I move—

It is necessary to supplement the amounts that have been made available for the administration of the country in terms of the Appropriation Act of 1961. The details in connection with the amounts that are required can be found in the Additional Estimates which I tabled last week.

Hon. members will notice that the additional amounts asked for namely R24,097,207—of which R 18,240,290 and R5,856,917 are from Revenue and Loan Accounts respectively—are higher than the amounts which appeared in the Additional Estimates for the previous financial year. The amount which is asked for, which amounts to 2.5 per cent of the amount originally voted, is nevertheless lower than the average percentage of additional amounts asked for during the last six financial years, and that in spite of the large additional amount of approximately R8,000,000 which is asked for defence. With the co-operation of my colleagues and their Departments we have once again succeeded in keeping the additional amounts low. I may say that over the four financial years, up to and including 1949-50, the average additional amount asked for was approximately 10 per cent. I am convinced that it is in the national interest that we ask for this amount and that it cannot be decreased without curtailing essential services. I do not intend going into details at this stage. As usual my colleagues will give full details of the amounts that are asked for under the Votes relating to their portfolios.

I second.

The hon. Minister of Finance was good enough to say that his colleagues will be present in the House to deal in detail with information asked for by this side of the House in respect of the Departments for which they are responsible. I hope his colleagues have heard him say that, because our experience has been that during this particular debate as often as not, the unfortunate Minister of Finance has to be present to answer for all his colleagues. I hope this afternoon we shall see a departure from that unfortunate practice. The hon. the Minister has said that he does not want to go into details and of course he is quite right. This is not an occasion for a second reading debate. As far as we are concerned, of course, a second reading debate is almost impossible because the circumstances are such that we are very limited in the subjects we can raise in such a debate. The hon. the Minister has said that this total amount asked for of some R25,000,000 is less than usual, that it only represents 2.5 per cent of the original Budget Estimates, and that it is in fact less than in any of the six preceding years. I have noticed that, Mr. Speaker, and I think it does show that the Treasury is doing its best to keep a close eye on the enthusiasm of other Departments, which is what the Treasury is there for of course. In considering these Additional Estimates, I think there are two points one has to look at: The increase in expenditure is due to two things as a rule, either to an increased implementation of Government policy, or else to faulty budgeting, under-estimating on the part of various Departments, and when we come to the Committee Stage, Sir, we shall examine these proposed Additional Estimates from those two points of view and we shall endeavour to extract from the various Ministers the reasons for this Additional Expenditure, to what extent it is due to an increased tempo of Government policy and to what extent it is due to faulty budgeting by the Departments concerned.

I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister of Lands would give us some details in connection with the amount under this Vote. It is a small amount as a grant-inaid to the South African Wood Promotion Council. Can the hon. the Minister tell us what this amount is required for?

I think the hon. member is acquainted with the organization. This is an organization to promote the interests of wood and by-products in South Africa and all the organizations which produce wood are members of the Council and each one pays an amount that has been agreed upon, and the amount that has been agreed upon we should pay to the fund is R400. We have not been asked to pay more.

The hon. the Minister has explained that this has to do with the South African Wood Promotion Council. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that there is no overlapping between the Wood Promotion Council and the C.S.I.R.? The C.S.I.R. is giving a certain amount of attention to the use of South African primary products. Is the Minister satisfied that there is no risk of duplication of the work being done by the Promotion Council and the work being done by the C.S.I.R.?

I am quite satisfied. The Wood Promotion Council deals specifically with wood in the first place. The C.S.I.R. can also deal with wood as far as investigations are concerned, but the Wood Promotion Council is a council to promote the use of wood in South Africa by advertising, by showing at our different shows houses made of wood, to give the public an idea of what uses wood can be put to, and how wood can be used more advantageously than some other materials which are sometimes being used in houses, and generally to promote the use of wood in buildings and for manufacturing purposes. The C.S.I.R. has to do with technical investigation of problems, but this council has to do with the promotion of the sale of wood and the products of wood.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 9.—“Public Works”, R880,000,

I see here a considerable increase in the Vote. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether it is due to the policy of his Department to lease more premises, or is it the policy of the Forestry Department to build more offices and provide more office facilities?

A large amount has to do with the leasing of offices. As the Department extends, we have to lease more. If the amount was for building purposes, it would be under the Loan Votes. We could build, but it would require an enormous amount of money for us to build instead of renting offices as we do at present. I personally think it would be to the particular advantage of the Department to build more, but to the general advantage if one has to consider whether all these funds should be raised to build. That has to be dealt with from a wider policy viewpoint. We do build, but we also rent a lot. On the whole when we rent, we come to an agreement with the persons who are prepared to erect …

Order! The hon. the Minister should give the reasons for the increase only.

The reasons are, Sir, that the specifications which these people give us are satisfactory and the rent they ask us is also satisfactory, and so we spend more on renting.

Sir, the specific question my hon. friend asked the hon. the Minister was why there is an increase in rent, rates, electric current, etc., to the tune of some R460,000. That is a substantial amount if you take it over 12 months, and only last March it was estimated that the amount required would be R5,852,000 for the purpose and now they ask for almost half a million more. I think the hon. the Minister should be in a position to tell us as far as possible specifically what properties and premises and leases had to be entered into since the last Budget to justify this particular sum. You see, Sir, on the one hand we have this large increase in rent and at the same time we have a very large increase in salaries, wages and allowances, and therefore one assumes that the people employed by the Public Works Department have increased substantially in numbers. So the one question flows from the other. Can the hon. the Minister give us the number of extra staff employed over and above what was provided for in the last Estimates to justify an increased expenditure of R377,000 in wages and allowances to the staff?

Lastly, there is an amount for “improved electricity supply” for an air base at Dunnottar. It is a new work and the amount mentioned here is R1,000. Presumably this amount does not represent the whole cost of the new work, and the reason why I raise this matter now is: Supposing the Dunnottar Air Force Station had no electricity supply at all and it was decided to equip the station with electricity, would that not be capital expenditure? And if the R1,000 is only a token figure, whereas the amount eventually might be very much higher, shouldn’t that be charged to a Loan Vote rather than to current expenditure?

As far as the Dunnottar Air Force Station is concerned, the Department of Defence has asked for an improved electricity supply. The total amount will be R65,000 and in terms of Treasury regulations this must appear as current expenditure and not as an item under the Loan Vote.

As far as the increase in salaries, wages and allowances is concerned, this is due to vacant posts having been filled, the re-grading of a number of posts in the professional sections, special scale increases in respect of senior clerks and inspectors of works, the introduction of increased salary scales for cleaners from June 1960, and additional cleaners for new Government buildings, and the substitution of White cleaners for Bantu cleaners. That amounts to R178,000. Then there is overtime paid to technical and professional staff. R2,500; There has been an under-estimate of R3,000 in respect of gratuities to officials on retirement. The biggest amount is “Payment to outside professional and technical firms”. This increase is due to the increase in the number of services where the preparation of drawings, specifications and quantity lists are entrusted to firms outside. The policy which this House has generally approved is that as far as possible, or to a greater extent, work should be handed to outside firms.

Then there is “general maintenance and repair of minor works and building services”, with an increase of R93,000 in wages that we have to pay to the workmen. Finally, we have the amount of R460,000 under J. The largest amount is in connection with Salisbury Island which formerly belonged to the South African Railway Administration. In co-operation with the British Administration the Administration constructed a dockyard, a repair base and air force station on the island. The British Administration constructed a workshop, magazine, barracks and compounds. The Railway Administration did the necessary dredging and provided services in connection with quays, stone walls, roads, railway facilities and buildings. After the war the Government decided to construct its own naval bases on the island and for that purpose the Admiralty’s buildings with fixtures were purchased for R1,200,000. The Department of Defence took over the island in 1948. The Administration subsequently approached the Department of Defence and insisted on being paid compensation for its expenditure in connection with the water works and services I have mentioned in an amount of R1,077,000. The matter was referred to my Department during 1950 but in view of the fact that the then Minister of Finance did not want to know about the acquisition of the assets of the Administration, it was arranged that interest at the rate of 3½ per cent per annum would be paid on the capital expenditure. In 1957 the Department of Defence decided that the island did not suit its purposes and on 31 January 1958 it was evacuated by the South African Navy. It was nevertheless stipulated that the whole island or any portion thereof, with all the improvements, must be made available for defence purposes in time of war and that the Administration may not construct any new buildings. As a result of the fact that the Department of Defence had decided to evacuate the island, the South African Railways and Harbours insisted that from 1 April 1948 to the date of the evacuation, that is 31 January 1958, my Department should pay rental instead of interest at 3½ per cent. After negotiations a rental of 5 per cent was agreed upon, based on the value of the land and improvements. The difference between the rental of 5 per cent and the interest at 3½ per cent which was paid in respect of the previous period in question, amounted to R178,000. The amount, however, is R173,000 because after Salisbury Island had been taken over by the South African Railways and Harbours, the Central Government continued to use certain buildings and quayside works firstly, for the Department of Defence and subsequently for the University College for Indians. In view of the fact that the property belongs to the South African Railways and Harbours the Department must pay rental at 5 per cent on the value of the building concerned from 1 February and this amounts to R16,000 and that accounts for the difference between the sum of R173,000 and the first-mentioned amount.

Additional accommodation has to be provided in order to meet the increasing needs of continued expansion and especially the needs of newly created Departments. That entails the provision of additional housing. We have to pay R31,000 for municipal services because of this expansion, R60,000 for electricity. That brings the amount to R460,000.

Can the hon. the Minister give us more information in connection with the safes that were bought?

It was necessary to acquire additional safes.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 10.—“Foreign Affairs”, R101,000,

There is a new item here, “Famine Relief in Katanga”, an amount of R20,000. Can the hon. the Minister give us some information about that? To whom was the amount paid?

Would you kindly repeat what exactly you want to know?

What does the amount comprise? What form did the relief take? Was the relief given to the United Nations, or the Red Cross, or the Government of Katanga or the Congolese Government? Does it represent the total amount which the Government proposes to give in respect of the famine-stricken areas about which we read in the papers almost every day?

Then there is a substantial amount, an increase of R26,800 in our payment to the United Nations. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us the reason for that increase. Is it just a normal increase in the general subscriptions, or is it another liability which we have incurred?

The aid given to Katanga consisted almost entirely of medical supplies, with a certain amount of foodstuffs. It was given at the request of the Government of Katanga, but before doing so we duly advised our representative at the United Nations to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations that we were giving this assistance.

To whom did you actually send it?

It was sent to the Government of Katanga.

As regards the item of R26,800 to the United Nations, this is in connection with our contribution to the maintenance of the United Nations force in Suez. In the past South Africa was granted a 50 per cent discount. Since then it was decided that this discount would only apply to countries which were receiving aid under what is known as the United Nations Extended Technical Assistance Programme. As South Africa draws nothing from that fund, curiously enough, we are not entitled any longer to the discount. So the amount of R26,800 represents a loss of the discount.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us further information in regard to the footnote at the bottom of Vote 10, under (B) which says “includes provision of costs of proceedings in the International Court of Justice against the Republic in connection with South West Africa. Provision originally made on Vote—Justice”. Could the hon. the Minister tell us under which item is this additional amount shown, and what is the additional amount in the way of expenses in connection with the cost of proceedings in the International Court of Justice in the case against South Africa?

That expenditure in fact appears under the item “Miscellaneous Expenses”. It represents the amount payable to our legal team engaged in working on the case brought against South Africa by the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia. This represents what has been paid to them in fees and other expenses.

The hon. the Minister has not given us a sufficiently full reply. The revised estimate is R204,400. What proportion of this amount is represented by the expenses mentioned by him? Does that include the salary of the Judge who has been appointed to the International Court?

Roughly R60,000 up to the present is included as fees to advocates, junior advocates and other diverse expenditure. There will be much more in future. Under this Vote is also included the expenditure of my Department’s legal adviser, Dr. ver Loren van Themaat who thrice had to visit The Hague in connection with the case pending before the International Court. That comes actually under sub-item B “Subsistence and Transport”.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 17.—“Inland Revenue”, R11,463,

I should like to know who this lucky man, S. J. Koen is, who got an amount of R10,863 refunded in respect of income tax and why he got it back.

During the 1955 tax year, taxpayer S. J. Koen sold a chrome mine, and the heavy assessment of R8,437.26 for that year resulted from the inclusion in his taxable income in terms of Section 7 (F) of the Income Tax Act of a substantial amount which was deemed to be a recoupment of capital expenditure. This amount was determined strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act and was based on the consideration stipulated in the relevant agreement of sale, namely R150,000. Of this consideration R75,000 was paid to the taxpayer in cash and used by him to pay his trade creditors. Payment of the balance of the consideration was made by way of the issue to him of 37,500 fully paid up R2 shares in the capital of the purchasing company, Ver-mitechrome Corporation (Pty.) Ltd. These shares were, however, eventually sold for only R10,000 to Technimetals (Pty.) Ltd. on 4 March 1960. Although it is not competent for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to revise the assessment, in the light of subsequent events, the fact that the taxpayer did not receive all of the income upon which he had been assessed, appeared to the Commissioner to be a reasonable ground for an approach to Parliament for a remission as of grace. If a calculation of the recoupment of capital expenditure is made on the basis of a consideration of R85,000, which is the amount actually received by the taxpayer, there would be no taxable income for the 1955 tax year. In submitting the matter to the Treasury for consideration, attention was drawn to the fact that the taxpayer’s income had dwindled to approximately R1,000 per annum, that he had already been forced to alienate his insurance policies to meet living expenses and that he could obviously not pay the arrear taxes out of his current income, not even on the easiest of terms. But as he still possessed assets worth approximately R20,000 the taxes could therefore not be written off as irrecoverable. After consulting the Minister of Finance in the matter, the Treasury under reference “July 1961” approved of an ex gratia remission of the 1955 income tax plus interest thereon being included in the Additional Estimates of Expenditure for 1961-2. The amount to be remitted is calculated as follows: 1955 assessment issued on 21 May 1958— R8,437.26. Interest from 21 May 1958 to 20 March 1962 at 1¼ cent per month per completed R2—R2,425.35, making a total of R10,863. The taxpayer is 70 years of age, supports a wife, invalid daughter and a son at the university.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 18.—“Customs and Excise”, R5,155,

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister give us some further reasons as to why there has been a further donation made to African Explosives and Chemical Industries Ltd.?

The circumstances of this case are as follows: On 22 November 1960 a bolt of lightning struck the factory of African Explosives and Chemical Industries Ltd. at Modderfontein resulting in a considerable spillage of nitroglycerine. The chief inspector of explosives ordered the destruction of the spilt nitroglycerine by the washing of the premises with an admixture of potassium hydroxide and spirits. Only spirits obtained under rebate of excise duty was available immediately and in the absence of legal provision for the use of rebate spirits for such a purpose, duty amounting to R5,155 was called for and paid on the 450 gallons of spirits used to decontaminate the premises. In the exceptional circumstances of the case and because the spirits did not enter into ordinary consumption, it was decided to recommend an ex gratia refund of the duty paid by the firm which did not get compensation for the loss from any other source.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 22.—“Prisons”, R850,000,

Could the hon. the Minister tell us why Item F is so high and whether any further amount than R140,000 was spent in respect of the prison at Robben Island?

The increase is due to the fact that the original estimate was based on the daily average prison population of 53,100, whereas the daily average prison population, as I have already informed the Committee, had risen to 62,000. It is mainly as a result of this that this additional expenditure has been occasioned.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the increased amount under A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, of R200,000, is in respect of additional staff so as to prevent the escaping of serious criminals. I should like to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to the increase of R200,000.

The reply is that it is partly due to the fact that there has been an increase in staff as a result of the fact that more prisons have been established in the meantime. Part of the additional expenditure is also due to the fact that more Coloured warders have been employed as against Bantu warders, and they receive higher wages than the Bantu warders.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 23 —“Police”—R2,016,000,

I refer to Item F, Equipment, Arms and Ammunition. I refer to it especially because the original estimate is less than half the revised estimate. The original estimate was R433,000 and we have added an additional R547,000. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain why that could not have been budgeted for in the first place and whether there has been extraordinary expenditure not in services, but in equipment, arms and ammunition?

Could the hon. the Minister explain to us exactly what is meant by Item K “Detained Persons”. What expenditure has there been in respect of detained persons? Were they detained because they were awaiting trial prisoners, were they persons detained without charges being preferred against them or were they persons detained under the General Law Amendment Act of 1961?

