such inland holiday resorts this year, inter alia, as a result of fuel prices.

Hon. members will understand that all these activities, particularly as far as transportation is concerned, make heavy demands on a national road such as the N1 North. This road is the main artery from Johannesburg to Pretoria which runs right through my constituency, and extends northwards as far as Lebowa. To approximately 8 km from Warm Baths the N1 is now a four-lane freeway or through road. But from there it is a single carriageway up to the entrance to Warm Baths. Then we still have the single carriageway which comes from the Black area of Hammanskraal. These two single carriageways cause a tremendous bottleneck at the entrance of Warm Baths, which results in constant traffic congestion, which is almost impossible to control any longer. On weekends in particular this road is overutilized and during the last Easter weekend 18 840 vehicles were counted by the traffic department at the entrance to Warm Baths within a period of 19 hours. Motorists became so impatient that there were people who literally assaulted each other, and one motorist became so impatient that, in desperation, he drew his revolver and shot the temporary traffic light to smithereens, scattering red, orange and green pieces of glass all over the place. This actually happened. Now add to this the almost 2 million Black people who drive northwards through all these towns to annual religious gatherings, on a road which has already been found inadequate to carry so much traffic, and you will realize why the situation has become almost intolerable.

Traffic counts have indicated that annually approximately 1,8 million vehicles use the N1 road from the end of the freeway into Warm Baths. From Warm Baths up to Nylstroom the figure is 1,4 million vehicles per annum—50% more than the previous year. Fatal road accidents between Warm Baths and Naboomspruit rose from 13 to 35 during the period 1 July 1980 to 1 July 1981. An increase of 169,2%. [Time expired.]

By your leave, Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to two matters. These are matters which not only cause unpleasantness, but which also irritate and in addition send one’s blood pressure soaring if they do not upset one badly. However, before coming to them, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Potgietersrus on his maiden speech. The debut was impressive, the subject stimulating and we hope and trust that he will have an open road and a wide one without too many corrugations in this House.

The first point I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, is the pollution of our national roads. It was my privilege to undertake a short tour recently from Hartbeespoort Dam via the Riviera of Pretoria, the Hennops River Valley, on the way to Jan Smuts Airport. What I saw there along the roadside, in the form of empty beer bottles, cartons, empty orange bags and pieces of plastic material, certainly did my peace of mind no good at all. I just feel that, since sermons no longer seem to have the salutary effect they ought to have in this regard, we should, as far as our public is concerned, give very serious consideration to making these offences punishable. This could very easily happen in civil cases if one merely requested the presiding judicial officer, with the assistance of the traffic inspectors—no new machinery need be created to deal with this aspect—simply to compel such persons, who have been caught and warned, to go and remove the pollution over a distance of 2 km or 1 km of that national road on a day like today—this delightful champagne day in the Cape. Then I do not think it will be long before we are rid of this offence and this evil practice. We are making rubbish dumps of our national roads, something which I do not even allow in my backyard. We have splendid scenic beauty and wonderful engineering works, for example bridges with pillars like those of wedding cake, but they are being abused and defaced by some of our road users, with an indifference which verges on ill manners. I do not know whether we can allow conduct of this nature to continue any longer, and consequently I ask that at some time or other we must give this matter our serious attention.

A second matter to which I want to draw attention, is that strange form of terrorism which also occurs on our national roads. I am referring to the “hell drivers” which use our national roads on a Sunday morning in particular. I have seen races being held on a national road between two bridges on a Sunday morning. I do not want to deprive our young people of their pleasures and romanticism, for I, too, had a motor-cycle in my young days, but that was still before the denim days, which gave the De Winters of Doornhoek so many problems. I, too, picked up my girl-friend to take her for a ride but we never had those problems. [Interjections.] I can give hon. members the assurance that I could handle my motorcycle; in fact, I could cut in front of a horse and pass under its chin without touching it. However, with these 1 000cc motor cycles I would have driven a tunnel through that horse, and I would not have had the privilege of issuing this timely warning today. [Interjections.] But my motor-cycle also knew the way to church on a Sunday morning between nine and ten o’clock. Today, however, we hold races on our national roads instead of going to church. This is no tall story, Sir, for at times there is a rally with hundreds of these terrible monsters roaring down the national road. If one cannot control it, such a motor-cycle will drive right through my Mercedes Benz, to say nothing of a horse.

The Minister rides on one.

Yes, but the Minister dates from my time, and when he rides to church on his motor-cycle, he has to ride slowly. We are becoming flippant about this subject, but it is a serious and very dangerous matter, and I believe it is necessary for us to reflect on this matter in good time, before tragedy intervenes and we have to pay the sacrifice in previous human lives in respect of that which we want to risk and allow with such resignation today. I think this is unforgivable, and a very serious matter, which requires the urgent attention of the transport authorities.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that every hon. member will agree with me when I say it is a great pleasure to see the hon. member for North Rand back in the House.

Hear, hear!

Ever since I have been a member, he has made valuable contributions to Transport and Railways debates. As hon. members know, he has been ill recently, and I am very pleased to see him back here, taking part in this debate again. I am also very pleased to be able to say that I agree entirely with him when he talks about the need for greater control over pollution of our roads. It seems to be getting worse in certain areas and I do think the department should start to consider ways and means of improving the present situation. It seems such a pity that people have so little regard for our national heritage, the beauty of our countryside, to the extent that they will throw empty beer cans and cartons out of their windows and so make a real mess of our countryside.

On behalf of the Opposition benches I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Potgietersrus on his maiden speech. I am pleased that he was here to make a speech on national roads because I want to talk about national roads today. I am sure that having started in this way the hon. member will continue to make a valuable contribution to these debates.

I should like to talk about national roads and especially with regard to the stated functions of the National Transport Commission. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to page 50 of the report of the Department of Transport and of the NTC for 1979-’80 where these functions are clearly stated. The first is: “Programme Management and Finance”. Paragraph 2.1 on page 51 of the report reads as follows—

That is one of the functions of the commission. I raise this because I am most concerned about the cut-back which occurred at the beginning of this year in the construction of national roads. A lot of publicity was given to it in January and February of this year. As a result of this I asked the hon. the Minister what the cause of the cut-back was. On 26 February this year the following answer was given to Question No. 351—

1. (1) Yes. The income to the National Road Fund has diminished by 40% in real terms during the last two financial years. In addition contract prices and estimates for new works have risen during the past year by between 25 and 40%.

This is the reason that was given by the hon. the Minister. However, I would have thought that if the department was carrying out its functions in terms of financial planning correctly it would have taken cognizance of the fact that there was inflation and that costs were rising and that they would have made sufficient provision for this instead of having this cut-back halfway through some of the projects. I raise this because I believe there is a fault in the department’s management in this respect because if one studies what has happened over the past two or three years one will find that in about 1978 the levy on fuel which was used to finance national roads was increased from 2,154c per litre to 2,579c per litre. If one reads the Hansard of that time it is quite clear that the Opposition supported the hon. the Minister. At the time I said that we welcomed it. As the hon. member for Potgietersrus and other hon. members said today, transportation is an absolute essential in a modern developing economy such as ours. To have adequate transportation we have to have good roads. We supported it at the time. However, in 1979 the hon. the Minister introduced the National Roads Amendment Bill which sought to reduce that levy from 2,579c per litre to 2,354c per litre. During the Second Reading debate on the National Roads Amendment Bill in 1979 I said (Hansard, 12 February 1979, col. 481)—

The hon. the Minister said further along in the debate, however, that it was correct that it would not inhibit the development of the national road. That was in 1979. Eighteen months or nearly two years later, however, we now find out that the national road’s construction has been cut back. Could the hon. the Minister please tell me how this could happen when contracts had already been awarded? Could it be that the sudden cut-back is due to the fact that somebody has not been doing his homework properly?

This brings me to my next point which has to do with planning. There are some very urgently needed highways in South Africa. One of the aspects I have spoken about for many years now is that of the bridge over the Umkomaas River on the N2 highway. On page 69 of the report there is an indication of the amount of money that has been budgeted for this section of the national road. That hon. Minister is, of course, a new Minister in this portfolio, but I nevertheless want to put it to him that the crucial section of this stretch of national road is the Umkomaas bridge. Without that bridge one might as well not have the rest of the new section of national road that is being built there. If one looks at the budget, one sees that there is something like R40 million or more being spent on this stretch of national road, but without that crucial bridge, the rest will remain partly closed. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to my files on this. A few years back the local authorities on the Upper South Coast got together—I think it was about four years ago—and pointed out how urgently the Umkomaas bridge was needed. Looking at the progress that has so far been made on this stretch on national road, however, one sees that the Umkomaas bridge is going to be the last sector of this stretch of road to be completed. The reason why Umkomaas is so important is that there is the Saiccor Rayon Factory just inland from Umkomaas, and hundreds of thousands of tons of timber travel right through the town of Umkomaas to the factory and return carrying rayon from the factory through the town to the ports. Every day, 24 hours a day, there are these heavy-duty trucks going right through the residential area of this town. For years now everybody who lives in the area has said the Umkomaas bridge is the most important sector of that stretch of road. So let us get that built first so as to divert that heavy traffic away from the town. The planning of this project, however, shows that the Umkomaas bridge is going to be the last section of the highway to be completed. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could not perhaps chase things up a bit?

I want to make a further point about cutting back on national roads. Fortunately, owing to our appeals, it was decided not to cut back on the Umkomaas bridge, although that was initially the intention. Another very important stretch of national road lies between Westville and the Paradise Valley interchange on the section N3/1. Earlier this session I asked which were the 10 busiest stretches of road in South Africa. Four of them are in Natal, and the second busiest stretch is that between Westville and the Paradise Valley interchange. This cut-back on national road construction will delay the construction of the new freeway which would bypass Kloof and Field’s Hill. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give real consideration to the fact that there are certain stretches of highway in regard to which we simply cannot afford to have any delay, and this particular one in the vicinity of Pinetown is extremely important. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti made a fine speech, and I am sure the hon. the Minister listened to it very sympathetically.

It is said that South Africans are digging their own graves, not with a pick and shovel, but with a knife and fork. Last year the S.A. Airways served 3 213 460 meals on its flights and I think all of us are satisfied and highly delighted with the quality of the service and of the meals. South Africa is also gaining a good reputation among our foreign visitors as a result of the quality of the service, and the food which is being presented on our aircraft. Consequently I do not want to advocate today that the meals must be abolished, for they are an asset to us. Nor do I want to criticize them, for they are very good. However, it is very disturbing to observe how much of the food is being wasted. I maintain that probably 30%, or perhaps even more, of the food which is being served, is not being eaten. Quite apart from the moral aspect of this I do not believe that our economy can afford this.

Order! I just want to remind the hon. member that the question of the food which is being served on aircraft can be raised in the debate on the Railway budget. It does not fall under the Transport Vote. The hon. member must return to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman …

You have left the rails.

And you have never been on the rails, my friend.

But at least I remain on the right rails politically. Some people have gone astray politically.

I want to congratulate the S.A. Airways on the exceptional services which are being rendered. I think our airports are in a good condition. We noted with great appreciation the extensions which are being undertaken at our local airport. We have also taken cognizance of the large-scale expansion, which I believe was very necessary, at Jan Smuts Airport in order to place our international airports in particular, on a par with the large international airports in the rest of the world. As the number of tourists increases we can expect to have to cope with probably a million tourists at our airports in South Africa within the foreseeable future. Consequently it is of the utmost importance to give timeous attention, as is being done, to making our airports really adequate to cope with the great demands which are going to be made on them in future.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister on behalf of that part of my constituency which is situated so far from here, viz. Walvis Bay. I should like to request the hon. the Minister to give attention to the possible improvement of the airport facilities at Walvis Bay. Of course this matter affects the Defence Force as well, because the existing Rooikop Aerodrome outside Walvis Bay is situated on military property and is, of course, being used as a military airfield as well. However, I do not see the fact that this affects the Defence Force as an insurmountable problem, since all airports in South Africa provide facilities for military aircraft. Consequently the fact that this aerodrome is situated on military property, in contrast to the other airports which probably fall under the hon. the Minister’s department, ought not, in my opinion, to cause any great problem. This department is in any event responsible for civil airport facilities in the first place, and in my opinion the hon. the Minister ought not to tolerate lower standards merely on the basis of the fact that the airports or the service which is being provided falls under a different department.

I want to say at once that the facilities which exist in Walvis Bay at this stage are of a very poor standard. It is an ugly, unattractive place, and it is very primitive. I think that that area truly deserves something better. If one compares Walvis Bay with other towns with airport facilities on the basis of air traffic, one finds that, as far as civil aviation is concerned, Walvis Bay is comparable with places like Oudtshoorn, Plettenberg Bay or Keetmanshoop. Both Oudtshoorn and Plettenberg Bay are towns where there are 14 flights per week. Keetmanshoop has six or seven flights per week, and Walvis Bay has 10 flights per week. I am sure what the position is with regard to Plettenberg Bay, but in my opinion Oudtshoorn and Keetmanshoop most definitely have infinitely better facilities than Walvis Bay at this stage.

For the most part the flights to and from Walvis Bay are fully booked. I can assure this House that on every occasion I have had to fly there, I had problems in obtaining a seat. Furthermore there is every indication that a demand for further flights already exists. In addition there are, even at this stage, limited signs of economic recovery and revival in Walvis Bay which will in fluence the demand. Recently an authoritative study was also made of the tourist potential of Walvis Bay. It was found that there is indeed a considerable potential for tourism. The committee which investigated the matter rightly pointed out that the development of tourism there must be concentrated on those things which are unique to that enclave, for example the almost unbelievable and absolutely unique bird life which is to be found there. That, too, is something which will have an effect on the need for proper transport and infrastructure facilities in general in that area. Because it is a remote area, people naturally prefer to fly there.

In my opinion all these factors necessitate good airport facilities and signify that that area indeed deserves them. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to attend to this matter as rapidly and as urgently as possible and to consult with the hon. the Minister of Defence in order to see what can be done about it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Berea in regard to the issue of third party insurance which he raised this morning. The Grosskopf Committee, appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Grosskopf of the Cape Division of the Supreme Court, is already functioning. Their terms of reference are to investigate the whole issue of third party insurance, and they will submit a report on the matter. As I have said, the committee is already engaged in the investigation. The names of the members of the committee have appeared in the Press. Very serious attention is being given to the issue of third party insurance. On a later occasion I shall refer again to other matters raised by the hon. member for Berea.

I now turn to the hon. member for Roodeplaat. We have taken cognizance of the representations made by the hon. member in connection with urban transport. It is true that the funds we have received have varied. In the 1978-’79 financial year, R1,4 million was voted for urban transport. Now the figure is R19 million. In 1977-’78, Johannesburg obtained R450 000 and Pretoria, R84 000. At the moment the amount for Johannesburg is R6,9 million and for Pretoria, R2,9 million. Proportionately according to population, this allocation is quite in order. The hon. member will bear in mind that in my reply before lunch I said that we now wished to consider the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission at Cabinet level and make them available to hon. members. We must begin to implement them and in this way collect funds which will cover this whole matter raised by the hon. member. Additional funds will be made available by way of the three contributors, the employer, the employee and the Government.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga said that he wanted me to sleep well at night and that he was going to sing me a lullaby or tell me a bedtime story. However, it was a tragedy to listen to his telling us about the vanishing airport at La Mercy. I think the hon. member has made a mistake. We have already purchased the land there which cost us nearly R8 million. Certain problems have been experienced in regard to this airport. The hon. member mentioned the fact that he had been told that there was planning in this regard. Now that planning is being done and once this has been completed, we are going to ask for tenders through the architects. However, it is estimated that this airport will be completed by 1988.

81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88! [Interjections.]

The first phase of the construction will cost R26 million but the buildings which it is also estimated will be completed by 1988 will cost in the neighbourhood of R60 million. With escalation this amount will be far higher.

*The amount set aside for landing and terminal navigational aids will comprise an additional amount of R8 million. This, too, will take place in 1988. Sir, good things take a long time. [Interjections.] When we expropriated Tongaat, we had that whole tragedy of valuations and disputes. However, that money has already been paid. We cannot do everything in one year. However, I want to say this to the hon. member.

†The hon. member said that we were completely justified in spending money on the Louis Botha Airport. At the moment we are spending R5 million at that airport on work that is to be completed next year. Some of the work is already half completed. The hon. member can see it for himself. We are spending this amount of R5 million on Louis Botha Airport in the interim and we shall always use that airport. Therefore, the disruption is not so great. However, I can assure the hon. member that we are going to build a smart airport at La Mercy, an international type airport.

We’ll be retired by the time it’s finished.

If I am still alive, will the hon. the Minister invite me to the opening?

I am sure that if he is still around, the hon. member will be one of the main speakers at that opening function. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Welkom made a very sound contribution in connection with the National Road Safety Council. I just want to say to the hon. member that we have increased the amount by 50%. Last year, with the aid of the Opposition, we have increased the amount of 50 cent per car to 75 cents per car and as a result, R4 million will accrue to the National Road Safety Council.

I shall reply to the hon. member who spoke about drivers in charge of motor vehicles who are under the influence of alcohol. I shall reply to his questions at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, may I please put a question to the hon. the Minister? [Interjections.]

By all means.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could say a few words about the possibility of making a few sidings available between Ellisras and Thabazimbi for the purpose of loading very fine bushveld cattle. [Interjections.] I also want to ask him whether he would not build a railway line for us. Perhaps I should ask that on a later occasion. [Interjections.] Before he comes to that I want to say that this is only between Dwaalboom and Middelwit and between Beestekraal and Thabazimbi. [Interjections.]

Sir, that is really an exceptionally intelligent question. [Interjections.] I was saddled with the same problem, because when one is a Minister, one cannot ask for things for one’s constituency so that it gets recorded in Hansard. The hon. the Minister of State Administration took the gap with flair and his request will be recorded in Hansard. I should like to place it on record that I received his letter … [Interjections.] … and that we are giving it very sympathetic consideration.