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister the reasons for the increase in the expenditure under Item H, Animals, Forage, Saddlery and Harness, now that our Police Force is mechanized?

I should like to refer the Minister to Item B, “Purchase of Vehicles—R320,000 additional”. The footnote says “State President’s Special Warrant obtained in respect of this service”. Could the hon. the Minister please give us some further information as regards that item?

As regards the inquiry with respect to sub-head F, I want to tell the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) that the total amount is R547,000. In the first place we find an amount of R14,000 for the purchase and maintenance of personal equipment; the purchase and maintenance of equipment of a general nature, R297,000; arms and ammunition, only R116,400; technical requisites R119,600. As far as this question of equipment is concerned, namely R14,000, I want to point out that it became necessary to provide all constables and sergeants with identification numbers. Hon. members will remember that they asked for it, and this has been done in the meantime. Secondly, it was necessary to provide all White members with revolver straps and this brought about unforeseen expenditure of R10,500. An additional R3,500 was necessary to equip mobile units. As regards the second item, that is, to provide the mobile units with the necessary equipment, this entailed an additional expenditure of R103,000, while an increased expenditure of R194,000 is also expected partly as a result of the various operations which have to be carried out in the interests of internal security and partly as a result of better and more efficient equipment which had to be supplied to police stations. There are also items such as equipment for physical training, band instruments and band music which called for an additional amount of R600 under this head. Arming the Police Force necessitated the expenditure of an amount in excess of the original estimate as the result of a threat to internal security. In general the force also had to be improved and modernized. In addition to that roughly 1,000 students had to be equipped with revolvers. Besides this, 400 automatic FN rifles with adequate spares and accessories were ordered, and that was responsible for this big increase.

As regards K, increased provision had to be made with respect to the following services: R154,000 for the maintenance of persons in custody, and R10,000 for special escorts. The reason for this is that more persons were arrested, as I have already indicated under the Prisons Vote, and this also resulted in increased expenditure therefore as far as the police are concerned. I want to say to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) that horses were purchased for R8,000; fodder was purchased for R400 and saddles and harnesses for R3,000. I want to tell him further that additional dogs were bought, which entailed additional maintenance costs amounting to R2,600. With reference to the inquiries in regard to B it is estimated that the provision of R340,000 for subsistence allowances while serving members are absent from their headquarters will be exceeded by R205,000. This is due to more intensive steps which are being taken for the sake of internal security and also to guard our borders. The usual transfers at the end of the year brought about an additional expenditure of R15,000.

Can the hon. the Minister give us an explanation of the increase under Item A?

As regards Item A provision has to be made for R258,000 for the salaries of about 1,315 students who have entered the college as from 1 January. In the past, especially when we had the six months’ training period, as hon. members will remember, we usually had 400 or 500 students in the college. Now for the first time since the college came into existence, we started this year with more than 1,200 students and it is now a one-year course instead of only six months. This accounts for the greater part of the increased expenditure.

Could the hon. the Minister give me some information in connection with K “Detained Persons”. Could the Minister tell us how many detained persons there were at the time these Estimates were prepared?

It is of course an impossible task for me to say how much it was. But the hon. member can work it out for himself from the fact that the Estimate, as far as prisons are concerned—and the two go hand in hand—was based on a daily prison population of 52,000, but in actual fact it appeared to be 62,000. It is absolutely impossible for me to give the member the exact information.

The hon. the Minister has not answered the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) in regard to motor vehicles. I hope he will give us some details on that. In regard to Item F, purchase of equipment, arms and ammunition, the hon. the Minister has given us the items on which this money has been spent but he has not given us the reasons for the expenditure; that is what we seek. He said, for instance, that they had purchased 400 automatic rifles. Could the hon. the Minister give this House the reasons for the need to purchase those additional weapons?

Why do you buy rifles. What do you do with them?

The hon. member is entitled to ask for the reasons for the increase, not for the reasons for the expenditure.

I am sorry that, in the hurry of the moment, I did not answer the question of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) fully. The amount spent on the purchase of vehicles was R228,000. Application for a special warrant to make this amount available was already handed in and approved in August 1961. The reason for the increase, briefly is, that as a result of internal developments early in 1961, in March of that year, it was necessary to approach the Treasury in connection with unforeseen expenditure and to incur expenditure in connection with preparations for the establishment of two mobile units. It is in respect of those mobile units that these vehicles had to be purchased. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) will know that unit operated in the Transkei and that to a large extent it was due to the actions of that unit that the unrest subsided so quickly.

You called in the Defence Force.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 24.—“Transport”, R200,000.

I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us the reasons for the increase of R200,000. The entire amount, according to what we have before us, is in respect of motor vehicles. I shall be grateful if the Minister could give us the reasons why this extra amount is required.

There are particularly three reasons as to why the extra R200,000 is asked for. It was due to extraordinary circumstances. Requests were received from various State Departments. The first came from Bantu Administration and Development. Last year an amount of R10,000,000 was made available to that Department. It resulted in quite a number of new projects being tackled and in schemes already in operation having to be extended. In this way, for example, there will be considerable expansion in the sphere of supplying water for Bantu towns, the building of dams, roads and the building of Bantu towns and the expansion of agricultural activities. The places where these schemes are being tackled are mostly in far distant Bantu areas where no public transport is available, and the work can only be done by making use of official vehicles.

Then there was also a request from the Department of Water Affairs. At short notice it requested the Department of Transport for transport to make a start with the following State water schemes: Umgeni River and Hlu-hluwe State Water Schemes, St. Mark’s Valley State Water Scheme, Malelane Irrigation Board Water Scheme and the Kosterrivier State Water Works. Due to the short notice it was not possible for the Department concerned to provide the necessary transport. Then there is the Forestry Department which required additional transport as a result of the fact that more forest reserves reached the production stage and exploitation took place on a larger scale. The result of this was that the tempo of production of the State Sawmills was increased, which required more transport. That is the reason for the increase of R200,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 25.—“Education, Arts and Science”, R419,373,

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the reason is for the increased expenditure of R100,000 in respect of special departmental services.

This increase is in respect of commemoration medals issued to schoolchildren on the instructions of the Department when the Republic was established. Of the amount provided for this purpose in the Additional Estimates of 1960-1, only a small amount was used, and claims for R220,000 were received during the present financial year. As it is expected that there will be a saving on the sub-head as a whole, it is necessary to vote only R100,000 in addition.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 27.—“Social Welfare and Pensions ”, R953,500,

I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister could explain the increase under L Child Welfare, R242.000.

The reason for the additional amount is in respect of the care of children in places of safety and places of custody, and the care of children in need of care in homes. In regard to the care of children in places of safety and places of custody, the reason is that more children were accommodated in such places than was expected. One can never estimate precisely beforehand how many there will be. There is also an increase in the number of old age pensioners and aged people who receive support, which led to an increased expenditure under another head, and which also results in an increase in expenditure under this head. Social pensioners and recipients of allowances also come into consideration for the payment of children’s allowances, and to the extent that the number of social pensioners increases, these allowances also increase.

Then there are allowances paid to foster parents in respect of White children, which from 1 April 1961 was increased to R15 per child per month. Before 1 April 1961, it was only R8 per child per month, plus a bonus of R11 per month in respect of all the foster children in the care of one foster parent. The result of this arrangement was that on the whole foster parents took only one child. The intention is that where foster parents would like to take more than one child, we also want to keep the family together and we want to make provision to see what we can do so as to enable a foster parent to take more children if he wishes to. This method of compensating foster parents resulted in foster parents not always being available to take a family consisting of two or more children in need of care. The foster parents were prepared to take only one child from such a family, with the result that the other two children had to go to an institution or elsewhere. As the result of the increased allowances paid, foster parents are now more readily available, and instead of sending the children to a children’s home we now keep them together in one home. For the information of the hon. member, I just want to give this example. Before 1 April 1961 a foster parent who cared for three children could receive the following allowance: Three children at R8 per child per month is R24, with a single bonus of R11. It is therefore a total of R35. Now, in terms of the new arrangement commencing on 1 April 1961 he will receive the following allowances: Three children at R15 per child per month gives him R45 per month. We have seen some good results ensue.

In connection with Items H and K, I should like to know from the Minister whether the reason for the increase is a larger number of persons, or a larger amount paid to each person?

In regard to H, there are various heads under which payments are made. There are the pensionable allowances. Approximately 250 non-Whites who were formerly employed by the Department of Defence were dismissed as the result of reorganization. The majority of these Bantu were dismissed during September and October last year. The result was that they became entitled to a pensionable allowance. The expenditure in this case will amount to approximately R35,000 during the current year. Then there are the pensions of ex-Members of Parliament. As a result of the election, 20 members of the previous Parliament did not return. During the present financial year pensions were paid to eight of them to an amount of R6,000. The remaining 12 had to be repaid their contributions, which amounted to R12,000. There is also the compensation paid to employees of the State in case of injury or where people died whilst in employment.

Then there are still the bonuses and temporary allowances of civil pensioners. There is a gradual increase in the number of civil pensioners who are entitled to temporary allowances, probably as a result of the decreased opportunities for work for persons who have reached an advanced age. As these people who are employed temporarily become older, the employers, if they can, prefer to take on younger people, and we also have cases where the person himself feels that he is now so old that he is no longer physically able to work. It is as the result of the increase in these cases that the increased amount is required. It is also an incalculable increase. We do not know when a man will say that he now feels so old that he cannot work any longer, nor do we know when the employer will say that he can get a younger man and therefore no longer requires the older man.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 32.—“Immigration”, R8,705,

May I ask the Minister the reason for this rather considerable increase in the Vote from R2,000 to R10,705 in connection with grants-in-aid to the South African Immigration Trust.

The explanation for the increase is as follows. During 1960, even before the riots in the Belgian Congo occurred, the S.A. Immigration Trust was established, at the request of the Minister of the Interior, with the object of promoting immigration from African territories and to assist any such immigrants, for which purpose a grant of R10,000,000 was made available for the year 1960-1. As the result of the riots in the Congo in July 1960, large numbers of refugees entered the Republic. The then Minister of the Interior arranged with the Administrator of the Transvaal for the refugees to be housed temporarily in the Sessie Hostel in Pretoria, on condition that the cost, viz. R1.25 per person per day, would be paid by the Department of the Interior. As from 16 October 1960, however, the facilities extended by the State for the admission to the Republic of refugees from the Congo were withdrawn and all arrivals after that date were treated as immigrants. The result of this was that from that date all such persons had to apply to the S.A. Immigration Trust for assistance. With the approval of the Department of the Interior the S.A. Immigration Trust was allowed to make use of the Sessie Hostel to house these persons temporarily, on the express understanding that any costs would have to be paid by the Trust from its own funds. In view of the fact that the Trust had only limited funds which due to circumstances beyond its control were soon exhausted, it could not fulfil its obligation in this regard. After consultation between the Departments of the Interior and Immigration, it was decided that the first-mentioned Department would assume responsibility for all amounts owing by the Trust to the Transvaal Provincial Administration in respect of the period 1 November 1960 to 31 July 1961. The Treasury was approached by the Department of the Interior for approval for accepting as a burden against its Vote the amount of R7,955 owing by the Trust to the Provincial Administration in respect of accommodation for the above-mentioned period. The Treasury, however, in terms of approval F.54/183 of 20 September 1961, authorized the inclusion of this amount in the Additional Estimates of the Department of Immigration for 1961-2 as a debit against the item “Relief”.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 33.—“Labour”, R2,530,

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Labour can give us an explanation of why this ex gratia payment to the National Industrial Council for the Motor Industry was made, and also why an equal amount has been paid into revenue.

This item is perhaps nothing more than a book entry since financially it would, if approved by the House, entail neither a loss nor a gain as far as the State is concerned. Contrary to its real intention, the National Industrial Council for the Motor Industry, because of the wording of a clause in the sick fund agreement negotiated by its constituent parties in terms of Section 48 of the Industrial Conciliation Act was, upon the expiry of the agreement, obliged to pay the residue of the sick fund established thereunder, which has been built up entirely of contributions by employees in the motor industry, to the Public Debt Commissioners, i.e. to the State. Although the State had no just claim to this money, the agreement was a statutory document and its terms therefore had to be strictly complied with. Subsequently the Industrial Council, by means of a new agreement, established a similar fund and the sole object of the item now under consideration is to obtain the approval of the House for the amount in question to be refunded to the Council in accordance with its wishes for payment into its present fund. It is the only way in which the money can legally be returned to the Council.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 36.—“Agricultural Technical Services, R329,870 (Administration and National Services)”,

There is a big increase under this Vote and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what it is due to.

The additional amount is required as the result of increasing expenditure. More farms are being planned and surveyed and finally inspected. The bonuses and subsidies show an increase every year to the extent that the extension officers increase in number and the soil conservation work is speeded up. An additional R10,000 is included for subsidies to farmers in the flood areas in respect of essential soil conservation works which were damaged or destroyed by the floods last year, for which of course no provision was made in the Estimates because this catastrophe was not foreseen. Another reason is the commission on advertisements. The increase is R9,200 and it is as the result of the expected increase in the number of advertisements to be published in Farming in South Africa, as also the expected increase in enrolment commission on Farming in South Africa and the Hulpboek vir Boere. Savings have, however, been effected as the result of economies on the items invitation to liaison officer, R500, land service, subsidy for campers, R1,000. There is also a reduction of R20,605 under reclamation and conservation, and for the lease of mechanical machinery, etc. The total savings on these items is R22,105 after deduction of the total increases under the other items, and the net additional amount to be voted is R287,095.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 38.—“Water Affairs”, R4,360,

Will the Minister please give us the reason for the increase here?

There is an Irrigation Board called the Angora Irrigation Board in the Robertson-Worcester area. The canal of this Board flows through pipes underneath one of the rivers there, and in 1954 it was discovered after a flood that those pipes were dangerously exposed and that they could possibly break in future if there was another flood, which would result in appreciable cost to the Board. The Department of Water Affairs advised that the pipe should be repaired and that work should be initiated to protect the pipes, so that in the event of another flood no damage would be done to the pipes. They accepted the advice of the Department and the Board, which is a responsible body, immediately did everything possible to establish the necessary protection works, but it involved the expropriation of certain land by the Board, land which did not belong to them but on which they had to do this protection work. That of course resulted in delay and there was a flood before they could conclude all the formalities, because it is not so easy and quick to obtain powers of expropriation and to give effect to them. The floods caused damage, as my Department had foreseen. The farmers then had to lead water, and because of the urgency of the matter they requested my Department to repair those pipe-lines for them. At the same time they applied, as is customary, for the ordinary statutory subsidy of 33⅓ per cent. My Department did the repair work for them, and did it so thoroughly that we think it will be permanent. It will not wash away again, humanly speaking, but the previous director did not see his way clear to submit the application to me as the Minister and to recommend that they should be given that subsidy, because he considered that the damage was the result of their own negligence. However, whilst accepting the proposition that the Department should do the work for them, they reserved the right, which they were entitled to do, again to apply at a later stage after the completion of the work—usually approval must be obtained before the work is completed—to the Minister for this statutory subsidy. They approached me and after thorough investigation I was convinced that the work had been done according to specification, and in fact the Department had done the work itself, and that it was not the fault of the Board, and that if the application had been submitted to me before the work was commenced I would have approved it and would have granted them the subsidy. Now the work has been completed and it could not be included in the ordinary Estimates. The total cost was R13,076 and the subsidy is about R4,000, and now we must make extra statutory provision for this amount.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 40.—“Commerce and Industries”, R36,834,

There is an item “Research Projects for Government Departments”, R13,500. That seems rather a large sum when provision has already been made for over R300,000. Could the Minister give us particulars of what the necessity was for this research?

This amount of R13,500 is in respect of two special investigations with which the C.S.I.R. is now busy. The first investigation is in respect of the so-called white rust of galvanized iron sheets. It was found that certain of the galvanized iron sheets used for housing purposes developed a disease, as it were, in the form of white rust in the course of time. The Department of Housing asked the C.S.I.R. to investigate this white rust. I may just say that Iscor is also carrying on an investigation in regard to galvanized iron sheets, but from a different angle. The investigation being made by the C.S.I.R. is to test the durability of galvanized iron sheets under certain climatic conditions, when gases are engendered by coalfires, particularly in Native houses, because that has an effect on the roofs and white rust appears and it causes tremendous damage. The Department of Housing asked the C.S.I.R. to conduct this investigation at a cost of approximately R9,300.

The other item is an investigation conducted by the C.S.I.R. on behalf of the Department of Defence. This is a secret investigation and I cannot disclose the details. The two amounts together come to about R19,300, but we have savings in connection with special projects to an amount of R5,800, so the total increase is R13,500.

I ask the Minister to give us some information regard to the item “Commonwealth Bursary Scheme”, and to tell us whether that is continuing or not.

This is a scheme which was started by the Royal Society which formed this Commonwealth Bursary Scheme for scientists from various parts of the Commonwealth to visit other parts of the Commonwealth. Every part of the Commonwealth contributes a certain amount every year towards this fund. The Nuffield Foundation has contributed, I think, £5,000, and the Royal Society £2,500. South Africa used to contribute R800 annually. This amount now being asked, R334, is the amount up to the end of May 1962, at the end of our membership of the Commonwealth. After that we shall no longer be a member of this fund. The total amount of Rl,134 is for the period from 1 January 1961 to 31 May 1962.

Will the Minister give us the reasons for the subsidy in respect of the Railway rebate on the conveyance of fertilizer?

This additional expenditure is necessary as the result of the fact that the uranium contracts were extended and the uranium production was consequently reduced. That resulted in a great decrease in the manufacture of suphuric acid from local granite, and the Department encouraged the manufacturers of superphosphate to use this acid instead of making it from imported sulphur. African Explosives and Chemical Industries Ltd. took this acid, but on the recommendation of the Committee which investigated the rationalization of the use of fertilizer the idea was evolved that the acid could be used more beneficially by Fisons at Sasolburg and that the first-mentioned firm should continue to use imported sulphur at Umbogentwini. This arrangement resulted in Fisons immediately having to increase their production of superphosphate by 83,000 tons per annum in order to be able to absorb the additional acid, whilst in the course of a few months it would put out of operation its sulphuric acid production. This development had the result that during the months October to December 1961 there was approximately 20,000 tons of surplus superphosphates accumulating at Fisons and that there was not sufficient storage space. The result was that the surplus had to be sent to the mixers in Durban. This resulted in additional railage of approximately R2.30. The mixers felt that they could not recover this, because the price of superphosphates is controlled. After consultations it was decided that the State would partially compensate for it, and provision was made for a contribution of approximately R1.50 per ton and the balance would be borne by the parties concerned. It is this R1.50 per ton which resulted in the additional expenditure.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 42—“Health”, R734,600,

I should like the Minister to explain in more detail Item B, Subsistence and Transport, where there is an increase of over 20 per cent. This seems to suggest careless budgeting, unless there is some special reason for it. I should like the Minister to give us an explanation. The annual budget gave R1,330,000, and now they are asking for another R270,000. Unless there has been an epidemic or something of that kind, over which the Health Department is required to exercise supervision, I should like to have an explanation.

I should like the hon. the Minister to give us more details in regard to Q, the contribution towards the expenses of the World Health Organization. This amount was increased by R17,974 and I would like to know the reasons for the increase.

I would like to know about Item G, Laboratory Examinations and Manufactures. It seems to me that there has been no great epidemic in the country and therefore no great call for increased manufactures, and I think the laboratory examinations stay more or less stationary. Has it by any chance anything to do with poliomyelitis? May I have the reason also for the extra statutory payment to the Isolation Hospital in Tempe under Item R?

In reply to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), I may just say that this big increase is in respect, inter alia, of mileage paid to parttime district surgeons in connection with visits to peri-urban tuberculosis clinics. It is also connected to the steadily increasing costs of transporting needy patients to and from hospitals. These expenditures are not incurred directly by or with the previous approval of the Department, but result from authorizations granted by magistrates, Bantu commissioners, Provincial Administrations, local government bodies and hospital boards, and they are of such a nature that the Department cannot estimate it beforehand.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) asked for the reason for the increase in the expenses in connection with laboratory examinations and manufactures. Firstly, increased payments had to be made to the South African Institute for Medical Research due to the cost per examination having been increased by approximately 5 cents per examination subsequent to the original budget. Secondly, there is an increase of about R3,000 for the Institute of Pathology at the Pretoria University. That is also due to an increase in the number of examinations. The third item is due to fees for the Natal Blood Transfusion Service. This is a new service which undertakes Rhesus factor blood examinations of expectant mothers, with a view to preventing still-births and haemolytic diseases. The fourth item represents payments to the Natal Provincial Administration for its Pathological Laboratory Services—an amount of R45,000. This is a new service by the Natal Provincial Administration, which now provides for the pathological laboratory services on behalf of the Department in those districts which cannot be effectively served by the Department itself. The next is a question by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) concerning the reason for the increase in the contribution to the World Health Organization. This increase results from South Africa’s contributions to the World Health Organization having been reassessed by that body.

I would like to know what is the cause for the extra statutory payment to the Bloemfontein Hospital, and I would also like to ask him whether he can give any reason for the enormous increase in the medical poor relief, R125,000. As far as I know, there has been no increase in illness in the country.

If I may take the case of Tempe first, this amount is required to make an extra statutory grant to the City Council of Bloemfontein in respect of expenditure which was incurred by the Council in regard to the Tempe Isolation Hospital. It was originally incurred without prior approval of the Department, but subsequently, after investigation, the Department found this expenditure to be quite justified and accepted payment. The reason for the increase in the medical poor relief is due to the growing demand by indigents and the fact that more medical practitioners are making increasing use of expensive but more effective drugs. It is also due to the pilot scheme for the distribution of milk powder in connection with kwashiorkor.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 46.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing (General)”, R1,366,000,

I note that under Item B, “Dairy Products: Net Subsidy on Butter”, the difference between the original and the revised Estimates is R1,083.000. Can the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and

Marketing please explain to the Committee what the reason for this big difference is?

Where is he?

The increase of Rl,083,000 is mainly due to a reduction in the price of butter by 5 cents per 1b., which is borne in equal shares by the Government and the industry. There was overproduction and this attempt was then made to find a larger market. This amount represents the extra contribution to the subsidy by the Government.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 47.—“Defence”, R7,936,500,

There are very substantial increases on several of the sub-heads under this Vote. May I ask the hon. the Minister if he can give us some explanation of the various increases and some indication in what way the money has been spent. Items A and B, salaries, wages and allowances and subsistence and transport, account for something in the region of R1,200,000. I should have liked to ask whether that covers the increased pay to some of the trainees, but you, Sir, would probably rule me out of order. That is a question which exercises the minds of quite a lot of people. Then Items G and L, “Army Stores, Services and Equipment” and “Aircraft, Aircraft Stores, Services and Equipment”, between them total just over R6,000,000, and there also I should be glad if the Minister can give us a very comprehensive reply as to what that additional expenditure covers. Then we have a new item, Item T, “Prefabricated Buildings and Ancillary Equipment”, where we are being asked to vote R383,500. Perhaps the Minister will tell us exactly what this particular item covers. Is it associated with the additional personnel being called up as trainees and the provision of proper accommodation for them, because we understand that there has been some difficulty in that regard. Then I should like to know whether the amount now being provided is likely to meet the situation, or is it merely an advance to tide us over the difficulties immediately facing us. Is there likely to be another substantial increase there at a later date?

I have my notes in Afrikaans this year and therefore I shall reply in Afrikaans. In regard to the increased expenditure on Items A, B, G and L, the position is that when we originally framed the Estimates we did not expect that the civilian posts granted to us, particularly in connection with the expansion of our War Office, etc., would be filled as soon as they were. In other words, we are getting these civilians faster than we expected, which gives us an extra expenditure of R207,000. In connection with our Permanent Force, the position is that 1,307 Permanent Force posts additional to the establishment were created as from 1 October 1961, 1 November 1961, and 1 January 1962. Over and above these posts there are 237 officers’ posts and 1,339 posts for private soldiers vacant. It is expected that these posts will be filled during the present financial year, and for that we need an extra R244.000. Then we had an extra expenditure of R147,000 in connection with the Active Citizen Force and the commandos, the people who were called up during the period of our becoming a Republic and thereafter. I shall give the full particulars. An amount of R172,000 in respect of salaries was paid to members of the A.C.F. and the commandos who at the time we became a Republic and at the inauguration of the State President were called up for service. This amount can, however, be reduced by the partial application of economies which arose as the result of the fact that only 2,000 A.C.F. ballottees were called up for the three months up to 31 March 1962, instead of the training of 4,300 for two months. We originally estimated that we would train 4,300 ballottees during the year, but for two months. After the passing of the new legislation last year, in terms of which we are now training 10,200, we found that for the first quarter of the financial year we inducted only 2,000 in the A.C.F. That amounts to a saving, and therefore the R172,000 is reduced to R147,000.

As the result of the manufacture of arms and ammunition, 171 additional posts were created in our arms factory as from 1 April 1961. The full annual amount is respect of salaries, wages and allowances comes to R246,500, but in view of the fact that all the machinery cannot be installed before 31 March 1962, the operators will not be employed to full strength, and therefore we now ask R40,000.

In regard to the Simonstown naval base, the position is that as the result of the fact that Robben Island was taken over from us by Justice, we had to provide additional housing at Simonstown, and for that purpose an additional amount of R20,000 was required.

Now we come to F, the erection of prefabricated buildings, R314,000. This item is for salaries and wages to non-White labourers in connection with the building of prefabricated housing for the Permanent Force. But that is, of course, not the only item of expenditure in that regard.

In regard to the Item T, which the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has queried, as this is a new item I think we are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister for a little more information in this regard. He is at the moment taking in many more recruits for training than ever before, and as we understand the position many of the recruits are being housed in these prefabricated buildings, and the conditions under which they are being housed in those buildings are such that I think we are entitled to ask the Minister to give this Committee and the country some information as to the condition under which he is training these recruits, the conditions under which they are expected to live, and whether he is satisfied with those conditions as the permanent state of training facilities which he is going to have for the youth of the country who are being taken out of their occupations for nine months for this training and placed in this housing. I wonder if the Minister could give the Committee some information as to the type of buildings, the facilities which are available in the way of hygiene, health, sanitation, water and so on, and whether he is satisfied with the conditions as they exist for the training of new recruits.

In regard to the same item could I ask the hon. the Minister if he could give us some indication whether it is the intention and the policy to construct all these buildings with departmental labour. Are none of these buildings being put out to tender or contract? Can the Minister also tell us at which centres these buildings are being erected? The hon. the Minister referred a moment ago to fulltime force. Does that include the trainees who are now being called up for the extended period of training, or does this only concern what we would have called the Permanent Force in the old days, and not the trainee section?

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) asked whether I am satisfied with the conditions under which this Permanent Force, the ballottees, will be trained; whether I am satisfied with the conditions under which they will be housed, and whether I am satisfied that these prefabricated buildings will comply with their requirements. I want to state that we went into this matter very thoroughly. We find that the country is reasonably full of old military camps which we would very much have liked to transfer to other places if we could have moved those old camps, but because they were erected as permanent buildings it is quite impossible and we must make use of those places which do not really adapt to changing circumstances. Therefore I decided to house this new full-time force in prefabricated buildings, provided those buildings will be good enough. Research was done in this respect. I personally went to Pretoria and inspected those buildings on one of the hottest days in Pretoria, and we went out of the ordinary permanent buildings into one of those buildings which had been erected, and I can tell the Committee that it was a pleasure to leave the ordinary building and to enter this prefabricated structure. These buildings are cool and neat and they are adaptable. For example, buildings erected as barracks can readily be changed into reading rooms within a short time, and vice versa. They are cheaper than permanent buildings and they can be transported. They are so planned that if they have to be transported elsewhere, no damage will result, apart from the water system or the lights which have been installed. For the rest, everything can be transported, even the floors. I am convinced that these prefabricated buildings, which of course can also be erected much faster, will be a great acquisition to us. I am very satisfied, and the young men working there whom I questioned are more than satisfied with these buildings. In addition, they are much more fire-resistant than the old buildings. They are made of aluminium, plus this new type of hardboard, etc., and they are insulated with non-flammable material. They are much more fire-resistant. I was asked, further, whether I was satisfied with the hygienic conditions in these camps. I cannot reply to that question now, because these camps have not been built yet, but all the ordinary precautions to make them as hygienic as possible are being taken. I myself have not yet seen one of these new camps erected under the new circumstances, because they are only in the initial stages still, but provision is made everywhere for water and for all other modern requirements.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) wants to know whether we use our own labour in the building of these prefabricated buildings or whether we give them out on contract. We are using our own men on that job.

The Minister has given us detailed replies on Items A, D and T, but he gave us no information in regard to the items where the biggest increase occurs, namely G and L.

The amount of R4,005,500 under Item G is in respect of ammunition which will be delivered this year, plus advance payment on a consignment of ammunition and arms.

Tell us a little more about the arms.

No, I am afraid I cannot do that. In regard to Item L, I want to say that in terms of the basis of payment of the purchase price of the helicopters which will be delivered from 1962-3, the Department had to pay a deposit amounting to R455,000. Then in regard to the payment of a deposit on reserve motors and other spare parts for the helicopters which will also be delivered only during the year 1962-3, a deposit of R33,500 has to be paid. For the rest, the expenditure is as the result of the modernization of the aircraft we already possess. The hon. member will surely know how essential that is. Furthermore, as the result of the big programme of modernization, our workshops cannot cope with everything, and there is also an item of R75,000 which we are paying to private contractors for the modernization work. Then there is a sum for the purchase of extra Air Force ammunition.

Vote put and agreed to.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us some information under (8), “Prisons”. The footnote states that the cost of materials only is to be met from this provision and that all work is being done by the Department of Prisons. Could the Minister give us any information in regard to this expenditure and the labour which is being used in terms of this footnote; in other words, is the labour being used prison labour or qualified technical labour for the erection of these buildings?

May I also ask the Minister to give me some information in regard to the item “Pollsmoor”, where the additional amount to be voted is R100,000. This item reads “maximum security cells for non-White male prisoners and kitchen”. There is a footnote to the effect that the State President’s special warrant has been obtained for that work. Can the hon. the Minister give us some further reasons for this expenditure and some idea as to what it covers?

I would like the Minister to tell us something about the decision to build police stations at Katima Mulilo in the Caprivi Strip and Mtontsasa. Then under Bantu Administration Development we are asked to vote an additional R33,000 for the conversion, improvement and renovation of buildings for the Department of Bantu Administration and Development in Johannesburg. What is meant by “conversion and improvement”?

The present accommodation of the Department of Bantu Administration is insufficient. They are at present spread around in four different buildings, and it is very difficult to exercise proper control over them. We hope some time in the future to construct a building which will house them all. Until such time as that is done, it has been decided to make certain alterations to the property we have in Carr Street, Johannesburg, which is being used by that Department. This will then enable them to house a greater number of their personnel than previously. The other building in Market Street, Johannesburg, which is being used by that Department, is not in a very good state of repair and it is necessary to undertake considerable renovation work. These two items together will cost us R33,000.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) made inquiries about the increased amount of R100,000 for Pollsmoor. This is for security cells in Pollsmoor, and the Department of Prisons has asked me to do this as soon as possible because they regard it as a matter of extreme priority. The same applies to Sonderwater, where they also consider that great priority should be given to the work.

With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) certain of these works are being done by the Prisons Department. I am not quite certain— I speak under correction—but I think they have “tenants”, if I may put it that way, who are qualified workmen or trainees and especially in the outlying places they do quite a lot of the work themselves. All that the Department of Public Works is then called upon to do, is to supply the material; the actual work is done by the “tenants” of the Minister of Justice, or his “guests” if you prefer that term.

May I ask whether the specifications are under the control of Public Works?

No, that is under the control of the Prisons Department. We only supply the materials. With regard to the police stations at Katimo Mulilo in the East Caprivi district, the police considered this as a matter of urgency, and in this case they were also the builders. The amount of R22,000 which the Committee is being asked to vote is for material which we will supply. All other work is done by the Department of Police.

Where does the material come from—from local stocks?

We use local material where we can get it, but I do not think you will get much locally in the Caprivi Zipfel.

You get some good wood there.

As far as the police station at Mtontsasa is concerned—I am sorry the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not here because he would be able to help me with the pronunciation of this word—this is in Pondoland, and exactly the same applies to Mtontsasa as applies to Katimo Mulilo.