The hon. member for—where was I before the hon. the Minister put his question?

At Dwaalboom! [Interjections.]

It is really tough when the leader of the NP in the Transvaal cuts one off in the middle of one’s sentence.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed said that we should bring together what belongs together. In reply, I wish to point out to the hon. member that the department has already investigated the possibility of computerizing statistics relating to the whole transport structure in the Republic, in the department itself. Scientific analysis also indicates that such a step is in fact practicable but that the services of approximately 20 units will be required in order to achieve the desired result.

The hon. member also referred to the amalgamation of the various transport organizations. We must deal with this situation by having it all fall under the National Transport Commission, which will have to effect the necessary co-ordination. We have recognized the following bodies as mouthpieces for the road transport industry: The Federation of Road Transport Associations, the S.A. Tour and Safari Association—Satsa—the Passenger Transport Association of South Africa and the Bus Operators Association of Southern Africa—Boasa. The above indicates that the department has already made a great deal of progress in creating and recognizing mouthpieces for the road transport industry and getting them together. It is gratifying that when we request them to come together, the request does not fall on deaf ears. It is apparent from facts that have come to my attention that some of the road transport associations have already entered into an agreement to amalgamate, and an invitation to the other road transport associations to form part of the amalgamation is envisaged.

The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed made a sound contribution. I always say that if one can have something done, one does not do it oneself. There are many hon. members on my side who furnish me with advice and assist me in this task. I am very grateful to them.

†The hon. member for Walmer made out a case for more financial aid for the S.A. Surf Life-Saving Association. He pointed out what wonderful work these people are doing. I think nobody in this House will ever disagree with the hon. member on that score. Those people really help us to have holidays at leisure on the beaches. We are very sympathetic towards the request for more finances. We have made this a matter of national interest and this means that the provincial administrations can make contributions. The Department of Transport is looking into this matter and we have requested the hon. the Minister of Finance for more financial support for the S.A. Surf Life-Saving Association.

*The hon. member for Beaufort West discussed weather forecasts. Everyone who comes from Beaufort West and from the gravel-road parts of our country has respect for the weather. Such people speak of the weather with respect. The hon. member made a study of the major task performed by the Weather Bureau of this department. I want to convey my very sincere thanks to him. I believe in predictions. Approximately 24 hours before the snow fell, the weather report told us that snow would fall on the Eastern Highveld. This was stated in the weather report. I heard it with my own ears. While I am about it, I also predict that the Springboks are going to win tomorrow morning by 19 points to 12. [Interjections.]

Old Seer Schoeman.

My sincere thanks once again to the hon. member for Beaufort West for his contribution.

The hon. member for Greytown discussed transport problems in urban areas, particularly during the rush hour. He said that he had researched certain aspects of this matter. He also discussed toll gates, gate tax and multi-purpose buses. In Randburg we have launched a project in conjunction with the municipality. We are doing these things with the co-operation of municipalities. On that occasion I said to the people there that in a place like Los Angeles they had urban buses fitted with brackets at the rear of the bus. A man and his wife on the way to work travel to the busstop on their bicycles. When they get there they hang their bicycles on the back of the bus and wherever they alight from the bus—perhaps five or six blocks from the factory where they work—they take the bicycles down and ride to work. This is a practical method. The hon. member for Greytown apparently has a wide knowledge of this. I am grateful for the contribution he made. We shall give attention to the matter.

The hon. member for Potgietersrust should rather change the name of his constituency. I would prefer him to be the hon. member for Marble Hall. [Interjections.] Honestly, if one wants to talk about a beautiful place in that constituency … Potgietersrus is of course quite all right, but Marble Hall is much better. [Interjections.] I want to congratulate the hon. member on his fine maiden speech. I believe that he will render useful service in this House and of course in the study groups as well. I think the people in his constituency can be pleased that they have obtained a person like him to represent them here. The hon. member referred to the N1 road. He was not exaggerating. There is no doubt that problems are going to arise, particularly on Friday afternoons when the light vans and kombis—queues and queues of them carrying Black people on their way to their homes in Lebowa, etc.—cause a bottleneck on that road. We shall have to ask the National Transport Commission whether it is not possible to effect an improvement even though it is only the section of the road past Warmbaths. We shall definitely have to give attention to that matter. This is a general problem. I thank the hon. member once again for his contribution.

The hon. member for North Rand discussed pollution. The road to which he refers is unfortunately a provincial road. Even as far as national roads are concerned, however, we must find a method of instilling neatness in people and cultivating in them a pride in their country. Other hon. members have also referred to this matter.

They ought to be fined.

If one wants to fine them, then one also needs people to catch them. However, I wonder whether this should not be largely a task of education. This is something that really troubles me. In this beautiful country of ours with its fine roads it troubles me that it is being befouled everywhere with plastic and all kinds of other rubbish.

The hon. member went on to refer to the 100 cc motor-cycles. He must not condemn 100 cc motor-cycles.

The 1000 cc motor-cycle.

Oh, the 1000 cc motorcycle? It is the 150 cc motor-cycles that make so much noise. The 1000 cc motorcycle does not make such a lot of noise. I agree that it is wrong to use our roads to hold races and that kind of thing. A really dedicated motor-cycle rider is one who rides without making a noise, who rides without troubling others. He chooses a quiet road such as the one through the Springbok Vlakte and then, at about midnight, he lets rip. That is when the “speed cops” are asleep. [Interjections.] However, I agree with the hon. member on that score. These people are a pest. Actually, they are only trying to show off. [Interjections.]

Why do you race to church so fast on your motor-cycle, Hendrik? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the report of the National Transport Commission. He also referred to the cut-backs. I will refer to certain roads in Natal later, and also to the bridge over the Umkomaas river. All I can tell the hon. member is that on every litre of petrol sold we receive 2,354 cents. It used to be 2,579 cents. The only solution is to increase the contribution by petrol consumers by another 1 cent. Then we will have enough money. That will, however, be an inflationary step. It will cost people extra money.

Why did you drop it last year?

That was because of problems experienced with the oil prices. If the petrol price is increased by only 1 cent per litre it costs the population of the country millions of rand. We are looking into the whole matter. Ultimately, I think, we will have to increase the price of petrol again by 1 cent per litre in order to let people have better roads on which to travel. I shall refer to that again later.

*The hon. member for Hercules said that we should adopt the overseas approach to our international airports. A former Minister of Transport Affairs once took it very much amiss of me for saying that the plans of the Jan Smuts Airport must definitely have become confused with those of the Johannesburg Market. [Interjections.] We now have an airport in which one has to get on a bus to get to the aircraft. This causes disruption. The hon. member is quite right. For example, when one arrives at a place like Paris, where one walks onto the aircraft through a walkway, one is first herded into a room. Nowadays we waste a great deal of time. A person is first given a seat number and then he goes for a drink in the bar, and eventually the paging system has to keep repeating: “Will the one who is delaying the flight, please turn up?” In the mean time, the other people are sitting waiting in the aircraft. The aircraft is unable to depart because that man’s baggage is in the aircraft and there could be something in it. In a modern airport one begins by sitting in a room, and when one walks out of the door, one gets a “hot dog” which one can eat over a distance equivalent to that from Johannesburg to Durban. Why should people be used to serve you with a tray if the flight lasts only three quarters of an hour? Once one is in that room, one can no longer have a drink, and that is all. From there one gets onto a walkway which takes one to the aircraft. I do not want to describe all the airports, but the hon. member made a “smart speech”. Thank you very much.

The hon. member for Green Point raised the issue of the Walvis Bay airport, which is really a military matter. The Director-General has sent me a note in which he mentions that he conducted discussions about this airport yesterday, and I shall inform the hon. member later about the progress that has been made. However, this must be done in co-operation with the Department of Defence. I just want to make a few announcements, and if I forget some things I shall go through Hansard and reply in writing to the representations made by hon. members.

This year the National Road Safety Council is again launching an alcohol project. On the basis of the present trend, 9 500 people will lose their lives in road accidents in our country this year. This is more than 800 more than the 8 700 real deaths we had in 1972. On the basis of the research financed earlier this year by the NRSC, there will be a very strong emphasis on law enforcement in regard to the consumption of alcohol. This year, road accidents are going to cost South Africa R1,2 milliard. Can hon. members believe that? The pain and misery of the direct and indirect victims can never be expressed in money. Let us, then, display goodwill and responsibility in the future and in particular, not get behind a steering-wheel when alcohol has been consumed. We shall simply have to take far more stringent action in this connection, because we cannot afford to lose so many lives.

Another matter to which we are going to give attention is the financing of roads. The cost of road construction, as I have already mentioned to hon. members, increases by 25% per annum. When the National Road Fund was established in 1935, 17% of the total cost of fuel was allocated to the National Road Fund. Today this figure is 4%. In other words, we are lagging behind, and proportionately we are not getting enough out of the fuel price. In this regard I shall have to rely on the assistance of hon. members. I am pleased to hear the kind of speech which calls for finance so that certain projects are not neglected.

The priorities of the National Transport Commission with regard to new projects are: Meeting existing commitments; maintenance requirements; building of special roads; completion of ring roads around the large urban areas—the hon. member for Langlaagte referred to Uncle Charlie—the building of national roads outside the cities; the building of route N3 between Durban and Johannesburg.

Some of these more important works to which I refer which will have to be delayed due to a lack of funds include, firstly, the contracts south of Johannesburg for the completion of the Johannesburg ring road, including the elimination of large scale traffic congestion at Uncle Charlie. The remaining work is estimated at R55 million at 1981 prices, and in today’s circumstances we have to delay this for two years. The section of the national route 3 between Frere and its junction with the existing road between Ladysmith and Van Reenen amounts to R65 million at 1981 prices and it is estimated that it will now have to be delayed for three years. The section of route N1 between Warmbaths and Nylstroom—the road of the hon. member for Potgietersrus—will cost altogether R25 million, and will be delayed for three years, except that we are now going to give priority to the section at Warmbaths. The extension of route N4 eastwards past Middelburg, which will cost R10 million, will unfortunately have to be delayed for two years. The Du Toitskloof tunnel scheme, in respect of which commitments amounting to R30 million have already been entered into, and R75 million is still to be tendered for, will have to be delayed for at least two years, and perhaps longer if sufficient funds are not made available to the NRF.

It is expected that several other projects programmed for construction at a later stage will be subject to similar or longer delays. Apart from this, all these and above projects will be subjected to still longer delays if the request by the Department of Transport for an additional parliamentary appropriation of funds in the 1982-’83 financial year is not complied with.

Then, too, there is a section of route 3 in the Geldenhuys and Gilloolys interchange on the Johannesburg Eastern bypass, with a daily traffic rate of 52 000. while on route 3 between Durban and Pinetown the daily traffic rate is 49 000. On route 1 at the Kraaifontein interchange on the road between Cape Town and Paarl, there is a daily traffic rate of 40 000, and the Ben Schoeman freeway between Johannesburg and Pretoria has a daily traffic rate of 38 000. These roads have to be maintained and certain works have to be constructed. Similar traffic figures apply in respect of various other sections of the national road up to and including the one with the tenth highest rate. That is the section of national route 2 at the Umbogintwini River on the Natal South Coast, the average annual daily traffic on which is 20 000. For the section of route N3 between Pinetown and Kloof, the figure is 30 000—that is extremely heavy traffic density—whereas between Kloof and Gilletts the figure is 19 000. When I look at all these figures and see how our road traffic is increasing, I must give the undertaking that I shall do my best to find methods—perhaps hon. members will give us all the stages in Parliament—to give the National transport Commission the right to enter into loans on the foreign or domestic market.

There are still just two points I wish to touch on briefly. I referred a moment ago to toll roads. If we were to build a fine bridge over the Umkomaas, would its users be content to pay 50 cents when crossing it, to enable us to cover the building cost? The Assyrians built the first toll road between Syria and Babylon. In Britain, the first toll road was built in the year 1189. In the then Cape Colony a toll was introduced as long ago as 1812 by the Governor. Tollgates were erected at several places, one of the most wellknown being that at Sir Lowry’s Pass. In Natal a tollgate was in use from 1886 up to 1900 at the top of Berea Road in Durban-Tollgate. In 1872 the first tollgates were built in the Orange Free State. Can hon. members believe that they had tollgates in the Orange Free State? [Interjections.] The Orange Free State did not even want to contribute Free State hunting fees to shoot jackal, and yet they allowed tollgates. The landdrosts and veld-cornets in the Free State levied this money which had to be paid for use of the roads. We shall therefore have to continue with the investigation and I believe that the public will not be unwilling to pay toll at the Du Toitskloof tunnel or the bridge over the Umkomaas River. For example I saw a bridge in Taiwan that cost R50 million to build, and within four years that money was paid off by way of toll fees paid by the fellows passing on their motor-cycles. I believe this is the direction in which we shall have to move in order to resolve these problems. An investigation is at present being carried out by the National Transport Commission and other bodies in connection with tollgates and I hope we shall receive general support for this.

The final aspect to which I should like to refer is direct access to resting places along national roads. In Pretoria News of 20 August this year the following report appears—

We have appointed a working committee under the chairmanship of the Department of Transport. The task of the committee is chiefly to investigate the layout and spacing of resting and service areas along national roads and the nature and quality of services and facilities to be provided in these areas. The committee must make recommendations in this regard to the National Transport Commission. We have appointed to this committee representatives of the Department of Transport, various oil companies, organized commerce and industry, organized tourism, the Automobile Association, the Professional Hauliers Association, the Motor Industries Federation, the United Municipal Executive of S.A., provincial administrations and the Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister. The layout will comprise safe and convenient paved parking places with well-equipped restrooms, telephones, table and bench units, braaivleis areas, drinking water facilities and rubbish bins.

But surely that is inflation.

Since the hon. the Minister is present at the moment, I wish to say to him that I was asked what the most beautiful thing in the Cape Province was and I told him that it was the blue tarred road to the North. In any event, when I travel on this road it would be wonderful to have a place in the arid Karoo where one could stop, enjoy refreshments, have a drink, have one’s car seen to, and sleep if one wishes. It would be nice if one could have “diners”, along American lines, to be erected along our roads in an orderly fashion. That is why we have this committee which can investigate these matters so that South Africa can also be made a fine and pleasant place for the tourist and the citizen of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, stemming from the reference made by the hon. the Minister to the Free State, I just want to ask him whether he does not know of anyone who would like to go and see Western Province losing against the Free State tomorrow. I have an extra ticket and the fee is R4.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned last night, we had reached clause 54 and I had moved two amendments to the effect, basically, that the hon. the Minister would be given the power to lower the percentage of outsider-trading that could be done by a co-operative, but he could not increase the percentage of outsider-trading. The hon. the Minister did, I thought, put forward a very reasonable argument in this regard, but I should like to point out a couple of things to him about this particular clause, particularly about the rights he is claiming for himself in this Bill that will allow him to increase the percentage of outsider-trading, which would not really be in terms of the package deal, unless there were exceptional circumstances. We must, of course, always realize that exceptional circumstances can arise.

The first thing that I want to point out is that he can do this totally unilaterally. He does not have to consult with anybody. The point I made last night was that I felt that he should have to consult with the liaison committee before being able to increase the amount of outsider-trading that a cooperative could do.

The hon. the Minister is, after all, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and not the Minister of any other portfolio. His duty is therefore to the farmers and the farming community of this country. It is his job to look after the agricultural relationships and the supply of food in this country to a large extent. It is not his duty to consider commerce and industry, for instance. That is the duty of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. There is somebody else in the Cabinet that has that duty. That is why I suggested that these matters should be put to the liaison committee, because on that committee there would either be the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism or somebody from his department. One of the reasons why we suggested that this Bill should go to a select committee before Second Reading was precisely because there was no provision made in the Bill for a liaison committee. There is no doubt in my mind that it would have been quite possible for the hon. the Minister to have included this aspect in legislation and to have established such a committee in terms of this legislation. Had he established such a committee, I could then have moved an amendment which would only have allowed him to increase or decrease after consultation with the committee. Because he has not established such a committee, however, I cannot move that amendment. I therefore have to try to find some mechanism to allow consultation in this regard or to limit the Minister’s powers. These are the only two courses open to me. I still do not actually believe that we have had a satisfactory answer from the hon. the Minister to indicate why he did not establish such a liaison committee. I say this because without any shadow of a doubt it was part of the package deal. I do not think that the hon. the Minister can deny that and neither do I think that the hon. the Minister can deny that it would have been possible to have established a liaison committee in terms of this particular legislation. I can see nothing that would have prevented the hon. the Minister from having done so. We in these benches would have moved such an amendment, but it would have been out of order in this House because nobody other than the hon. the Minister can move an amendment that will cost the State money. Therefore I moved the amendment that I did. I can see the problem that the hon. the Minister has with it, but he must also see our problem. Let me repeat that I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if the hon. the Minister will undertake to discuss the matter with a liaison committee before he acts in terms of this clause.

I find it interesting that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is moving in his amendment that the word “higher” be omitted and replaced by “lower”. What is the effect of this? With reference to fixed percentages, mention is made in clause 54(3) of transactions concluded by a specific co-operative. In the Bill as a whole the issue is the business turn-over and in this regard a restriction of 5% or 50% depending on the type of co-operative that is at issue, is being imposed. If the paragraph is changed by replacing “higher” by “lower”, it will in actual fact have no effect. In the case of the business turn-over and transactions it is restricted to 5%. Then, after all, the co-operative is free in any event to conclude transactions provided it does not exceed the 5%. Therefore, it can be lower. Now the hon. member wants to restrict the measure to a lower percentage than 5%. The effect of this will be that whenever a co-operative concludes a transaction, it will in fact have to obtain the permission of the Minister, because the legislation will then provide “5% on the lower percentage”. Therefore, this cannot really be implemented in practice. There is another aspect too. In exceptional cases there is the possibility of a higher percentage being allowed, and it is in regard to similar cases that the Minister is given the right to adjust the percentage. In the first place, therefore, it is not practically possible to make that change, and in the second place the clause must remain in its present form for practical reasons.