Where is Mtontsasa?

It is somewhere in Pondoland. The hon. member ought to know, because we are making provision here to house some of his constituents. This will cost R16,400 as far as the material is concerned, but the Commissioner of Police will be responsible for the building.

Will the hon. the Minister give us some information with regard to item (6), “Purchase and conversion of property to serve as an embassy” in Paris.

As the hon. member no doubt knows, our Chancery in Paris leaves very much to be desired.

Be careful now; I bought it.

We have for a long time been trying to acquire a new property there; we have now got one, and the cost of the new property will be R403,000, and the transfer fees will be R12,000, and to alter it into a Chancery as well as a residence will cost R150,000. This amount of R1,000 has been put on the Estimates merely to enable us to go ahead with the transaction.

So this new embassy at this stage is going to cost R585,000?

R565, 000.

I may point out that I only paid R40,000 for it in those days.

Yes, but those were the good old days.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote C.—“Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services,” R445,000,

I would like the hon. the Minister to give us some particulars in regard to this loan of R445,000. For what purpose is it?

Order! The hon. member can only ask for the reasons for the increase.

Well, the increase is R445,000, and this is a loan to the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation, and I should like to have the reasons for the increase.

At the moment the S.A.B.C. provides three services, two White services and the Springbok service which is really also a White service and which not only calls for a large staff but a staff which at the moment occupies the whole of Broadcast House, the head office, in Johannesburg. This new expansion of the S.A.B.C. will mean that the S.A.B.C. will have to make provision for another six additional Bantu services, in other words, in addition to the ordinary services—I am not talking about the transmitters; I am talking about the services themselves. Apart from the three White services which exist, an additional six Bantu services are being added, and those six Bantu services will, of course require large halls, studios, offices etc. and seeing that the head office of the S.A.B.C. is already fully occupied, it was necessary to enlarge it in order to provide new studios, new offices and new facilities. Hon. members will remember that we voted an amount of R2,000,000 last year for the scheme which serves the Rand and Pretoria, only for that scheme, in other words, the scheme which operates as far as Rustenburg and Klerksdorp. But in addition to the expansion, extra money is needed to provide certain necessities in connection with the introduction of the Bantu services throughout the whole country, with the result that head office will have to be enlarged, the land adjoining head office had to be purchased for further expansion, that testing apparatus had to be acquired and spares had to be acquired for the whole country—spares which are not only intended for the Rand complex, but for the whole country. The amount which is required for this is R945,000. Hon. members will remember that all capital amounts that are voted by this House are treated under the Vote as loans to the S.A.B.C. by the Post Office. This year the Post Office has saved and amount of R500,000 on its loan account, in other words, that amount is left. That means that an extra amount of R445,000 has to be voted. That explains this amount.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what conditions attach to the loan.

Order! That is out of order.

I am referring to the R445,000 and I want to know what rate of interest will be charged.

The hon. member may discuss the reasons for the increase but not the rate of interest.

Am I entitled to ask whether the hon. the Minister has control over the expenditure or that a round sum is simply voted …

Order! That question is out of order as well.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote D,—“Lands and Settlements”, R2,009,512,

Under Item 1 “Land Settlement and Development ”, an additional amount of Rl,017,100 is asked. Is this development of land already allotted, or is it development of new settlements? Then under 4 I find two ex gratia payments under (c) to two owners who disposed of their properties to the State. Apparently these two owners sold their properties to the State. Why are they now receiving an ex gratia payment? Surely if you have sold your land, there is no necessity for an ex gratia payment by the State.

I also want to ask the Minister under A why there is this increase of R990,000, almost double the original amount?

The first Item only covers the purchase of land in the Fish River Valley. Hon. members will remember that last year Parliament agreed to the purchase of one-third of the irrigable land in the Fish River Valley and that R1,000,000 was placed on the Estimates for that purpose last year. It was contemplated, and also stated here, that the R1,000,000 would not be sufficient to complete all the purchases, but the transactions that we would be able to put through till the end of the financial year would be covered by the R1,000,000. We have now made offers to 147 farmers there to purchase their land, that is to say, about one-third of the irrigable land, and of those I think 111 have agreed to sell their land to us, and this is now merely money which we require to complete the purchases which we contemplated last year of the one-third of the irrigable land in the Fish River Valley. I cannot go into the reasons why we decided to purchase one-third of the land there, but hon. members will remember the debate last year when we decided to purchase the land to save water on that land so that there would be sufficient water for the rest of the land.

I then come to Item 4. That covers two items really, firstly the purchase of the Durban Civic Centre where we are putting up new government buildings, and the other is for the payment to the Cape Town Municipality for Parliament Street, an agreement which we came to with the Town Council for Cape Town and which was agreed to by Parliament. This is merely to obtain the necessary funds to carry out that agreement.

Then I come to (c), the ex gratia payments. I would prefer reading this because it is rather complicated and I have got it here in Afrikaans:

*On 12 December Treasury approved of it that certain plots at the Olywenhoutsdrift settlement in the division of Kenhardt, which were necessary for the expansion of the agricultural research station at Upington, be acquired at a total purchase price of R89,000 plus costs of transfer. Offers were made to the owners but only three of them accepted, namely Kuhn, Engelbrecht and Gresse. Originally these three did not want to accept the offer. The other four owners refused the offers because they thought the land was worth more. The four owners wanted R65,000 and only R44,000 was offered. In order to reach agreement and to avoid having to expropriate the property, which might have involved the State in further costs, it was decided to give the four owners an opportunity to obtain, at their own expense, further sworn valuations of their property and then to take the average value of all four as basis for further negotiations. That is a procedure which is often followed. Such further sworn valuations were obtained and the average valuation of the four properties amounted to R51,000. I then recommended, and Treasury approved of it, that the offer for the four plots should be increased to R49,950, that is to say, Rl,050 below the average valuation. The offer was accepted and the plots purchased. When it became known that the original offer in these four cases had been increased from R43,000 to R49,000, the aforementioned Engelbrecht and Gresse applied for an increase in their cases on the same basis that it was granted in the case of the four other cases. As I have said they did not want to accept the original offer but they maintained that they were compelled to accept it, in the case of Engelbrecht because he had commitments to fulfil in respect of other property he had had to acquire (he had in the meantime purchased other land) and in the case of Gresse because his creditors were pressing him and he was practically forced to accept the offer of R11,412. In order to remove the dissatisfaction which existed, I approved in principle of an ex gratia grant to Messrs. Engelbrecht and Gresse on the same basis on which the increase was granted in the abovementioned four cases and in each of the two cases two further sworn valuations were submitted at the expense of the former owners. In the case of Mr. Engelbrecht the average valuation was determined at R16,232 and in the case of Gresse at R12,954, It was consequently decided to recommend to Treasury that ex gratia payments be made to the two gentlemen concerned, and that was done.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote E.—“Water Affairs,” R374,004,

May I have additional information in regard to Item 7.—“Equipment: Additional Capital,” a new item of R300,000?

Can the hon. the Minister furnish some explanation in regard to Item 1, “Pienaars River (Canals)” where the original estimate was R130,000 and the revised estimate is R230,000? There is an explanation under E where it says “Revised Estimate of total cost now Rl,160,000”. Can the hon. the Minister give us some reason for this tremendous increase? And why is only Rl asked now as an additional amount. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister also to give us the reasons for the increase in Item 6. There the original estimate was R2,000, and it has been increased to R 15,000, for “Central construction workshops for Government water schemes”. It seems a rather extensive development, and could the Minister tell us more about it please?

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) asked a question in connection with the amount of R60,000. That amount is needed for the construction of a reservoir for the Good Hope Textile factory at an estimated cost of R100,000.

He did not ask any question about that. His question was in connection with Pienaarsrivier.

The reason why this item appears on the Estimates is that we wish to obtain approval for the increase of R100,000 in the estimated cost of the scheme. The increase in expenditure was unforeseeable and unavoidable due to the following: The estimate of the costs connected with the balancing dam which is in the course of construction was too low. Even engineers make mistakes sometimes. Secondly, in order to obtain a better distribution of water for irrigation purposes 60 of the old type of sluices were replaced by 60 modern and more effective sluices which are more expensive. The third reason is that the actual cost of the canal was higher than estimated on account of the hard rock formation that had to be penetrated and which was not visible on the surface. In order to avoid unauthorized expenditure being incurred before the 1962-3 Estimates are passed, it is necessary to place these estimated increased costs on the Additional Estimates.

Can the hon. the Minister tell me why only an amount of R l is asked for here?

This is nothing new. It has often happened in the past that an amount is placed on the Estimates purely as a nominal amount. It was usually £100 or £1,000. There are three main reasons why we show these nominal amounts. Firstly, it is desirable in certain cases, and sometimes legally necessary, to submit to the House, an increase in the total costs voted for a service, irrespective of whether further provision will become necessary during the current financial year. For example, in terms of the Water Act of 1956 the amount of the subsidy or of any loan in connection with any water works must be shown separately in the Estimates. We have examples of this nature under Loan Vote E. Secondly, there are often instances where provision for a new scheme, or an increase in the provision in respect of an existing service, may be covered by way of a virement in terms of Section 5 of the Appropriation Act. In such cases it is not legally necessary to show the amount in the Additional Estimates, but in cases where there are big increases, or where the service is of a contentious nature, Treasury regards it as desirable that the matter should be brought to the attention of Parliament. That is done by showing a nominal amount of R l. The last item on page 24 under Loan Vote B, is an example of this nature. Thirdly, it is sometimes necessary to obtain parliamentary authority for some future commitment for which no provision has been made in the current fiscal year. In such cases the insertion of a nominal amount of R l (or R100), with a footnote indicating that the scheme would cost, say, R100,000, means that if the R l is approved, the Government is morally committed to an amount of R100,000 in future years. It also means that the service need not be deferred until the Main Estimates for the ensuing financial year have been passed, but that it can be embarked upon immediately after 31 March in terms of the Part Appropriation Act. We had an example of this in last year’s Additional Estimates when R1 was provided for the location of industries under Loan Vote B.

I also explained that last year. The only difference here is that we are making the nominal amount actually nominal for the past two years and that we are showing R1 instead of R100 as was done in the past.

It makes no difference whether it is R1 or R100. It appears to me that what we are being asked to do here, and I think the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs said so, is to agree to an increase in the Estimate. That is really what the R1 means, and if you look at these Estimates, you will see that the original estimate was R130,000, the revised estimate—presumably at the date of printing—was R230,000, and then the footnote informs us that the revised estimate of the total cost is now Rl,160,000, in other words, six times the original estimate. I want to suggest to the hon. Minister of Finance that there has been some very bad blundering somewhere if an estimate only a few months ago was R130,000 and is now well over R1,000,000. We are being asked in principle to agree to this scheme, and that is why we are raising this matter. Does the Minister not agree that there has been some blundering?

That is the reason why we are putting this Rl so that hon. members and Parliament in general can have an opportunity to consider this. I am merely rising to explain why we put it on.

The Minister of Water Affairs merely told us that engineers often make mistakes, but that is not sufficient. Since the Minister of Finance has now made it clear that he has put this R l on the Estimates in order to enable Parliament to have a full discussion on the question of the increased estimate, I think we can start really to find out from the Minister of Water Affairs the real reason for having to come to Parliament about it. It is not sufficient to say that engineers make mistakes just like other people.

As far as the Government is concerned, I think I have given the three reasons for this increase in the expenditure and I now want to reply to the question raised under subhead (6) “Central Construction Workshops”. The increase in costs is due to the fact that an elevator for which provision was made in the 1960-1 Estimates was not delivered in time and consequently provision must now be made for it in the Estimates for this year.

As far as sub-head (7) is concerned “Equipment, Additional Capital”, in respect of which the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) asked a question, I just want to say that it is estimated that the credit balance that we will have on hand on 31 March 1962 under the Capital and Equipment Account, will be R636,000, but we have orders on hand amounting to much more than that and it may just happen that some of those orders may be executed before 31 March to an amount in excess of the credit balance in our account, and to avoid over-drawing the account, we make provision in advance for this additional R300,000 to go to the account, but the R300,000 which we are providing for together with the R636,000 credit balance, is much less than the costs of the total orders that we have placed.

I would now like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain the expenditure on these new Votes under 4, that is to say, the Leeu-Gamka Irrigation Board, R3,733, the Prince River Irrigation Board R3,333 and the Rademeyer Irrigation Board R2,033. The Treasury has put down token items of R l each for these works. The Minister of Finance has indicated why this is being done, namely to enable the House to obtain fuller information, and I hope that the Minister of Water Affairs will give us some details and explain the reasons for the amount on these three new Votes.

The expenditure of R3,733 on behalf of the Leeu-Gamka Irrigation Board is in connection with the flood damage that was suffered in March and April 1961. Special provision was made in the 1961-2 Supplementary Estimates for extending the period over which financial assistance would be given to irrigation boards and private persons in respect of the extensive flood damage which was experienced in the Karoo at that time, but due to a misunderstanding no provision was made in respect of this irrigation board. You cannot really call it a misunderstanding, but the extent of the flood damage there was not known. Losses were sustained over a very wide area. Where damage had been caused and applications submitted the Department and its engineers had to conduct investigations in order to estimate the costs, and this was one of the last applications received, but it was an application which fell under the same category as those for which provision had been made. That is why we are making provision in these Additional Estimates for this irrigation board. As far as the Prinsrivier Irrigation Board is concerned, the position is that recently the Department of Water Affairs increased the height of the wall of the Prinsrivier Irrigation Board dam on behalf of that Board at an estimated cost of R25,000. The work was financed by the Board with the assistance of a Government loan. As the work progressed, it appeared that the loan would be insufficient to cover the total cost, and consequently the Board applied for a further loan of R5,000 with a 33⅓ per cent subsidy of Rl,667. Provision is made for a nominal amount of only R1 in view of the fact that we expect funds to be available from savings on other items under this sub-head. As far as the Rademeyer Irrigation Board is concerned, the Board was constructing water works in the Gamtoos River, in respect of which works an amount of R2,000 was voted in the 1961-2 Estimates. During March/April, when the Board was still constructing the works, flood waters caused a great deal of damage with the result that the total costs connected with the works increased with Rl,100 to R3,100. It is necessary, therefore, especially to vote the amounts of Rl,100 and R733 under Loan Vote E and the amount of R367 under Revenue Vote L in order to cover the increase in the total cost. Provision is, however, made for a nominal amount of only R1 in view of the fact that we also expect funds to be available from savings under two items under this sub-head.

Does the hon. the Minister agree that the original estimate in regard to the Pienaars River Scheme was R130,000? In the next column revised estimate is given as R230,000. The hon. Minister has told us that he is asking the House to agree to an increase in the estimate for this project. One rand was placed on the Estimates to enable the Committee to discuss the question. Now, Sir, this is what I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Does he agree that the revised estimate, which we are being asked to consider, is R230.000 or is it Rl,160,000 as mentioned in the note lower down. Which is it?

R230,000.

Right. Can the Minister then explain to me what the note (e) really means. Note (e) says this: “Revised estimate of total cost now Rl,160,000”. The point I am trying to make with the Minister is this: Which is the increased estimate which we are considering at his request, is it R230,000 or is it Rl,160,000?

Mr. Chairman, I think it is absolutely clear. What this Committee is asked to consider is the revised increased estimate from Rl30,000 to R230,000.

What does the note say at the bottom?

The note at the bottom may be referring to the total cost of the whole scheme. But the House is not asked to revise that amount.

With great respect, Sir, I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me that when Parliament is asked to approve of a scheme, the estimated cost at that time is the estimated total cost, otherwise how could the Committee agree to anything. I submit with great respect that the hon. the Minister is quite wrong. It says here the estimated cost was so much, the revised estimate (not the vote for this year) is so much, and then down below the note says “Revised estimate of total cost now R1,160,000”. I cannot reconcile the figures. I wonder if the Minister and his Department can.

This is purely a Treasury matter of how it can be brought into budgeting procedure. The position is this that for this scheme the original estimated cost was Rl,060,000. The

R130,000 was practically the last instalment of that amount. I think there was a small amount of approximately R5,000 outstanding. Now instead of the estimate for the whole scheme being Rl,060,000, it is Rl,160,000. We can meet that additional Rl00,000 from savings, we need not put it in here at all. But the procedure requires that each item should be dealt with separately, so in order—although we can meet the Rl00,000 from other sources —to have it under this heading “Pienaars River ”, we had to put the R1 in.