Mr. Chairman, it really was not my intention to speak again, but after that particular speech I simply have to correct the hon. member for Ventersdorp. He suggested that the relevant paragraph should not be amended to read “or such lower percentage”. He is correct in saying that the co-operative can limit itself to a lower percentage. What I am saying, however, and what is in fact the case in paragraph (b) of the subsection I am trying to amend is that the hon. the Minister can by regulation tell a co-operative that it is not permitted to do any outsider trading at all. Therefore, in terms of the powers the hon. the Minister has, he can limit the cooperative to any percentage below 5% if he thinks that that is a desirable thing to do. That is therefore the reason for substituting “lower” for “higher” in paragraph (a). As regards paragraph (b) of the definition of “fixed percentage”, it actually says there—

If the hon. member’s argument were valid, there would be no reason to put in “or lower”, but I do not think that the hon. member’s argument is valid at all.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that I could unilaterally, i.e. entirely on my own, for instance increase the percentage of non-member business done by a co-operative. I must point out, however, that in the present Act there is no limitation imposed on the extent of non-member business. That is a fact.

Was it part of the package deal or not?

Yes, it is. We agreed on 5%. In the new legislation the limitation of 5% is included. If a co-operative wants to increase its percentage of non-member business, the Minister’s permission is required. I think it should be clear to everyone present that I shall only allow such an increase under special circumstances, because it is stated in the legislation that the limitation is 5%. To give permission to increase that limit to more than 5%, I must have very good reasons, and my decision can be questioned here in Parliament. I am, however, not prepared to empower a committee to watch my decisions. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central can take my word for it that this power will only be used in special circumstances. The fact remains that it is stated in the legislation that the limit is 5%.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 108:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on the Order Paper, as follows—

The amendment is aimed at preventing persons who have reached the age of 70 years, from being deprived of the right to act as directors of co-operatives. We on this side of the House feel that it is unnecessary to place that restriction on persons who may possibly be able to make a very constructive contribution to the industry in spite of their age. On the occasion of the Second Reading we pointed out that we intended moving an amendment in this regard, and if I understood it correctly, a number of hon. members on that side indicated that they would support us in this respect, and here I am thinking in particular of the hon. member for Paarl. Therefore, I move the amendment in the knowledge that it will be supported.

Mr. Chairman, the insertion of an age limit in terms of this clause was, in actual fact, a new principle that was being introduced in this legislation. When the draft Bill was published for the first time a few years ago, the co-operative council of the S.A. Agricultural Union gave a great deal of attention to this aspect. There was quite a difference of opinion. At one stage the official decision of the council was that it was acceptable, and then again they decided against it. Finally a decision was taken in favour of it and then the matter was referred to the co-operative congress which gave very careful attention to this matter last year and ultimately decided against the introduction of an age limit. Of course, there is a precedent for the introduction of an age limit because there is in fact an age limit with regard to members of control boards in the Marketing Act. On the other hand, it is true that there is no age limit in the Companies Act.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is acceptable. I should very much like to request co-operatives, that if this amendment is accepted and an age limit is not included in the legislation, the cooperatives themselves will make provision in their own statutes for an age limit to be introduced. I think it is essential for cooperatives to attempt to keep their boards of directors as young and as vital as possible. The South African Agricultural Union is doing a great deal in this regard but under the circumstances I think the amendment is acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg, is printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I shall accept the amendment.

The fact is that one cannot argue it away that there are many people who can definitely make a more constructive contribution at the age of 70 years than many people may be able to do at the age of 55 years. This is a fact. If one thinks of the fact that a man in his seventies became the President of the United States of America, then this age limit does not actually seem to be quite in line with what can happen in practice. The hon. member for Paarl also indicated here that this is a matter with regard to which there was in fact a considerable difference of opinion and division amongst farmer members and also amongst members of the Co-operative Council. As you have heard, the co-operative congress decided with a very small majority that they were opposed to the introduction of an age limit in the Co-operative Act.

I am also accepting this amendment in view of the fact that one really does not want to make it a general rule to say that all people are still capable of serving on boards of directors at the age of 70. The fact remains that there are many people who can still make a very productive contribution at that age on such a board of directors, because of the years of experience that they have gained. It is also probably ture that it may sometimes be a good thing to have a combination of older men and younger, more aggressive men on the board of directors of a co-operative in order to achieve the required balance.

Furthermore, there is the authorization whereby a co-operative can in fact lay down age limits with regard to directors in its statute. If a co-operative feels strongly about this matter—that persons above the age of 70 years should not serve on that board of directors—such a provision can in fact be introduced to the statute with the approval of the Registrar. I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 109:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment actually follows on from the amendment that has just been agreed to and I think therefore it would be senseless to conduct a long debate on it. Since the amendment to clause 108 was accepted, it means that this amendment will have to be automatically accepted.

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg, since it is in conflict with a previous decision taken by the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask you to reconsider your decision? This is a consequential amendment on the one which has just been accepted. The previous amendment removes the age limit of 70 years and this amendment provides for what happens if one is 70 years or turns 70 years. I must say that I was quite happy to have the limitation …

Yes, I am sorry, that is correct. I have made a mistake. The amendment is permissible.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is acceptable to us, except that in my opinion a small change should be made to the amendment, viz. that the present subsection (4) becomes subsection (3).

Mr. Chairman, as has already been mentioned, this is actually a consequential amendment as a result of the acceptance of the amendment to clause 108. Therefore, the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Wynberg, is acceptable to me.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 128:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (4) Unless the statute of a cooperative determines otherwise two or more members of a co-operative which are companies in respect of which another company directly or indirectly has the power to exercise control in any respect which the Minister may determine by notice in the Gazette, shall for the purposes of subsection (1), (2) and (3) of this section and sections 124, 125, 126, 130 and 180 (2) be deemed to be a single member.

This clause deals with the franchise of the members of a co-operative and corresponds largely with the existing provisions. At the request of organized agriculture, the position with regard to the franchise of members that are companies is set out in sub-section (4). According to this, two or more members that are companies and are controlled by another company, will have one vote only. This must be laid down in the statute of the co-operative. However, organized agriculture has now submitted the request that the abovementioned position of members that are companies, should be set out in the legislation itself, but that the statute of a co-operative can in fact provide otherwise.

The entire concept of co-operatives is based on the principle of one farmer, one vote in order to prevent domination of members in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment to the amendment of the hon. the Minister—

What is clause 128, as it is now going to be amended, trying to prevent? It is trying to prevent a company that has obtained interests in other small companies that are members of a co-operative, from obtaining control over the co-operative. My amendment merely aims at replacing the word “company” by “any person” because a natural person can achieve exactly the same effect as a company. Consequently, the franchise of those companies, whoever they may all be controlled by—a natural person or a company—will be restricted to one. This is the first effect of the clause as it is to be amended.

The second effect is the following. As we see, it is stated in the amendment—

I think this is very necessary because there are other forms of control too, besides those by means of the ordinary majority vote, which is the customary form of control exercized in a company. Now it means that the Minister can identify those other forms of control. He can identify them as such by means of a notice in the Gazette. I do not think there is anyone in this House tonight who can speak or vote against the amendment of this clause. Indeed, this clause has two aims only in mind. The first is to protect the autonomy of the co-operative. The second is to ensure that the members will remain in control of the co-operative under all circumstances and that a company or some outside body, will not ultimately be able to slip in at the backdoor and obtain control over that co-operative.

Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to say that we believe that both the amendment of the hon. the Minister and that of the hon. member for Namaqualand are aimed at improving the Bill, We will therefore be supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the hon. member for Namaqualand is acceptable to me, in the sense that whereas my amendment simply refers to another company, the proposed wording by the hon. member for Namaqualand, viz. that “another company” is replaced by “any person”, obviates the entire question of company and person. Therefore, it does in fact amount to increasing the power of my original amendment. Therefore, it is also an improvement as far as the effectiveness of my amendment is concerned. That is why I accept the hon. member’s amendment with pleasure.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 146:

Mr. Chairman, seeing that our last four amendments in a row have been accepted, I hope that the amendment which I am going to move now will also be accepted. Unfortunately there is a slight error in this amendment, as printed. Therefore I do not want to move the actual amendment as it appears on the Order Paper. I should like to make one very small change in it. I think the mistake in my printed amendment is the result of a printing error. Unfortunately I did not notice it in time. In my amendment, as printed, subsection (2) (a) reads as follows—

That should actually reads as follows—

That means that if we could just insert “half”, and of course the equivalent of that in the Afrikaans version, it would be correct.