The estimates are deceiving, you will agree.

The original estimate of the total cost was Rl,060,000. It is now estimated at Rl,160,000.

Mr. Chairman, it is all very well for the hon. the Minister of Finance to come along and give us that assurance but that is not what is before us.

Yes.

I am sorry, no. It says “original estimate”, and the original estimate does not mean what it says. The hon. the Minister of Finance says that it does not mean what it says. This original estimate is not an original estimate according to the hon. the Minister.

This is the revised estimate.

Mr. Chairman, my copy says this is the original estimate, not a portion left after the original estimates had been made and Rl,000,000 had been spent. The original estimate for that service is Rl30,000. If the original estimate was Rl,060,000 then the Estimates should say so so that we would know what the original estimate was. There can only be one original estimate. And according to the Minister the amount given as the original estimate is the surplus after the expenditure of Rl,000,000. That is therefore a carry-forward, a surplus, which has not been expended. The Minister, in saving R999,999 from some other service, is left with the R1 to carry forward. That is a common place practice as far as Estimates are concerned. That is done to leave the vote open in case further money has to be appropriated. That is why the R1 appears here. That is done repeatedly in Estimates. What we are concerned with is that there is nothing here to show what the original estimate was, which the Minister now discloses, was Rl,060,000. Why is that information not in front of the Committee? Why do we get two totally different stories from the Minister of Water Affairs and from the Minister of Finance? When the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs was asked what the original estimate was he replied R130,000. And the hon. the Minister of Finance says it was Rl,060,000. Both Ministers cannot be right; although they can both be wrong. It seems to me that we have to go by the printed Estimates which are in front of us.

The revised estimate of total cost was Rl,060,000 and the provision for this year is R130,000, leaving a balance to be provided for later of R6,194. All that has happened now is that revised estimate which has already been increased from previous years, has now gone up by Rl00,000 to Rl,160,000. We can cover that from savings. It is not necessary at all to come to this Committee. But we have to have this Rl00,000, approved under “Pienaars River (Canals)”. We therefore put in the R1 and then the Committee has the opportunity of approving it. That is the whole position. When we put the additional estimates before the Committee, we do not give all the particulars which appear in the main estimates, but it is under the same heading, “Loan Vote E”. I must point out that we do not re-print it in the same form as in the main estimates.

Perhaps the Minister of Finance will explain the footnote (e) which says “Revised estimate of total cost now R 1,160,000”. The word “now” appears.

R100,000 more.

Yes, that is why we are querying the question of the original estimate. Had this amount been shown as the original estimate it would have been a different proposition. But the Minister has not made it clear, neither has his colleague what the original estimate was. His colleague has made it clear that the original estimate was Rl30,000. [Interjections.] The Minister of Water Affairs said so. He said that was the original estimate and that is what is shown here as the original estimate.

That was the expenditure for the current year only.

We are talking about the original estimate, Mr. Chairman, not about the expenditure for the year in question. The original estimate, according to the Minister of Water Affairs, was Rl30,000.

Not the original estimate of the scheme; the original estimate for this year.

All these headings refer to the original estimates of the costs not the expenditure, but the original cost of the project.

That was five years ago.

I do not care how many years ago it was. An original cost can only be an original cost. It can be amended true; that is different. But what was the original cost? Was it Rl30,000 or was it Rl,060,000? That is what we want to establish. If the higher figure is a revised estimate it indicates that the original estimate of costs was completely wrong. The Minister, in his opening remarks, said that even engineers made mistakes. Now was this a mistake by an engineer? O was it a mistake in some other direction? We are only asking for information.

May I just remind hon. members that additional estimates are to be read in conjunction with the main estimates. In the main estimates, under Loan Votes, you have various columns “Original Estimate of Total Cost” “Cost as approved in the previous year”, “Revised Estimate of Total Cost” etc. Now the revised estimate of total cost in respect of this item was R1,060,000 but the next heading is “Estimated expenditure” up to 31 March of the previous year. That was R923,806—on the same project. And then for the 1961-2 year an expenditure of Rl30,000 was put in. That is one instalment. It leaves a balance of R6,194. All that has happened now is that this revised estimate of total cost has gone up by another Rl00,000. That is all. We can cover it by savings, but in order to bring it under this heading of “Pienaars River” we have to put some item on the estimates and that was why we put the R1 on.

Why don’t you explain that to the Minister of Water Affairs?

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote G,—“Agricultural Technical Services ”, R500,000,

Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether this R500,000 additional he is asking for, covers the increased cost of soil conservation works already passed or is it for new soil conservation works that were not put in hand.

The hon. member may only ask for the reasons.

I am asking the reasons, Sir. Is this amount required for works …

Is the hon. member

suggesting anything?

I am not, Sir. I want to know the reasons for this amount.

This increase in costs is mainly due to two factors. In the first place, as a result of the improvement in the staff position of this section of the Department, we were able to fill more professional posts with the necessary trained technicians. The result was that the work in connection with farm planning and soil conservation was expedited, which in turn resulted in higher costs to the State. That is really the reason for the increase for which we ask approval here.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote J,—“Commerce and Industries”, R1,700,000,

I refer to Item 2. This is an item to purchase shares for the sum of Rl,500,000 in the I.D.C. I submit Mr. Chairman, that every time we purchase shares it is a separate operation. What the I.D.C. is going to do with the money is not our concern here. It is a new purchase of shares. We are not advancing money for a phosphate scheme. We are purchasing shares in the I.D.C. The phosphate scheme is a scheme of the I.D.C. I want to ask the hon. the Minister some questions about this item of Rl,500,000. Is it necessary for the Minister’s Department to purchase 1,500,000 shares in the I.D.C. without some assurance that the I.D.C. is going to use that money as a loan or to purchase shares in the phosphate company? The I.D.C., I take it, is free to do whatever they wish. Is it not possible for this Committee to vote the money as a loan to the I.D.C.?

The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the difference between the two items R3,400,000, which is the original estimate, and R4,900,000 which is the revised estimate, is a separate item to purchase shares for the second time. That is my ruling, Sir. [Laughter.] I beg your pardon, Sir, I am asking for your ruling.

The hon. member may only ask for the reasons for the increase.

The reason for the increase is that we are purchasing shares from the I.D.C. What the I.D.C. has told the Minister does not come before us. That is my point. I want to know from the Minister why it is necessary for this Committee to vote money to purchase shares from the I.D.C.? The I.D.C. can raise a loan in order to carry out its operations with the phosphate company. Is it necessary for the hon. the Minister to come to this Committee for this R1,500,00?

This amount of R1,500,000 which is asked for here, is required to purchase shares in the Industrial Development Corporation, which in turn will purchase shares for a similar amount in Foscor. This amount that we are asking for here, plus an amount of R1,400,000 was already approved in the 1961/62 estimates, and Foscor itself contributes an amount of R1,803,000. This money is needed in order to increase the estimated production capacity of Foscor from 156,000 tons per annum to approximately 500,000 tons per annum. The object is to increase the production of raw phosphate to this extent. The expansion which is envisaged has been approved in principle by the Cabinet in the light of the strategic importance of Foscor and in the light of the improved economic position which can be envisaged for the corporation if this expansion takes place. When Foscor was planned, it was originally estimated in 1951-52 that its capacity would be 56,000 tons and that the costs would be approximately R2,880,000. But this capacity has been increased from time to time. It was increased in 1956 from 80,000 tons to 157 tons concentrates last year. Up to 1957 Foscor had shown a loss, but from that year the gross surplus has increased and last year already it was R448,000. The undistributed profits of Foscor stand at R243,000 to-day. The position in respect of Foscor is that as a result of the increase in its production, its financial position has been considerably strengthened. But in spite of the fact that there have been surpluses during the past three years, Foscor is not strong enough to embark on this expansion, which was already approved of in principle last year, at its own expense. As I have said, Parliament has already voted R 1,400,000 for the further expansion of Foscor. We are asking for this additional amount because the R1,400,000 that was voted last year, was spent so fast on expansion that it was exhausted in December already and Foscor was able to continue with further expansions. It is expected that this work will be completed in August 1962 instead of towards the end of 1963, as originally planned. The expansion of Foscor has, therefore, been expedited considerably and that in turn has led to this amount of Rl,500,000 being asked for now instead of during the 1962-63 financial year.

I wish to refer to item 3 of the Vote which is a new item to grant a loan to the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board for Location of Industry and Development of Border Areas, north-west of Pretoria. Now, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the House is entitled to some explanation. Is this a new sort of socialism which the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board, which is a form of local government, is now to practice in the field of industry? It is now being lent money to establish industries. We want to know what industry? We want to know who is going to run the industry. We want to know whether this money is required to provide services for the industry or whether the local government itself is going to establish those industries. We want to know further, Mr. Chairman, which area is to be developed. This is the development of a border area. Now “border area” in terms of Government policy is an area bordering on a Bantustan, a Bantustan which, in terms of Government policy, is to develop into a self-governing state. We want to know from the hon. the Minister where this border is near Pretoria which is going to become a Bantustan? Because according to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Prime Minister himself, the areas of the Bantustans have not yet been established. Yet the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Industry is here asking for R200,000 in order to establish industry in border areas. This Committee is entitled to know what the nature of the industry will be, who will contol it, what it will manufacture, under whose jurisdiction it will fall and what Bantustan will it border on and under whose control will the labour in that industry be?

I want to get this point clear in regard to the Rl,500,000 for Foscor. If this is an increase you will allow us to debate the reasons for the increase, but if this is a new item can we debate it fully? My submission is that this item of Rl,500,000 is for a new share issue for Foscor. My submission to you, Mr. Chairman, is this, that as this is a new issue of shares, we should have the right to debate whether this R1,500,000 should be voted for Foscor. It is not like a dam or a new building where there is an increase in the costs. This is a new issue of shares, a separate issue of shares. My point of order, on which I should like to have your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is whether we should not be allowed to debate the merits or demerits of investing Rl,500,000 in Foscor. I would like your ruling on that Mr. Chairman.

The principle that Foscor should be expanded was already approved of last year when the amount of Rl,400,000 appeared on the Estimates. That was one process, and the further amount of Rl,500,000 would have appeared on the 1962/63 estimates. But because this process of expansion has been speeded up this further amount is being asked for now already. The principle that there should be expansion, that will cost R2,900,000, was already submitted and approved of last year.

Why should we buy these shares from the I.D.C.? Why not direct from Foscor? Were the I.D.C. acting as brokers?

This is not a new item; it is an increase on the original estimate.

I want to raise a point arising out of the reply of the hon. the Minister. Last year allowance was made for the development of Foscor not under the heading of the Industrial Development Corporation. This item now appears under the Industrial Development Corporation. This is a new matter. This has nothing to do with the development of the I.D.C. It is something new altogether.

We are still awaiting a reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) under item 3. I suggest that this is a suitable time, before we pass the Vote, for the hon. the Minister to reply.

I want to reply to the question raised in connection with this item of R200,000 for the acquisition of land for the location of industry. I want to say at once that the statement of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) went a little too far when he tried to drag in the political question of Bantustans. Here we are only dealing with the purchase of a piece of land to the northwest of Pretoria, land which is required for the location of industry. For a long time already the Development of Natural Resources Board has been seeking throughout the country for suitable sites for the location of industry. We have various places in mind. One of the sites which is receiving attention is that to the north-west of Pretoria, near the Roslin area. That area may be known to the hon. member. That area has been thoroughly investigated by technicians, also by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, the Pretoria Municipality, the PeriUrban Health Board, and it was found that the area adjacent to the Roslin station, just north of the railway line, towards Rustenburg. was admirably suited for the location of industry. It is close to the White area as far as White labour and markets are concerned. It adjoins a large Bantu area. I am not saying that it will become a separate Bantustan, as the hon. member implied. But we have a large settlement of some 50,000 to 60,000 Bantu there for whom work has to be provided. It is an area where it would be easy to provide water, electricity, roads, transport and other services. It appears that it will be an admirable site in all respect for the location of industry. It has been decided to purchase that land. The area comprises 260 morgen. There is a Bantu area a few miles away and the Department of Bantu Administration is already establishing a township there. Five hundred houses have already been completed or are in the course of being completed, so that there will be a reasonably large Bantu town a few miles from that area and the Bantu from that town will be able to find employment there. This R200,000 is only in respect of acquisition of the land and in connection with the preliminary steps for the provision of basic services such as transport, electricity, water, etc. for which arrangements are being made with Escom, or the City Council of Pretoria or other concerns. Further amounts will be asked for in subsequent Estimates.

The Minister’s reply indicated that this money was in connection with the purchase of ground. But as the Estimates clearly show, this is a loan to the Peri-Urban Areas Board. Am I correct in assuming that this money will be lent to the Peri-Urban Areas Board and that the ground will vest in them? If that is the case I want to ask the Minister what control he will have over the Peri-Urban Areas Board and in what way he will secure himself as far as the repayment of the loan is concerned. As the hon. member here suggests, how will he be sure that they use the land in accordance with his wishes. There are dangers in planning because we have had the experience in other areas of seeing that an area is established near a reserve, and while the area itself has been adequately planned with facilities such as water, electricity and roads as envisaged by the Minister, there has been no control whatsoever over the borders of the area in question. We have already seen in the case of other areas that slums have developed between the area purchased and the reserve. In consequence there could be a deterioration in the value of property due to the incidence of slums on the border of the newly developed industrial area. What we should like to know from the Minister is to what extent is he going to have control over this new area to be established, to what extent is he going to ensure that the loan will be repaid and to what extent can he control the policy and the administration of that peri-urban area.

This loan is being made to the Peri-Urban Areas Board as the legal persona under whom the land falls and who will be able to purchase, plan and develop the land. I can reassure the hon. member that the entire planning and control will be in the hands of the committee that will be appointed, and that committee will consist of representatives of the Peri-Urban Areas Board, my Department, the Chamber of Commerce, the S.A. Handelinstituut and the various Government Departments. That control will extend over the whole area. The control will be in safe hands. This loan is being made to the Peri-Urban Areas Board and that Board will eventually have to repay the money to the State, together with any further loans which are made in the future for the further development of this area. But the control of the whole area will fall, as I have said, under the Help Committee which has been constituted, and they will have to see to it that there is orderly development and that slums do not develop in this area. I can assure the hon. member that there will be no danger in that regard.

Do I take it that the land will be transferred into the Peri-Urban Board and that they will have title? They plan it and develop it, and when they dispose of the various allotments, are they permitted to make a profit on the transaction? Seeing that this is a new department, does the Minister’s Department propose to use the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board as the vehicle for the purpose of planning the industrial areas outside the larger towns, with a view to their being utilized for industrial development? If that is to be the vehicle used for the purpose, are they to be permitted to make a profit in regard to any projects they may undertake merely because they are getting loans of public money from the Minister’s department?

There are two points which are not clear to me. The one is that the Minister says this area will be controlled by a Help Committee, or “Hulpkomitee”, but this is a local authority. It is a statutory authority. It is an elected body with nominated representatives established under the local authority ordinance of the Transvaal. This Peri-Urban Areas Health Board is the responsible body. In other words the control of this area cannot vest in a Help Committee, an advisory committee. There may be an advisory committee, but the control of the land and what is done with it, whether it is sold or leased, rests in the Peri-Urban Areas Board. I would like to know from the Minister how he can say to the House that this Help Committee will be the body in charge? He says clearly: “Die Hulpkomitee sal beheer behou oor die gebied.” I do not see how a Help Committee or advisory committee can have control. It has no locus standi or authority. The only statutory body which can control the area is the Peri-Urban Board.

I want to go further. This area, in terms of what the Minister said, will be a border area. Therefore it can obtain assistance from the Government to establish industries. The Government gives certain assistance in the way of loans and in various ways to any industrialist who wishes to establish a border industry. I would like to ask the Minister whether this area is going to qualify for such assistance as deductions for the erection of buildings, machinery, etc. for taxation purposes, and if so, whether the Minister has negotiated, or whether the I.D.C. has negotiated, or whether the Government to the Minister’s knowledge has negotiated with any industrialists for the erection of any specific indutry in this area? I ask the question with reason, because Durban and Pinetown are also contiguous to Bantu reserves. There is Bantu labour available on the borders of these cities, but they are not classified as border areas and therefore industrialists in those cities are not entitled to the benefit of Government assistance as border areas. But now we have Rosslyn, virtually on the perimeter of Pretoria, and that will now be treated as a favoured nation area and it will get Government assistance to build up new industries. We are entitled to ask with whom have negotiations been conducted? What industries are to be established which will have preferential treatment over the industries in the constituency of the hon. member for Pinetown, where they border on Native areas on two sides, yet do not qualify for these services? Whilst they are precluded we are asked to vote R200,000 to create a new area virtually in the suburbs of Pretoria. This is not decentralization; this is bringing the Bantu back to the White areas. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister to be frank with us and to give us information on the proposed industries which are to be established.

Hon. members are seeing spectres which do not exist at all. In the first place I want to reply to both questions simultaneously. This money is being loaned to the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board; it is being loaned to it on certain conditions and not to do with it what it pleases. It is being loaned to it to purchase that specific piece of land and to develop that land together with a Committee and under the conditions laid down by that Committee. It will not be able to speculate with this land as it pleases. The money is being loaned to it on condition that it uses it as laid down by the Help Committee. That agreement will be drawn up and will be drawn up in those terms. It can only use the money for a specific purpose under certain conditions, and the Help Committee, together with the Board, will determine what the conditions, the selling price, etc., are to be.

The hon. member wants to know whether we are going to give any particular preferences to that border area. I think it must be perfectly clear to the hon. member that we have always said in this House and outside that we will only give preferences in border areas to wipe out the disadvantages associated with the establishment of industries in a border area, and if there are no disadvantages those preferences will not be given. Those preferences will only be given to the extent that there are disadvantages associated with the establishment of those industries. If the undertaking concerned can prove to us that it would like to go to a border area but that it would pay it better not to go there but rather to remain in Johannesburg, then we can make a comparison and place it on a basis of equal competition with the urban undertakings. The same thing will happen as far as Pinetown and Durban are concerned. No border industry will be given support there unless it is able to prove that it is detrimentally affected by going to Pinetown, and the same applies to Pretoria (North).

The hon. member has asked with which undertakings negotiations have taken place. I am not going to reply to that. I can only say that there are quite a number of undertakings with whom negotiations are taking place at present, who have offered of their own volition to go to that area, but I do not think I am entitled to say who they are.

Have they applied for benefits?

No, they are negotiating for the acquisition of sites.

I wish the Minister would answer the question I put to him as to whether it is his intention to utilize this Peri-Urban Board as the instrument for developing the area. The Minister scorned the suggestion that this body, having acquired the land, might make a profit, and he indicated that the land would be registered in the name of this Peri-Urban Board. The Minister said the Peri-Urban Board is not to be placed in the position to speculate with the land, but that was not my question. I asked whether they could make a profit. In other words, they plan and lay it out and provide services of all kinds so that industries can be established there, but when the sale of the land takes place, is it permissible for that board to make a profit on the transaction? Secondly, is it now the policy of the Minister to use this board as the vehicle for the continuation of the process of acquiring land and laying it out for the development which is contemplated? With all due respect to the Minister’s aversion to bringing politics into the matter, the Minister has himself pointed out that there is a Native area a mile away, and as my hon. friend said, this is not a case of taking industries to the border but it is a case of bringing the border to the industries. If you take industry to the border, that is politics, but if you bring the border to the industry that is not politics but just plain economics. May I repeat this question? Is this the beginning of a policy of using this other body, which has never been used for this purpose before, for this development? This is not the Group Areas Board; it is a new departure. This particular body exists only in the Transvaal, and it exists as the result of Transvaal Provincial Council legislation. It has no counterpart in the other provinces. In Natal there is the Local Health Commission which is the body upon which the Peri-Urban Board in the Transvaal was based, but it is not quite the same. In the Cape they have the Divisional Councils. In the Free State they do not have anything of the kind. They only had a special ad hoc committee when they developed the goldfields. If this is to be the Minister’s policy in regard to the Transvaal, to use this Board for the purpose of acquiring land and developing it, is a similar policy to be followed in the other provinces, and what is to be the vehicle there? The Minister said the Handelsinstituut was one of the participating bodies in the control committee dealing with this development. How far will similar commercial bodies be permitted to play a part in any further expansion of the policy which is now being commenced by the voting of this money?

I would like the Minister to give us more details. He has given us some details, but not sufficient. Is he going to control this body, or is he going to control it with the Minister of Bantu Administration, or will the latter control the policy with regard to this development? It is important that we should know, because we are being asked to vote this money and we understand, because it falls under this head, that it will be controlled by the Minister of Economic Affairs. Who will control it? What we want to know is who is going to decide what kind of industries may be established there? Is it the Minister’s Department which will decide what industries will be established there? And what are the guilding factors which will be taken into account before an industry is so established? Is it the number of persons working in a factory, or is it the number of persons who will be available for distribution? So often the emphasis is put on production, but in many cases, in certain types of industry, far more people are needed in distribution than in production. When deciding the criteria for the establishment of an industry in a particular area, not only is the consideration the number of persons employed as producers, but the number of people required in the distribution, the markets, the nearness to the markets and the extent of the markets. As far as we can see from what has been said so far, it appears that the main criterion is the number of people required as workers in the factory. Anyone who knows anything about factories will know that to-day the tendency is more and more for fewer persons to be employed in producing, on the actual manufacturing side, because of the introduction of mechanical means. It is possible that in a particular industry having very few workers to produce the article, many people are employed in marketing. The obvious article in this country is salt. Very few people are employed in the factories, but many hundreds are engaged in the distribution of salt. Here we are asked to vote funds to establish industries on the borders of the reserves, on the supposition that the main demand in industry is for factory workers, but anyone who knows anything about the modern tendencies knows that it is the distribution that requires workers. We are being asked to vote money on very meagre details and we want the Minister to give us much more detail, otherwise we will be constrained to move that this item be deleted in order to voice our protest.

From the course the debate is taking, it is becoming obvious that in the area of Pretoria a border industry is going to be established. When the Government announced this plan for establishing border industries, one of the items mentioned as a means of assisting those industries was the granting, under special circumstances, of a special railway rate for the conveyance of the goods of those factories so that they would not be competing at a disadvantage with similar factories in areas nearer to the distribution centres. This establishment in the Pretoria area, which is quite well industrialized, poses another problem. Are the industries in the Pretoria area which will not fall in the new border area going to be at a disadvantage in regard to railway rates, as compared with those inside that area? This is a very important point, as this seems to be the first area of this type which is established. I should like to know from the Minister what his line of thought is, especially in regard to railway rating.

Let me give a few more details. It may become clearer to hon. members then what this is all about. We must bear in mind the fact that north of Pretoria there is a great concentration of Bantu, approximately 60,000, to whom employment must be given, and the best way to give them employment is to establish industrial sites in the immediate vicinity of that Bantu area. For that purpose a suitable area has been found. Instead of allowing those Bantu to come to Pretoria or Johannesburg, it is perhaps much better, in our opinion, to establish industries on the border of a Bantu area so that the Bantu can live in his own town, which is laid out by Bantu Administration, and so that he need only come over the border for a mile or two to work in an industrial area. That is the policy. We now have to buy the land. We have no statutory body that can buy land and provide the finances for border industrial development, and that is why we are making use of the local authority in that area, and the local authority in that area is the Peri-Urban Areas Board. That Peri-Urban Areas Board is only being appointed as the agent of the State to buy and to develop that land, because it falls within its area of jurisdiction. It is acting as our agent and buying the land for us, and the development of the land will be undertaken by that Board in co-operation with the Help Committee, on which various departments are represented, amongst others Bantu Administration, the Chamber of Industries and the Handelsinstituut. This Peri-Urban Areas Board is a body without any profit motive. It is not there to make profits, and if it does make a profit, that profit will go back to the State, and if there is a loss the State will have to bear it, because the Board is acting as agent for the State, as the local authority that has to buy the land for us. Is that clear now?

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) wants to know whether Bantu Administration will control and manage this area. My reply is “No”. Bantu Administration is responsible for the Bantu township over the border in the Bantu area. Their function is to build the town, and to provide houses, water and power. It is true that Bantu Administration is represented on the Help Committee, but it is not responsible; the responsibility for the planning and development of the industrial area in the White area falls under this Help Committee. There is a clear separation. There is no question here of a subsidization of railway rates. I said very clearly a moment ago that subsidization would only take place where there are disadvantages associated with the establishment of industries. So far there has been no evidence of disadvantages, and, as far as I am concerned, the question of railway rates does not come into the picture at all. I do not know whether the position is clear now, but I think I have dealt with all the points.

The Minister has made an amazing statement now. He has stated that the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board is buying land as the agent for the Government, that it is a non-profit-making body, and that if it shows a loss the Government will subsidize it, and if there is a profit the money will go back to the State. That is an incredible statement for a responsible Minister to make. In other words, he is saying that, should the Durban City Council buy some land to establish an industrial area and show a profit, the State will take it, because the Durban Municipality is in exactly the same position. It is a local authority responsible for the government of an area. The Peri-Urban Areas Board, in exactly the same way as a village management board or a town council, is responsible for the administration of a certain area. It buys ground and owns ground. But the Minister now says it is buying ground as the agent for the Government. Since when does the Government use a local authority as its agent to buy and sell ground?

Order! That point is not under discussion.

It is, Sir. We are being asked to vote money as a loan to the Peri-Urban Board. The Minister has said that he has undertaken to guarantee any losses which may be incurred. We are being asked to lend money to this local authority, and the Minister has stated that if there is any loss on the ground to be purchased with this money, the State will bear that loss. I do not think it is right to ask this House to vote money to a body when there is some hidden guarantee being given by the Government that, should there be a loss, we will be responsible for a further outlay to assist that Board. We want to ask the Minister to give us the nature of this guarantee he has given to the Peri-Urban Board. Otherwise he is asking us to vote money with a string tied to it which can lead to further expenditure which the Minister has not disclosed to this House. I will ask him to clarify his statement that, if there is any loss, this Board, acting as the agent of the State, will be subsidized by the Government, and if they should make a profit it will go to the State.

I do not think the Minister can stop at that point. I asked him specifically whether the land so purchased would be registered in the name of the Peri-Urban Board, and would they take transfer, and he said yes. The Minister now says it acts as the agent for the Government. He cannot have it both ways. We are asked to vote for a loan. Here is the Government saying it will make a loan to its own agent. The agent will buy land for the Government and the transfer will be into the name of the agent, which will have the ownership, and the agent will not be allowed to make a profit or a loss, because if the agent makes a profit the Government will get it, and it will also stand any loss. But you do not make a loan to an agent. You supply him with funds, and since when does the agent take transfer and have the land registered in his name? This is a most incredible transaction. The Minister still does not say whether this is the start of a policy which will be followed in the other provinces, and that is of vital importance. How many more agents does the Government propose to have to handle such transactions? Under these circumstances it raises the other crisp point: Is this layout being done in terms of the Town Planning Ordinance of the Transvaal? You see, Sir, if this is an agent of the Government and it is the Government that is handling the matter in this fashion, then how far is the Government proposing to go with this question of the development of presumably prairie land for the purpose of industrial development, cutting out private enterprise altogether? I want to press the Minister now as to whether this is the beginning of a policy; whether the Government is intending to do that, either by means of some underhand agreement with a body which can be termed the agent and which will get loans, guaranteed against losses and so forth, and how far that is to be carried in the Transvaal and in the other provinces, or whether this is just an isolated case for some reason or other which is being used in this particular instance and is then going to be dropped and the procedure used no further?

I think from what the Minister has said so far we are entitled to assume that the Government’s policy is to lend money to the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board for the location of industry and the development of border areas, and it appears to me from what the Minister has said …

Order! It is a loan to this particular Peri-Urban Areas Health Board that is under discussion. The hon. member is generalizing now. The hon. member must confine himself to this particular case.

I was reading from the Estimates which describes this item as, “Loan to Peri-Urban Areas Health Board for Location of Industry and Development of Border Areas, north-west of Pretoria”, and I am entitled to assume that the Minister’s policy in lending this money to the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board is that the function of the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board is to provide for the location of industry and the development of border areas north-west of Pretoria. We are entitled to ask the Minister who will control this Board. It appears to us that the Minister is using the Transvaal Ordinance which gives the power to establish Health Boards, and that he is doing this in order that this particular Health Board may carry out the Government’s policy of taking industries to the borders of the reserves. If the granting of this loan is the first step, we are entitled to challenge it at this stage, because once having accepted the principle here there may be further steps later on.

I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the first step then.

I will confine myself to the first step and say that it is the Minister’s intention, through this Board, to establish industries in the border areas north-west of Pretoria, wherever they may be north-west of Pretoria, within the boundaries of the Republic of South Africa, and the Minister, through his Department, or the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, will decide what industries are going to be established there, and in effect the Minister in taking this step will be subsidizing industry in competition with ordinary private industry, because any advantageous terms offered to industries to establish themselves in the border areas, in order to promote the Government’s policy of establishing industries in the border areas, will, to the extent to which they are subsidized, to the extent to which they are encouraged, to the extent to which they are offered cheap ground, cheap water, cheap electricity and cheap labour rates, will virtually be offered a concession as against all their competitors in South Africa. In that way it can have the effect of undermining existing businesses in other parts of the Union. Sir, we are opposed to the development of industries in this manner, and for that reason I move—

I want to support the hon. member for Pinetown. It is just about a year ago that this very same question cropped up in relation to the area of Durban. I then criticized the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration because I believed that if he established his border industries in other areas of Natal, he would be placing the industries who had established themselves in the Durban area at a great disadvantage. Those disadvantages are, I think, quite apparent. They have come out to a large extent during the course of this discussion. There is the one question which I raised, the question of Railway rating and certain other considerations. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration immediately pointed out to me that Durban in itself was a border area because the township of Umlazi existed at a distance of approximately 12 miles from the centre of Durban. He told me that; it is not my idea. Well, the same applies here, of course. I am told that Rosslyn is some eight miles out of Pretoria and this Bantu area is perhaps another mile further on. That means that it is a matter of eight to ten miles from the centre of Pretoria. What is the difference between Pretoria and Durban when the same conditions apply? There is no difference, of course. If Durban is a border industry area, why is Pretoria not a border industry area, and why should all industries in Pretoria not have the same advantages as the industries for which this particular piece of ground is being picked out, and for which a loan of R200,000 is being given by the Government to establish just those favoured few industries in that particular area? Why cannot the whole of Pretoria have this benefit? If that rule applies to Durban—and Durban is a border industry, as we have been told by the Minister of Bantu Administration—then what is the difference?

I think it is perfectly clear that we are dealing here with a much more important principle than might have been expected when we first looked at these Estimates. It is therefore a matter which wants much more careful consideration than one can except it to be given in dealing with Additional Estimates. I should have thought that it was important enough to be kept for the Main Estimate. However, that is not the point. The point is that I am getting extremely muddled listening to the hon. the Minister. The Minister has explained that he proposes to lend this money to a Peri-Urban Areas Health Board and that Board is going to buy land and lay out townships presumably. He then said that the Board is going to act as his agent, and then in reply to a question from this side as to exactly how safe this money was going to be, he said that it would be in perfectly safe hands, that there would be another Board, which I gather he is appointing, consisting of representatives of various bodies, and that the matter would be safe in their hands. Sir, I do not understand this. In whose hands is the authority going to be—in the hands of the Peri-Urban Board or in the hands of the Minister or in the hands of this “Hulpkomitee” as the Minister calls it? What authority will the “Hulpkomitee” have? Is it going to be formally constituted? Are we going to have legislation this Session to establish another Corporation for controlling the Peri-Urban Board? You see, Sir, if this is just an idle whim or a bright idea of somebody in the Minister’s Department, it would be one thing, but it is now quite apparent from the Minister’s failure to make a clear statement that there is, I was going to say, a nigger in the wood pile, but I suppose that would not be a happy phrase, However, there is more in this than meets the eye. It is quite clear that we are now being asked in a guileless sort of way to accept and to agree to a brand new principle in pursuit of the Government’s policy of establishing border industries. I must say that I am surprised that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should think he could get away with it in that way. He should surely have told us that this new item on the Estimates represents a new policy of the Government; that the Government in future proposes to use local authorities as their agents, guaranteeing them against loss, in order to foster and if necessary subsidize border industries at the expense of industries in other parts of the country.