The purpose of this amendment is as follows. In terms of clause 146, as it currently reads, a firm of auditors—this is a situation which does not occur very often, but it has to be provided for in legislation—can experience a change in the composition of its members. Clause 146(2) reads as follows—

In terms of the amendment I wish to move, however, if less than one-half of the members of such a firm remains after any one such change, it shall be taken as a resignation of the auditor and a casual vacancy shall have been constituted. That is perfectly clear, and a casual vacancy is created only in the event of less than half of the auditors remaining. There are many occasions in which a number of auditors break away from an established firm and join a new firm. We believe that under those circumstances a casual vacancy should not be created, and for a very good reason too. Therefore, this amendment should read as I have already explained. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (2) A change in the composition of the members of a firm of auditors while holding the office of auditor of a cooperative, shall not constitute a casual vacancy in the office of auditor if—
   1. (a) at least one-half of the members of such a firm remains after any one such change; or
   2. (b) more than one-half of the members of such a firm after any one such change join another firm of auditors,

and for the purposes of subsection (1) the firm of auditors consisting of the remaining members contemplated in paragraph (a) or the other firm of auditors contemplated in paragraph (b) shall be deemed to be the firm of auditors appointed to hold the office of auditor of the co-operative concerned.

1. (3) Any one change in the composition of the members of a firm of auditors while holding the office of auditor of a co-operative, after which less than one-half of the members of the firm concerned remain under circumstances where more than one-half of the other members of that firm after any one such change have not joined another firm of auditors shall be deemed to be a resignation of the auditor of the co-operative concerned and shall constitute a casual vacancy.

The effect of this amendment as it reads now, is only a very slight difference. The major difference, however, is to be found in paragraph (b) of the amendment which reads as follows—

Then, if it happens as in paragraph (a) that more than half remains, the auditors do not change, but if more than one-half joins another firm of auditors, “the other firm of auditors contemplated in paragraph (b) shall be deemed to be a firm of auditors appointed to hold the office of auditor of the co-operative concerned.” We believe this is an amendment that should be accepted by the hon. the Minister.

The amendment to subsection (3) brings in the situation where more than one-half of the auditors resign but they go into another business altogether. They do not go into a new firm of auditors. Then, under those circumstances, we believe that the original situation as envisaged in the Bill as it now stands, should be returned to and that in that case a casual vacancy should have been created. There is therefore just this one slight alternation.

Mr. Chairman, it is a good thing that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has now cleared up his unclear amendment, as it was printed. We accept that it is as a result of a printing error. The amendment, as the hon. member has now amended it, is not yet acceptable in my opinion, and gives us no further clarity regarding the clause in its present form in the Bill.

If one looks at the proposed subsection (2)(b) of the hon. member’s amendment, one can have the following situation: Let us say that firm A is appointed as the auditors of the co-operative. It is a firm consisting of ten partners. According to the hon. member’s proposal, if six of those partners retire from firm A and join firm B, firm B should then become the auditor of the co-operative without a vacancy arising. If we now contrast this with subsection (3) as proposed by the hon. member, we shall have this situation with the same set of facts: Six of the partners of firm A pass away or retire, but after they have retired, they do not join another firm. Therefore, four remain and basically this represents the same situation. Now the hon. member says that there is in fact a vacancy in that case and the board of directors should therefore appoint a new firm of auditors. It does not sound to me as if those two situations tally with one another. There should be no difference between the situation as foreseen by subsection (2)(b) in terms of the hon. member’s amendment and subsection (3). For that reason I feel that the amendment should be negatived.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot support this amendment as proposed because of the practical operation in the normal auditing firm. Where there are a number of partners in a firm, there are usually one or two of these who deal with the audit of any particular client. Although there may be half a dozen or 10 partners, one only deals with those who work with one’s actual audit. One often does not even know the other members of the firm. If one has 10 partners in a firm, as a previous speaker mentioned, of whom two or three are concerned with the audit of a cooperative, and six transfer to another firm, excluding those who are doing the cooperative’s audit, the co-operative will then in terms of this amendment be obliged to transfer as client to the new firm, none of whose partners, in fact, know anything about the co-operative’s audit. I believe it is correct that if there is a change, a casual vacancy should automatically be constituted so that the co-operative can then in the light of the personalities involved, determine whether it wishes to reappoint the firm or to appoint another firm. It will then make that decision in the light of whether the people who have left to go to another firm are those who are dealing with its business or not, those people who are experienced and know the co-operative and its work. I believe, therefore, that if there is a change of any magnitude, there should be a vacancy, and whatever the circumstances of that change, the co-operative should then have the right to decide whether to reappoint or whether to transfer its business. I believe that one should not bind them to either a half or less than half, irrespective of which partners make the transfer. We cannot, therefore, support this, but will support the right of a co-operative to decide for itself in the event of a change.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central because I think it is becoming monotonous accepting their amendments. That is one of the reasons why I cannot accept it and the second reason is that in my view the proposed clause 146 is the most acceptable in the circumstances.

*The fact is that if we were to accept the amendment, we would actually be depriving a co-operative of the right to nominate its auditors, as the hon. member for Ermelo and the hon. member for Durban Point correctly said. Supposing there is a firm with 10 auditors, and six of them should resign, then the right to audit the books is passed on to those six auditors. As it was correctly argued and submitted here, an auditor at a co-operative is usually the local firm of auditors. Over the years they have developed their role and they are no longer simply the auditors of that co-operative company’s books and statements, but they have in fact also become the financial advisors to such a co-operative.

In the platteland in particular, there is the trend at the moment that there are one or two firms of auditors in a town, but for reasons of their own, the auditors of five of six towns together form a large firm of auditors. That enterprise is then the auditor of the co-operatives. In the meantime two local auditors, who live in the town where the co-operative is situated, usually do the books, and one or both of them also act as the advisors to that co-operative. Should a disagreement arise in the firm of auditors and they should then decide that they want to break away from the two local auditors, and the majority break away, it means that that majority become the auditor of the co-operative. They could be spread out over a few of the neighbouring towns, whilst the local auditor, who was actually also the adviser to the co-operative, is no longer their auditor. In terms of the proposal of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, however, the co-operative then does not have a choice and they have to accept the majority of the auditors who have broken away, as their auditors. This is why clause 146 therefore provides that should the majority of an enterprise leave the enterprise concerned, a casual vacancy arises. This enables the co-operative to review the situation once again and to decide what is in the best interest of the co-operative concerned. Ten to one they will decide rather to re-appoint the remaining one or two auditors who form a local firm, because those two gentlemen are most probably also the financial advisors to that co-operative. I think in all fairness that the way in which clause 146 is being put, is the best way of taking action.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that I appreciate the case he has made out for the co-operatives. Would he say that what holds good for the cooperatives holds equally good for a company in one of those same towns where the co-operative is trading?

I would not say that. There might be a difference. Who am I to say what will serve a private company best? I have been a director and deputy chairman of a co-operative for many, many years and I am very well aware of the functions of the local auditor and the services he renders to that specific co-operative. I think therefore that clause 146 is in the best interests of the co-operative.

Mr. Chairman, I must confess to being somewhat surprised at the attitude taken by the hon. member for Ermelo and the hon. member for Durban Point, although the attitude of the hon. member for Durban Point does not surprise me quite so much. The point of the hon. the Minister certainly surprises me enormously because I would like to point out that clause 146 has been taken directly from the Companies Act.

Do you mean your amendment or clause 146?

Clause 146 as it stands in the Bill. It is exactly the same as section 274 of the Companies Act.

Why are you complaining?

The reason why I complain is very simple. On the Order Paper there is a Companies Amendment Bill, No. B89 of 1981. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism knows this. This Companies Amendment Bill has been read a First Time and in it there is a clause, clause 16 which seeks to amend section 274 of the Companies Act. The amendment that I have moved to this clause in the Co-operatives Bill seeks to make the situation the same as will be the case in the Companies Act when the Companies Amendment Bill is passed. The wording is identical as I have actually taken it from the Companies Amendment Bill. I will enjoy very much indeed quoting to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism exactly what his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, has said in regard to this and also what the hon. member for Ermelo has said.

Will you support the amendment of the Companies Act?

When we get to the Companies Amendment Bill I will support the intention behind it.

Will you support the clause as it is in the Companies Amendment Bill?

I will support the Companies Amendment Bill even if the amendment is not accepted. There is one little problem that I have with it but it is a relatively minor problem. If we had debated the Companies Amendment Bill first and my amendment had been turned down, I would still have accepted that clause. It so happens that the Cooperatives Bill is being debated before the Companies Amendment Bill. Therefore I thought it safer to take the section as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has put it before the House and transfer it directly into the Co-operatives Bill. Therefore I would suggest that if this amendment of mine is not accepted, in view of the proposed amendment to the Companies Act the hon. the Minister will be putting co-operatives on a different footing to private enterprise and the private sector. I really seriously think he should reconsider the matter.

Mr. Chairman, may I please ask the hon. member for Pretoria Central a question?

Port Elizabeth Central, actually. They would never elect me in Pretoria.

Seeing that that hon. member is so free in drawing a comparison between the co-operatives legislation and the companies legislation, will he also be prepared to be equally generous with regard to business with the public, by not placing a limitation on member business, which will then be in line with the Companies Act too?

Yes, I have absolutely no problem with that, provided that private companies are allowed to pay out bonuses instead of having to pay dividends. I certainly would have no problem as far as that is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says he will support the proposed amendment of the Companies Act conditionally.