Under his dictatorship.

Under his dictatorship with a few “Hulpkomitees” whose function is going to be extremely vague and whose authority as far as I can see will be absolutely nil. I think therefore that we have no alternative but to oppose this vote and to object to it in that way.

The acceptance of this principle by the hon. the Minister and his department, throws into sharp relief the whole problem that a number of other towns and cities will have, in competing for industries in these border areas north-west of Pretoria. I am surprised that this particular principle should be accepted by none other than the Minister of Economic Affairs because he, more than any other Minister, has said that at no time will those areas which are badly affected, such as the areas which I represent and which are affected by the closing of marginal mines, be subjected to unfair competition from other areas. If this is going to be carried out as a matter of principle, then I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he would be prepared to make similar loans available to municipalities which are going to be affected in this way.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to this Vote.

I am dealing with the competition of these industries north-west of Pretoria, which is only a matter of 50 miles away from those East Rand towns to which I have been referring, and which will be affected. If this principle is going to be accepted by this House, then I submit that other areas are entitled to ask that the same facilities be made available to them. I should also like to know from the Minister whether this area, which the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board contemplates purchasing, is already an established industrial area north-west of Pretoria, or is it an area that is about to be established and is a totally new area for industrial development? I do want to issue the warning that if this is going to be the accepted principle that loans can be made available for the establishment of border industries northwest of Pretoria, in the complex of the Pretoria - Witwatersrand - Vereniging - East Rand area, then we have indeed got to contend here with a startling innovation and something which we never imagined would be a principle that would be accepted by the Minister and his Department. I think that in the interests of everyone concerned, particularly those East Rand towns which are very worried about their future position, it behoves the hon. the Minister to make this statement, and to give clarity as far as the future policy is concerned.

As the representative of Benoni I too find myself in difficulty with regard to this question of the location of industry and the development of border areas and making the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board the agent of the Government. The Peri-Urban Areas Board deals with urban areas on the perimeters of the town; that is what the Peri-Urban Areas Board is intended to do, and I find great difficulty in reconciling the handing over to a body on the perimeter of a big town the responsibility of dealing with industries and the development of border areas. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could explain that to us.

The whole picture is becoming perfectly clear to me now. At first I thought that hon. members of the Opposition were fighting to save the State R200,000, but it is perfectly clear now that they are fighting against this item because they are against the principle of border industries. Hon. members on the other side have stated clearly—I think the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Water-son), the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) and other hon. members—that they are against the principle of the establishment of industries on the borders of Bantu areas, and for that reason, and for that reason alone, they are opposing this Vote. Hon. members opposite would prefer to have us carry on with what they call integration and conglomeration and ever-increasing numbers of non-Whites in our cities. They want us to accelerate that process instead of establishing industries in the border areas and employing greater numbers of non-White and Black labour there. They would prefer to see that we bring Bantu families into the White areas instead of establishing factories on the borders where the labourer will be able to live in his own home just over the border and where we will then have a permanent and a happy Black labour force. Let us state the position very clearly: hon. members opposite are opposing this item because they are against border industries.

Order! I have given the hon. the Minister the opportunity to advance that general proposition, but the hon. the Minister must now come back to the Vote.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker; I hope that what I have said has sunk home.

We want to establish a border industrial area north of Pretoria. Hon. members opposite are against it and we are in favour of it.

Permanently?

We want to establish a permanent border industrial area north of Pretoria. Surely we cannot go and establish a border industrial area there with numerous factories on a temporary basis. Have you ever heard of such a thing? Do hon. members want us to go and buy 250 morgen of land, to establish perhaps a hundred industries there and then take them away again the day after to-morrow? They must be permanent—a permanent border industrial area in the vicinity of Rosslyn (North-west) of Pretoria. Here we are asking for the money to buy the land and to make a start with the basic services. We have no other statutory authority which has the means to buy that land, and that is why we are making use of the local authority. If we want to go to Durban and start something similar in the Durban area, we can ask the Durban Municipality to do the work for us, or we can ask the local authority concerned to buy the necessary land for us in East London or any other city. We say to that local authority, “Here is the money; we are lending you this money; buy the land and that land must be developed, together with us, under our conditions with that object and that object alone.” And for that purpose a Committee is appointed. The Peri-Urban Areas Board which buys that land can only develop it under the control of the Help Committee on lines decided upon by the Help Committee. To me the position is perfectly clear; I cannot understand hon. members difficulty. This is money which is being voted in accordance with our policy of border industrial development. We are making use here of a local authority, just as we will make use of local authorities elsewhere, and that land will be used only for a specific purpose. Hon. members on the other side say that this is “a complete departure from policy.” Of course this is the first time that we are going to buy land for border industries, and that is why hon. members opposite are opposing it so strenuously. But this principle of using the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board is nothing new. Hon. members would have us believe that this is the first time that we are doing so. If they look at the Estimates of Expenditure for this financial year, they will see the following item under Loan Vote N: “Loans to the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board for the Provision of Services at and the Purchase of Properties in Alexandra Township.” Last year therefore we made use of the same Peri-Urban Areas Health Board to purchase land in Alexandra. Hon. members must not come along therefore and say that this is a brand new principle. I just want to say that hon. members have all the necessary information with regard to this land; their sole reason for opposing this item is that they are opposed to the principle of border industries.

I must ask hon. members to use new arguments now.

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell this Committee for what period this loan has been granted and what interest is to be paid by the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board.

Sir, I asked whether this land was being planned in terms of the Town Planning Ordinance of the Transvaal. What is the authority dealing with the matter from that particular aspect? But I want to repeat the question put by my colleague, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). The hon. the Minister says that his Department has no statutory authority themselves to go and buy and develop land, so they are using the Peri-Urban Areas Board. What authority is vested in the Health Committee that he has referred to? Where does the final control of the money lie? Does it lie in his hands as Minister? If this is voted by Parliament, who takes control of the money as it is paid? Where does redress lie as far as the taxpayer is concerned—with the Minister, with the “Help Committee” or the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board. We should know where the final responsibility for the money will lie once it has been voted by Parliament, particularly as the Minister now admits that this is a new departure. This is something that is now beginning de novo, and the Minister has indicated that he will be prepared to grant the same privileges to local authorities elsewhere. Then we must know where the final responsibility is to lie between the various bodies handling that money. But I do want to know whether the land is planned in terms of the Town Planning Ordinance.

I would still like the hon. the Minister to clarify the point that I raised. He has made it more certain in my mind that what I said was right because he said that in due course they might possibly buy land in this way in the area of Durban. I am trying to satisfy myself that this loan is really necessary. The point is that this money is being lent to establish a border industry area within what I consider is already a border industry area as a whole, and I am not satisfied that is not exactly what the Minister is doing. If Durban is a border industry area …

Order! That has nothing to do with this Vote. The hon. member must confine himself to this item.

Very well, I want to ask the Minister this: Can he satisfy me that this loan is being made for the establishment of an industrial area as a border industrial area, which in fact already lays within a border industrial area; in other words, is he not setting aside a small portion of an area as a favoured area within an area which already complies with the requirements of the law?

I would like the Minister to clarify one point which he has just made in his speech. The hon. the Minister quoted the case of an advance made to the Peri-Urban Areas Board at Alexandra as a precedent for this particular case. I wonder if the hon. the Minister when he replies will make it clear whether that advance was not for the purpose of slum clearance and not for the development of border industries?

Order! That has nothing to do with this Vote.

May I point out in reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) that the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board falls under the Provincial Administration, and since it falls under the Provincial Administration, its planning must be in accordance with the TownPlanning Regulations. Secondly, as regards the final responsibility, this money is being loaned to the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board, and that Board has the final responsibility of repaying that loan to the Government. The terms and conditions of the loan will be laid down by the Treasury according to the circumstances prevailing at the time. That is a matter for the Treasury.

Sir, we are being asked to lend this money now. Why should we not know the conditions now? Why must the Treasury lay down the conditions of the loan later on? We want to know from the Minister what this agreement is going to be and who is going to make the agreement; or perhaps the Minister of Finance will tell us under what conditions he is going to grant this loan. Is this going to be a general invitation now to municipalities in other areas to ask the Government for loans?

Order! The hon. member is out of order now.

The Minister himself has submitted that this is a new principle.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to this item or resume his seat.

With due respect, Sir. we are creating the precedent now.

Order! The hon. member may discuss this item but no other item at this stage.

Surely, Sir, we are being asked …

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

If I may continue the argument of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), the hon. member advanced two arguments. I wish to deal with the first argument which, I am sure, you will find is completely in order.

Order! The hon. member is being facetious; will he continue with his speech.

I refer to the conditions and the terms under which this loan is being granted. Surely the Minister does not expect this Committee to grant him money when he is not prepared to tell the Committee what the terms or the conditions of that loan are going to be; when he is not prepared to tell us either what the period of the loan is going to be or what interest is going to be charged on it. Those factors will make a big difference to the industry which is going to be created there. If this loan is going to be granted at a nominal interest rate, it is going to become very much easier for that local authority to rent or sell that land to potential industrialists for next to nothing, and therefore the rate of interest is an important factor; the period for repayment is equally important, because if it is an indefinite loan then the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board can either sell or rent that land for nothing at all. An industry can then be created on the ground for which we are now being asked to vote funds.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be quite frank with this House in regard to this item. I am very glad, Sir, that he gave me the reply across the floor of the House when he mentioned the word “permanent” that this was the permanent establishment of a border of the reserved industry. I am very grateful to him for that, because I thought my memory was not at fault, and I had the opportunity of looking up Map No. 63 of the Tomlinson Commission, and I want the hon. the Minister to tell us what the position actually is. The proposed consolidation as shown in that map, shows this area well outside the proposed consolidation of the Bantu areas in that part. The whole of the reserve of which Hammanskraal is a part, forms part, in terms of that map, of the proposed White area. Am I correct in assuming from the hon. the Minister’s reply that this means that the Government have rejected that proposed consolidation? It must follow, because the hon. the Minister told me quite frankly across the floor of the House in answer to an interjection, that this was a permanent industry on the border of the reserves. Sir, these industries might be certainly at the outside within ten miles of Pretoria, and I think this House is entitled to a straightforward declaration from the Minister on behalf of the Government, clarifying the position in this regard.

I want to return to the question I asked this afternoon and which has not been answered. Sir, the Peri-Urban Health Board around Pretoria was constituted for the areas on the perimeter of Pretoria where, as is the case with most big towns, there is a large population living closely to the town. I ask whether this perimeter around a big town such as Pretoria is to be regarded as on the borders of the reserves? We must know and the public must know, because it is something entirely foreign to what we and the public have read into this scheme of industries on the borders of the reserves. The Peri-Urban Board, I repeat, has to deal with the people living immediately outside Pretoria. Now these reserves may become, as we are told, independent one day. I live near Pretoria, and my hon. friend, the member for North-East Rand lives even closer, and I want to know whether there is a chance of there being an independent Bantustan so close to Pretoria. It must be so, because otherwise the authority in respect of this land would not be given to the Peri-Urban Board.

The hon. the Minister in his reply earlier indicated that there were some 60,000 Natives in this area, and he indicated further that the whole object of establishing this urban area as an area for border industry development was to provide work for these people. What I want to to ask the Minister is this: Can the hon. Minister give us the assurance that such industries as may be established there, other than the White personnel needed as administrators, or as technicians in the industry, will be Bantu from that area and not Bantu from the other areas? Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether it is the object in providing this sum for the development of the area that only Bantu from that area will be employed?

I trust the hon. the Minister during the break had the opportunity to reconsider his refusal to give this House details of the conditions under which this Loan is to be granted. When business was suspended, I was asking him whether he expected the House to vote the R200,000 when we were unaware of the circumstances under which the Loan would be granted. It may be granted on an indefinite basis, with no time limit, and it may be granted on a nominal interest of one-half or one per cent. Under those circumstances that land would be available to industrialists at a price and under conditions out of all comparison with normal private enterprise. They would, therefore, be able to compete with private enterprise in other areas under unfair conditions and terms. The Minister has himself said this afternoon that he does not consider this area to suffer any disabilities whatsoever in relation to other industrial areas. He said that he was not prepared to consider the granting of special railway rates and generally that he does not regard it, and there has been no other indication, that area is at any disadvantages vis-à-vis other industries. If that is so and this area Roslin, near Pretoria, has exactly the same opportunities and facilities in regard to power, water, transport and skilled workers within reasonable reach as other areas, then the price of land becomes a vital factor. That being so, I think we are also entitled to ask the hon. the Minister whether this area is going to fall within the normal industrial conciliation agreements affecting Transvaal industries, or whether it is going to be excluded? Will it fall under the Wage Board? The hon. Minister of Bantu Education may laugh. He cannot follow these things, they are beyond him. I want to know whether there will be a special wage determination, because this Minister who is training people to play a skilled part in industry (the Minister who is laughing) obviously does not realize the implications of a trained labour force trained to take part in industry and then operating for lower wages than are paid in other areas. It is of vital importance that we should know.

That has been explained at least ten times. If you have not understood it yet, you never will.

We are entitled to ask whether the wages paid in this area are going to be different from the wages paid in other normal industrial areas, because those two factors, the cost of the land and the wages paid, are going to determine the competitiveness of the industries to be established there. I trust that the hon. the Minister will be more frank with this House than he was this afternoon.

The hon. the Minister made it quite clear that this proposal we are discussing now was part of the policy of the Government for the establishment of border industries. He said that the Government was in favour of the establishment of border industries and that they propose to continue with that policy. I would like to ask the Minister just two questions in that respect. First of all, has he been approached by any industrialist or any industries with a view to starting in this new area, and, secondly, has he endeavoured to persuade or use any arguments with industrialists, who were proposing to start in other areas, to come to this particular area, north of Pretoria? I want to know whether he has been interviewed by any firms who were proposing to start in the East Rand, where mines are dying and the industrial future is extremely precarious, and whether he has persuaded any of those people not to go to the East Rand, but instead, to set up in the district of North-West Pretoria? That is a very important question bearing on the whole question of border industries, and, if I may say so, I hope the hon. the Minister will be careful in the reply he gives.

I would like to point out to hon. members that the Committee is not discussing the establishment of border industries. What the Committee is discussing is a loan to be made to a Peri-Urban Health Board for location of industry and development of border areas, north-west of Pretoria, and not the establishment of border industries generally.

Would you please explain the difference between the location of industries and the establishment of industries?

The one is a general subject and the other a specific subject.

The hon. the Minister says that this money is to purchase land which will be planned and developed for the purpose of establishing border industries, which he said was in pursuance of Government policy.

In a particular area.

Yes, Sir, but the point is that the loan, although it is a little bit abstruse here, is to be granted for that specific purpose and no other. The hon. the Minister has made that clear, and he has made it clear that is pursuant to Government policy to develop border industries. Surely we are entitled to discuss that? The Minister himself said that the money will be used for that purpose.

A discussion of the whole policy of the establishment of border industries cannot be allowed now.

We are asked here to vote R200,000 for the purchase of a particular piece of land near Pretoria, and anybody who knows anything about the establishment of townships, industrial or otherwise, will know that the initial purchase of the ground is a very small portion of the cost of such township. I am prepared to say that this R200,000 for the purchase of the land will force us later to vote at least one and a half times as much, another R300,000. Therefore I say that the question of the hon. member for Constantia is a perfectly valid question, and that it must be answered.

Order! Is the hon. member questioning my ruling? I have already given a ruling on that point.

No, Sir, I accept your ruling. I am dealing with this particular bit of ground. My point is that the ground will cost R200,000 and the development of the land will cost at least another R300,000. My honourable colleague takes the stand that, before we can vote such a large amount, we want to know whether the Minister has been approached in regard to the establishment of industries on this bit of ground.

I want to say this finally, that we want to know whether anybody at present is negotiating with the Minister to purchase a bit of ground in this area for the establishment of one industry.

May I ask the hon. the Minister from whom he is purchasing the ground, how much ground it is, and whether it is true that the Government itself intends erecting factories on this ground for the manufacture of arms and ammunition?

The hon. the Minister has not replied to my two questions. I hope he will do so.