†Is his amendment, in fact, a carbon copy of the clause in the Companies Amendment Bill or is it an altered one?

Yes, it is identical.

Then why does the hon. member not want to support it wholeheartedly in the case of the Companies Amendment Bill? The hon. member said he did have some reservations, did he not?

Mr. Chairman, the amendment in the Companies Amendment Bill I would be prepared to accept but I would have liked to take it just one small stage further. In the event of the majority of a firm of auditors going over to a new company, the amendment I intend moving—and it is on the Order Paper—will allow the audit to remain with the original partners in the event of the company concerned wanting it to remain with them, making application to the Registrar of Companies in this regard and the Registrar of Companies agreeing to it. That would be a way of allowing the audit to stay with that firm of auditors even if fewer than half the auditors remain but only after the necessary procedure has been adopted. I am very keen to have that amendment accepted—but I do not know, at this stage, whether the hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism is going to accept my amendment during the Committee Stage of that Bill. That is something I do not know. In order therefore to get half a loaf, which I consider to be considerably better than no bread at all, I decided it would be the safest and best thing to do to move this amendment with exactly the same wording as that in the Companies Amendment Bill. I did so because I basically agree with the provisions of that Bill but I just feel that the provisions could be extended a little further. What is more, if the hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism accepts my amendment during the Committee Stage of that Bill, this hon. Minister can introduce an amendment next session, or even later this session, to bring his legislation into line once more with the Companies Act. He does have that avenue open to him.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central correctly—I certainly do not want to misquote him—he said that he wished to extend the proposed amendment to the Companies Act just a little further. If the majority of the members of an auditing firm, he said, were to leave a particular firm of auditors, the company could, after following certain procedures, apply to have the minority remaining in the firm remain the auditors. If they do not apply to the Registrar of Companies, the majority leaving that firm will remain the auditors of that specific company.

Yes. Do you like that amendment?

Well, I do not have much against it. Let me tell the hon. member why. It is 100% in agreement with clause 146. That is what it actually means.

No, it does not.

It means that exactly. The principle involved here is the right of the company, or, in this case, the right of the co-operative, to choose its own auditors.

But it has always had that right.

That is the case and that is the substance of this clause.

I think you are getting yourself deeper into trouble.

No, I am not.

Accept it, or resign.

Let me add that I cannot see why a provision concerning the firms of auditors of a co-operative and a provision concerning the auditors of a private company have to be exactly the same, because a co-operative and a private company do not operate the same kind of business. The needs of the one differ from the needs of the other.

That is a weak argument.

No, it is a very strong argument.

*I just want to repeat that the substance of the amendment to the Companies Act which the hon. member wants to move, is that the private company or the public company should have the right to choose between the minority remaining in a firm of auditors and the majority leaving that firm. But that is exactly what clause 146 means. It stipulates that if the majority of the members of a firm of auditors leaves that firm, a casual vacancy arises. Then the board of directors can decide whether they are going to appoint the remaining minority or the majority who left. This is exactly what the hon. member envisages with his proposed amendment to the Companies Act. However, I am not going to be caught in that snare. The fact of the matter is that, in my well-considered opinion, this clause will not best serve the interests of the co-operatives as far as auditing services are concerned.

The second point which I want to make, is that the needs of a co-operative of which the directors are not full-time businessmen, could differ from the needs of a business enterprise in the non-co-operative sector, be it a private company or a public company. One cannot say that the needs of these two institutions are exactly the same. But in my opinion this clause best serves the interests of co-operatives.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I could perhaps put the mind of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central at ease. Once the Companies Act had been amended by this House, he would find that there would be no difference between the co-operatives legislation and the companies legislation in so far as these specific matters are concerned. That is all I want to say to him.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member has already addressed the Committee three times on this clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask whether you include the question I asked the hon. Minister?

Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?

No, Sir, I did ask the hon. the Minister a question at one stage and I was wondering whether you have included that as one of my speaking turns. Or, rather, I answered a question of his.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, did you include in the number of speaking turns the occasion when the hon. member answered a question which was put to him by the hon. the Minister?

I want to inform the hon. member that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central according to my records had three speaking turns of three minutes to four minutes each. I do not think that his reply to the question was one of those speeches.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 172:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 112, after line 32, to insert:
2. (c) costs in connection with electricity consumed by that member;
3. (2) on page 112, in line 39, to omit “or
4. (c)” and to substitute “, (c) or (d)”.

I wish to point out to hon. members that the Hen is extended in this clause to apply also to repair services and parts, as well as electricity supplied by a co-operative to a member. The idea was that the lien would also apply in cases where a co-operative finances the electricity supplied. In order to eliminate any doubt, clause 172 is now being amended to make specific provision for the financing of electricity used by the member.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 173:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill I referred to the problem which I have with this particular clause, which relates to spare parts and repair services. The situation is that in terms of this clause as it stands, as long as there is an amount owing by a member of a co-operative in respect of spare parts and in respect of repair services, the ownership of the spare parts shall vest in the co-operative, notwithstanding their delivery to such member. That is therefore the first thing that happens, viz. that until such time as the amount owing is paid, those spare parts remain the property of the co-operative. In addition to that, the cooperative gets a lien over the farmer’s crop to enable him to pay for those particular spare parts. I realize that if I should try to go the whole hog on this particular clause, I would get nowhere. Even so, I will probably get nowhere. However, I should like to move the last two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

1. (1) On page 112, in line 51, to omit “spare parts,”;
2. (2) on page 112, in fine 56, to omit “spare parts,”.

By doing this I am trying to meet the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side. The effect of these amendments will be that the co-operative will still be entitled to have its lien over the cost of those spare parts in terms of the crop of the farmer, but it also means that if my amendments are accepted, that the ownership of those spare parts will pass to the farmer. I think this is ultimately sensible, because the effect will be that the farmer will obviously attach these spare parts to some or other machinery. He is obviously going to utilize them on a machine, which he is going to use for ploughing, harvesting, baling or whatever it may be. If the ownership of those spare parts is vested in the co-operative, it means that the co-operative can repossess those parts from the farmer, take them off the machine. I really do not think that this is particularly in the interests of the farmer. In my Second Reading speech, I also motivated the case in which the machine to which such spare parts are attached is still subject to a hire purchase agreement with some bank or other organization. I think therefore that this will create a situation where the farmer will still be able to buy those spare parts from his co-operative. He will still be able to obtain them but the only way in which that co-operative can recover the cost of those parts, apart from normal payments, would be to have a lien over the crop and that therefore the ownership of those parts would pass to the farmer on purchase.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central does not wish to move his first two amendments printed on the Order Paper?

That is correct, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to see that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has now realized the mistake he made during the Second Reading debate. He now understands a little better what the lien of a co-operative involves and what the threefold protective measures, for which provision is made in clause 173, comprise. The hon. member has now singled out parts and repair costs, but what one must bear in mind is that clause 173 envisages production requisites for the farmer. It is surely pointless to single out parts. The hon. member asks—and he is still concerned with the tractor problem he discussed during the Second Reading debate as well—what will happen if the farmer builds the parts into a tractor? Then he complicates matters further and confuses himself even more by saying that the tractor still forms part of a hire purchase agreement. Why does the hon. member suppose that the farmer will build those parts into his tractor? He can keep them in stock in his storeroom, and then the ownership of those parts vests in the cooperative.

I wish to give the hon. member another example. It is also mentioned in clause 173. The farmer buys a supply of fertilizer from the co-operative, or he buys a large supply of packing material in which he is going to pack his forthcoming crop, which is still to be planted. This is exactly the same situation. The hon. member should bear this in mind. What is involved here is the right of ownership of the co-operative, which remains vested in the production requisites it supplies to the producer, and not specifically parts or details of that nature.

Clause 173 gives the co-operative the following threefold protection as regards the granting of credit to its members. In the first place there is the fact that the ownership of production requisites remains vested in the co-operative. In the second place, there is the provision that no creditor of the producer can cause those articles supplied by the co-operative to the farmer to be seized, lawfully sold or excussed in any other manner, without the co-operative giving its consent. In the third place, there is the provision that the lien over the agricultural products of the farmer is vested in the co-operative.

I think it is wrong of the hon. member to single out parts and repair services in his amendment and to set these against the entire range of other production requisites which a farmer can in any event obtain from his co-operative. For this reason his amendment is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to become involved with the gear-box of a tractor! I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central might have had a better case had he simply inserted the word “unused” before “spareparts”. If a farmer was sitting with a lot of spareparts on his shelves held against emergency and which he had not yet used, then there could be a lien on those. Therefore, by referring to “unused spareparts”, I think he could have solved this problem, because obviously one cannot take gear-boxes out and have second hand spares going back to the co-operative.

My problem with this clause is a different one. It is one which I raised during the Second Reading debate. As the clause stands at the moment, no matter how small the debt of the farmer may be to the co-operative, the co-operative in terms of subsection (1)(c) has a claim on all his agricultural products irrespective of what they may be. It may be a very small debt which he has, but in terms of subsection (1)(c) all agricultural products of which such member is the owner become part of the lien. However, there is the following further provision in subsection (2)(a)—

What I would suggest is firstly an amendment to clause 173(1)(c) to insert after “agricultural products” the words “identified in paragraph (a) of subsection (2)”. Such an amendment will have the effect that agricultural products which become part of a lien must be identified specifically.

Secondly I would suggest an amendment to clause 173(2) in line 12 to omit “may” and to substitute “shall”. The effect of such an amendment will be that whenever a lien applies after a debt has been incurred, the co-operative shall identify specifically which crops form part of the lien.

I do not know whether I have made myself clear in what I propose. Firstly, whenever a debt is incurred which causes a lien to exist, the products which become part of the lien must be identified, and secondly, the lien then only applies to the agricultural products which have been identified and indicated as subject to the lien.

I want to motivate this proposal. Let us assume that a member of a co-operative obtains a small loan for production purposes, a loan say to the value of R5 000, but he has debts and liabilities to the value of R50 000 or R60 000 owed to different commercial enterprises or his bank, whatever it may be.

Immediately upon his taking out that production loan, all his products, all his crops, become subject to the lien, and all his other creditors lose any hold they might have on him. They cannot then sue him. They cannot attach any of his implements. They cannot attach his plant or material or anything else because everything is subject to the lien, unless it has been identified and indicated. He may have crops worth R250 000. He may be a large scale farmer who has taken up a production loan of R50 000 or R10 000. The lien then applies, for the sake of that R10 000 or R50 000, to the whole R250 000’s worth of agricultural products which he is going to produce. It works to the detriment of any of his creditors who will then lose any rights to take action for payment. Let us say he owes money to a petrol company for diesel purchased. It may be a debt of R30 000 or R40 000.

Today, do they have to pay cash for their fuel?

Let us take some other product then, on which he owes perhaps R50 000 or R60 000. If he wants to evade payment of that debt he simply has to take up a production loan and surrender his crop to the co-operative as a Hen, as a security. He is then in the clear. That firm can then not take action against him or attach any of the items which are listed in this clause. It works against him, however, in the other direction. Say he is not trying to avoid payment of debt but he has taken up a production loan and subsequently he requires money for some other purpose—some purpose in respect of which the co-operative cannot help him. Let us say it is for medical expenses. If he now wants to go along and borrow R1 000 or R2 000, the financial institution to which he goes, is going to refuse to lend him money because all his loose assets are part of a hen to the co-operative. That means that he loses his own potential security on account of borrowing from the co-operative in the one case, while, in the other case, he protects himself against claims by other creditors. It seems to me to be logical that if he is going to obtain a production loan and security is going to be given in the form of a lien, that that security should be identified.

If he is a crop farmer it could be stated that all his crops will be involved in the lien, but that his stock or timber will be excluded. It may even require more than his crop, for instance, in the case of a drought. Then his stock and his crop but not his timber could be involved in the lien, and that should be stated accordingly. As it stands now, however, there is no exception unless the cooperative itself decides to indicate or asks him to indicate what will form part of the Hen.

I therefore move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 112, in line 61, after “products” to insert “indicated in subsection (2)(a)”;
2. (2) on page 114, in line 12, to omit “may” and to substitute “shall”.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (5) If a member of a co-operative is desirous of binding a quantity or percentage of an agricultural product of which he is the owner or which is or is to be produced by him, as security for a debt which that member intends contracting for the purposes of his farming operations with any person other than the co-operative, the co-operative may, at the written request of that member and that person, waive in favour of that person any right which it may have or which it may acquire in terms of subsection (1)(c) on that quantity or percentage of the said agricultural product, and thereupon the provisions of subsection (1)(c) and (e) and section 174 shall, as long as that debt or any portion thereof is outstanding, not be applicable to that member and that person with respect to that quantity or percentage of the said agricultural product.

If the hon. member for Durban Point studies this amendment thoroughly—and I shall also explain it briefly—he will note that it effectively obviates most of the problems he foresees.

In simple language it means the following: The hon. member referred to the example of a farmer with a crop and movable assets worth R100 000, who owes the co-operative R20 000. In that case surely there is a credit balance of R80 000 which need not be pledged to the co-operative. That member of the co-operative can go to the co-operative and say: My obligation to you is R20 000; therefore give me a certificate stating that you exclude these stipulated assets from the pledge and that you do not have any lien pledge on them, because it is unnecessary. Then the member of the co-operative can take that exemption certificate—if one may call it that—to a commercial bank or a private undertaking and tell them that he does in fact have a debt with the cooperative on which there is a lien, but his exempted assets total R80 000. He can also approach his commercial bank with it if he wants an overdrawn account.

I know this does not obviate all the problems the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned here, but as he and I have built up such good relations in this debate and that hon. member has made such a positive and excellent contribution, I want to tell him that I have taken cognizance of his standpoint. I also just want to add that I held long discussions with the law advisers on this question of the lien, and there are aspects of the lien that in the past were so far from clear that they in fact give rise to Supreme Court cases. For this reason the hon. member, as a reasonable person, will surely not take it amiss of me if I cannot accept such an amendment without further ado, because there are problems involved in the interpretation of certain aspects of the lien. If that hon. member had given me that amendment a little before the time so that we could clear it up completely, I may not have had any objection to it. However, if the hon. member feels strongly about this, we can reconsider this entire matter in the future.

Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central in this connection. He mentioned an example of a tractor into which a part has been built which has been bought from the co-operative while the tractor is bound under hire purchase to another company.

That is possible.

It is possible and completely practical; it can happen. In that case, the co-operative remains the owner of that part even if it is built into that tractor. That is what the lien provides. In subsection (1)(b), mention is made of what happens if a judgment of a court of law is issued for its sale or seizure. Then the co-operative must give its consent.

Not “must”; “may”.

If judgment has been given against a man for seizure, of course the co-operative must give its consent. In that case the co-operative can do one of two things. It can remove its part from the tractor, but a second-hand part would be of no use at all. In addition, the value of the creditor’s product, whether it be a hire purchase or lease transaction, will also decrease, because the co-operative is removing that part from the tractor. The cooperative now has a second-hand part and the creditor has a broken tractor. In that case it is 10 to one that the farmer will still have a credit balance—his obligations to the co-operative may be R40 000 and his expected crop is valued at R60 000. Then the co-operative and the company in question which has entered into the hire purchase or leasing transaction with that farmer can come to an agreement. They can reach a compromise. Because the co-operative has a lien, it does not mean that a checkmate situation occurs here. Mutual arrangements can be made and the matter dealt with. I therefore cannot foresee that the serious problems which the hon. member foresees, will arise. No law or industry is static or hidebound, least of all a dynamic industry such as the agricultural industry and a dynamic sector such as the co-operative sector. In any case the hon. member knows I am a very fair person, and if problems arise in the future we shall look at them. The hon. member can then personally approach the liaison committee I shall establish, and air his complaints. Let us now talk to one another about the matter in all fairness. If problems were to arise, we could always reconsider this matter. However, I do not foresee the serious problems which the hon. member raised, and with the addition of the amendment to clause 173 which I have effected, I believe we shall intercept most of the problems foreseen by the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the hon. the Minister is not_ prepared to accept any amendment moved by this side of the House, even if it is an amendment proposed in regard to the Companies Act by the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism himself.

No, the hon. member is now playing politics.

I have to. The hon. the Minister complains that I am playing politics, but he has been playing politics right through the discussion of this Bill.

No.

He accused us of being “boerehaters” and all sorts of horrible things. [Interjections.]

But that is a fact.

That is the difference, Sir. When it comes from that side, the hon. the Minister says it is a matter of fact, but when it comes from this side, it is a matter of politics. Nonsense, Sir.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question arising from the suggestion made by the hon. member for Durban Point. If one was to amend this clause and say, as the hon. member for Durban Point suggested, “unused spare parts”, would that then be acceptable to the hon. the Minister? Further, the Minister says: “Anyway, what I want is going to be carried out in practice”. He says that the co-operative will obviously give the right to the man who has the hire purchase on a tractor to take it with the spare parts, because the spare parts are valueless. If that is the case, why will the hon. the Minister not accept my amendment? What has he got against putting it into law when, in his own words, it is in fact going to happen? I really do not see the difference, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know whether I have understood the hon. member correctly. If the farmer purchases a part from the co-operative, and keeps it in his storeroom for his broken tractor, must there not be a pledge on that part lying on the shelf in the storeroom?

There can be a “pandreg”.

Very well, but if that part is inserted into the tractor, what becomes of the lien.

The difference is … [Interjections.]

I want to be fair to the hon. member, but I do not see the problem he envisages. I do not foresee those problems and, as I have already said, if practice were to prove that there are insurmountable problems in this connection, which will be to the disadvantage of all interested parties, we shall go into the matter. As a matter of fact, the hon. member knows that I am a reasonable person.

I do not know anything of the sort.

I shall give him a very sympathetic ear. Surely he knows that just to show how friendly I am, I accepted a number of their amendments today. Why, then, must we make this fuss about something which is really without substance? I therefore ask that this final clause be agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.