So many questions have been asked that it will be difficult to satisfy the appetite of hon. members. In reply to the first question of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) I want to say at once that the Tomlinson Commission’s proposal, to which the hon. member referred, that particular area should become a White area, was rejected by the Government, and we are faced here with the fact that there we have an area in which there are 50,000 or 60,000 Bantu who have to be provided with employment, and whether that employment is provided for them in Pretoria or in Johannesburg, or on their borders, the fact remains that it must be provided, and the Government’s policy is that in the long run it will be cheaper and better and easier to provide employment opportunities for them on their own borders. I hope that is clear now to the hon. member. This is a Black area and, as far as we can see, it will remain a Black area, and employment opportunities must be provided there and factories established there. The hon. member for Benoni has asked whether large cities are now going to be regarded as border areas. Why not? We have said in this House time and again, but hon. members opposite refuse to grasp it, that the development of border areas does not necessarily mean the development of areas which are out in the Bundu, but that we are going to select certain places —Pretoria (North) is one and East London, King William’s Town, Empangeni, Pinetown and Newcastle may be others—which are on the borders of big Native reserves. That is why these areas are selected because it is easier and cheaper to establish industries there in view of the fact that transport and power and water and light are practically all within reach.

What about the East Rand?

I shall come to that. The hon. member for Pinetown has asked me what type of labour is going to be used there. I am very surprised to find that the hon. member for Pinetown attacks this principle, because I have been approached on three occasions already by Pinetown, his constituency, to regard Pinetown as a border area and to help Pinetown to get border industries established there. I am surprised to find that he puts this question to me because I am sending experts to Pinetown this month to investigate the area between Pietermaritzburg and Durban with a view to border area development. I wonder what the hon. member’s constituents would say about it. The hon. member wants to know what type of labour is going to be used here. The industries that will be established in those border areas will be industries which will make use largely of non-White labour. The whole object is to establish border areas at a place where mainly non-White labour will be used. There will also be White labour—for example White supervisors.

Order! The hon. the Minister must also confine himself to this one area under discussion.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, I should like to confine myself to this area but then the hon. member must also limit his questions to this area. Let me just say briefly then that the labour will be largely non-White labour. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) says, “What about the East Rand?” I do not know whether that is under discussion.

No, it is not under discussion.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) has come back to the conditions of the loan. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, I want to say to the hon. member that it will be the prevailing rate of interest. The term of the loan will be determined in accordance with the circumstances. We shall have to see within what period of time it will be possible to redeem the loan by the sale of sites, etc. But the hon. member need not be afraid that we are going to make sub-economic loans available in this area. The hon. member for Constantia wants to know whether industrialists have approached me about the establishment of industries there or elsewhere, and whether I have tried to persuade industrialists to go there. No, I have not been approached by industrialists nor have I tried to persuade any industrialist to go there. But I do want to say this to the hon. member: If an industrialist comes to me with a proposal to establish labour-intensive industries, non-White labour-intensive industries, I shall let him know that I would prefer him to go to a border area. I shall tell him that the choice rests with him and that he is not being forced but that I should prefer to see non-White labour-intensive industries going to border areas while industries which are principally White should be established in the existing areas. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) wants to know from whom this land has been bought and what its size is. The extent of the land is 250 morgen; there is one farm of, I think, 130 morgen, but a large portion consists of smallholdings which have been purchased and consolidated. I do not know whether the Government is going to establish an arms and ammunitions factory there. That has never been considered. I know nothing about it.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L.S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—77: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H.T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M.K.; Loots, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Loan Vote J.—“Commerce and Industries”, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote Q.—“Bantu Education”, R150,000,

One is always reluctant to raise any query on a Vote for university education, but I should like to say a word on Item 2 (a) “University College of the North”, The amount to be voted extra is R52,100. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how this loan is to be repaid. If it is to be repaid, as I think it must, out of the Bantu Education Fund …

Order! The hon. member can only ask the reasons for the increase.

Yes, Sir, that is what I want to do. I want to ask how this extra amount of R52,000 is to be repaid …

Order! The hon. member is out of order. He can ask for the reasons why there should be an increase of R52,000, but not how it should be repaid, or anything of that nature.

Sir, the original amount voted seemed to me to be sufficient for this university development scheme for Turfloop, but now we have an additional R52,000, and I should like to know whether the original scheme was not sufficient, and if so, what the extension of the scheme consists of? It appears to me to be a large amount that was voted for only 80 students of whom only 31 last year had matriculation qualifications.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to refer to Item 2 (a), “University College of the North”, under “erection or purchase of buildings for university colleges.” Then there is an item of R32,900 under Loan Vote Q in respect of the erection or purchase of school buildings. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister from whom he purchased these buildings with the result that the original estimate was exceeded.

No buildings were purchased. The position is simply that this sub-head of this Vote is normally described in that way. The amount to be voted here has nothing to do with the purchase of buildings; it only relates to the erection of buildings. Perhaps hon. members will understand the position better if I tell them what the main reasons are for this increase. The most important reason is that during the 1960-61 financial year, certain obligations were entered into amounting to something like R32,000. We thought that amount would be paid in that financial year. But the work could not be disposed of and the amount was not paid in that year. The actual settlement of certain accounts, etc., could therefore only take place after the end of the financial year. This amount has therefore simply been carried over from the previous financial year to this financial year, which has resulted in an increase in the Estimates of this year. The amount must be voted again this year, however. Then there has also been additional expenditure because we are still in the process of erecting further buildings, lecture halls, etc., to meet our needs. One comes up against unexpected difficulties sometimes in erecting buildings. For example, in the case of one of the lecture halls it was found that the foundation on which the building had to be erected revealed certain defects which had not been visible previously. The foundation then had to be strengthen, and this entailed extra expenditure. This additional expenditure is accounted for therefore by various services of this nature. This additional expenditure was all incurred at the university college of the North, namely Turfloop.

Was it turf on which the foundation had to be built?

No, that was not the case. One does come across defects of this nature, however. Extra expenditure was also incurred in connection with the levelling of the ground where certain problems, such as the presence of rock, were encountered. One lecture hall had to be made bigger than it was planned originally because it had to be converted into a botany laboratory. That entailed additional expenditure. Furthermore, an inorganic laboratory had to be enlarged and provided with certain equipment. This additional amount therefore is the result of expenditure on two different items, firstly, the amount carried over from the previous year because it could not be spent before the end of that financial year, and secondly, these minor alterations which had to be made to the programme.

I would like to refer the hon. Minister to the item “Maripi—Training School”. This is a new item and I should therefore like to ask the hon. Minister what type of training is being given at Maripi.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister what the words “erection or purchase of school buildings” mean under the first item of the vote, and the words “various centres: completion of various services”. What are these centres and what are the services which account for this increased expenditure of R32,900?

As far as the question of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) with regard to Maripi is concerned, I want to say that there is already a training school there. Maripi is in the Eastern Transvaal. Teachers are being trained there; lower primary and higher primary teachers’ courses are offered there. The buildings belong to a church society and have been leased by the Department for a period which will expire in December 1962. Initially the church society concerned intimated that it was desirous of selling this property to the Department, but at the last moment we were informed that the church society had changed its plans and that they had decided to use these buildings for the training of their own church workers. I am not sure at the moment which society it is, but in any case it is one of the smaller church societies. We were informed that they had taken this decision because they could not get another suitable place. That is why they do not want to renew the lease after the end of this year. We were then obliged to make arrangements immediately to erect other buildings so as to ensure that the training could continue there and that the church society could get back its own buildings which it wanted to use for its own purposes. That is why we had to obtain a special warrant to make a start with the erection of the necessary buildings. A start has already been made and we hope that the buildings will be ready towards the beginning of next year.

Will these new buildings be the Department’s own buildings?

Yes. They will be situated on land that we obtained from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The item “various centres: completion of various services” to which the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) referred, refers to two places only, namely the training school which is being built at Turfloop, adjoining the university college, and another one that is being built at Ngoya, also adjoining the university college. These are purely teachers’ training schools which have nothing to do with the university colleges. These schools were erected during the years 1956 to 1960. In this connection certain services were rendered by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, services such as the levelling of ground, for which the Native Trust was best equipped and for which they had the machinery. For some reason or other no account was received from the Native Trust until recently, and that is how it has come about that we have only now become aware of the fact that they desire compensation for the work that was undertaken there. We feel that it will be no more than reasonable to let them have that compensation. That is the reason for the extra amount which is actually a little more than R34,000. It was possible, however, to defray about R2,000 out of savings on other heads.

I would like to point out that there exists some doubt in regard to the printing of these Estimates. In respect of the item “Maripi—Training School” it is stated that the revised estimate of total cost was R130,000. Then under the column “revised estimate” an amount of R65,000 is shown. The point I would like to bring home is that there was no previous estimate at all in this connection, and if you did not have a previous estimate, how can you have a revised estimate? It might be a technical point, but I do think that when the revised estimates are placed before the House, one should be as careful with them as one can especially when they refer to the main Estimates. The position in connection with this item is that it is not entirely accurate.

The position here is that no amount has been voted on the main Estimates, but that the vote was initiated by means of the State President’s Special Warrant for R65,000 which has now to be voted. The remainder of the estimated cost of the work will then be carried forward to next year to be voted then.

What was the date on which the Special Warrant was issued? I ask this to determine whether or not it could have been placed on the main Estimates.

I am informed that the Warrant was issued by about October.

Should not the other R65,000 also be placed on the additional Estimates now?

All that is required for the year is R65,000.

I accept the explanation of the hon. Minister. The point I would like to make, however, is that it should not be necessary for the hon. Minister on a simple matter like this to get up and explain what is meant by the Estimates. He should have done this during his second reading speech if an explanation was necessary. Hon. members who prepare themselves for this debate, try to deal with items on their merits, and they are entitled to be spared any trouble which they can be spared, and I feel we had a few cases this afternoon where hon. members could have been spared unnecessary trouble if the correct procedure had been followed.

I appreciate the attitude of the hon. member, but if he had looked at the footnote, he would have noticed that this was a case where a Special Warrant was issued and that it could therefore not have been dealt with in the main Estimates. One has to learn the particular language of appropriations.

Before this Vote is put, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education for which ethnic group the Maripi training school is used and in which language instruction is given.

This training school is situated in the Eastern Transvaal in the area of the North-Sotho-speaking group. The medium of instruction in secondary education is partly Afrikaans and partly English. A few subjects such as religious instruction are taught through the medium of the mother tongue.

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

I move—

In moving the adoption of this Report, I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, when he comes along with his taxation proposals later in the course of this Session, to take into consideration the large sum which the Select Committee is putting back into the State coffers!

The recommendation of the Select Committee in this report is historical because, as far as I can ascertain, this is the first time since 1910 that the Select Committee on Public Accounts has recommended that a smaller amount than that reported upon by the Controller and Auditor-General as unauthorized expenditure, be approved of. The Committee recommends that a sum of R69,258.65 be approved as unauthorized expenditure as against an amount of R69,327.54 that the Controller and Auditor-General reported as unauthorized expenditure in his Report. The difference of R68.89, in terms of the report of the Committee, is to be paid to the Treasury by the Secretary for Forestry out of his entertainment allowance in accordance with his undertaking. The history attached to this is as follows: The Secretary for Forestry gave a reception at Saasveld College in December, 1960. On the 16th August, 1961, the Treasury wrote as follows to the Secretary for Forestry—

The Secretary for Forestry admitted that was the position, and that is why the recommendation contained in the Report was made. I would also point out that the Select Committee’s decision in this connection was unanimous, and I do not therefore want to analyse the evidence which gave rise to that decision. Hon. members all have it in their possession and if they wish to do so they can read it. The Committee’s decision, of course, only covers this one aspect of the evidence that we heard, namely, unauthorized expenditure. The other matters, such as ignoring Treasury regulations and the question of proper financial control, will again be considered by the Committee on a later occasion and if necessary resolutions will then be passed in that regard. I hope therefore that hon. members will not discuss matters other than unauthorized expenditure.

The consideration of this Report affords an opportunity to issue a warning to certain departmental heads. Year after year cases comes to the notice of the Select Committee on Public Accounts where unauthorized expenditure was incurred and the Committee is asked to condone it. Many of those items of expenditure were unavoidable and necessary and the departmental head concerned would have neglected his duty if he had not incurred that expenditure. However, there have also been other cases which have been in conflict with all the principles of financial control. In some of these cases the amount of unauthorized expenditure was much more than it would have been if the ordinary procedure had been followed to obtain the authority of the Treasury in advance. In such cases this expenditure is not only unauthorized but also unjustified. One gets the impression that some departmental heads take a chance because they see that year after year unauthorized expenditure is condoned by Parliament, and they expect that it will also be done in the case of their unauthorized expenditure. In other words, the Committee is placed before an accomplished fact. In this connection I think I am speaking on behalf of the whole of the Select Committee when I say that I think Secretaries are making a great mistake if they think that in the future condonation will take place automatically. In the case of the sum of R65.89 which is under discussion here, the departmental head concerned undertook in advance to meet this expenditure, but in spite of that it was not done. It may be that in the future the Select Committee will also refuse to approve of other cases where unauthorized expenditure has been incurred which we feel is unjustified. The Select Committee cannot allow itself always to be placed before fait accompli. I move.

I second.

Agreed to.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up a Bill to give effect to the resolution adopted by the House.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday before the debate on this Bill was adjourned, the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden) spoke at length in its support. He commenced his speech by telling the House that he wanted to make a prediction. That prediction was that the Coloured Representatives in this House would oppose the Bill. That was no clever prediction on his part, however, because he discussed the matter beforehand with me and asked me what our attitude was going to be. I then told him that we would oppose the Bill. What is more, Sir, he then seized the opportunity which was offered by his own prediction to attack the hon. members for Peninsula and Boland who for many years served on the Cape Town municipality. His attack consisted of a series of inaccurate statements. I do not want to spend time on these statements. I would like to point out, however, to the hon. member that before he became interested in provincial matters, in municipal affairs or politics, the hon. member for Peninsula was an experienced member of the Cape Town municipality and that he did much of what the hon. member for Malmesbury claimed was never done, namely the creation of avenues of employment for Coloureds in the municipal services. It was not the Cape Town municipality, neither the hon. members for Boland and Peninsula, who applied job reservation to avenues of employment open to the Coloured people within the Cape Town municipality. The hon. member for Malmesbury argued that the Cape Town municipality failed to provide avenues of employment for Coloureds in the municipal services. The truth is exactly the opposite. Such opportunities were created and the hon. member for Peninsula had much to do with it. It was job reservation brought in by this Government which precluded the municipality from further employing Coloured people and from finding further avenues of employment for them. It was the hon. member for Peninsula who was responsible for the employment of Coloured traffic policemen. In this connection I would like to say, without fear of contradiction, that the Coloured traffic policemen are on a par as regards efficiency and courtesy with any other members of the force. I do not think any complaint can be made against the way in which they perform their work every day and they are especially known for their courtesy. But this Government with its job reservation put a stop to that. Hon. members with good memories will bear me out when I say that a few years ago a rumpus was caused by the Press supporting the Government because the municipality took on in its surveyor’s department a Coloured employee. Immediately a hue and cry was raised and a political issue made of it. The hon. member for Malmesbury should, therefore, not come with that type of argument.

I too would like to make a prediction tonight. That is that the next speaker in this debate will be the hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotze). I have already said before that it was the most peculair phenomenon to see these hon. members as protagonists of Bills such as these and one wonders what metamorphosis they underwent in regard to their attitude to the Coloured people. I am reminded that some years ago members like the hon. member for Malmesbury and the hon. member for Parow and other nationalist party organizers, stumped the country and told the White voters that the Coloured people were political vermin.

Order! The hon. member should now come back to the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is one other point on which I would like to give a reply to the hon. member for Malmesbury.

Order! I have given the hon. member sufficient opportunity to do that and he should now come back to the Bill.

All I can then say is to refer to an old Roman proverb which says “When the Greeks bring presents, beware!” So, when hon. members of the calibre I have just referred to, propose to bring something for the Coloured people, then all I can say to the Coloured people is “God help you!” The hon. member for Malmesbury when he dealt with this Bill, made the most amazing statement, namely to the effect that this Bill would involve no discrimination whatsoever. I wonder whether he said that as a sob to his own conscience or whether it is a sincere attempt on his part to justify the Bill. When one things of the provisions of the Group Areas Act which was introduced some years ago since then consistently applied, you will see that meant that people who have worked and slaved for the properties in which they lived, had to abandon those properties and had to go and live in areas set aside for them. Most probably they will get a house in these areas in which they do not want to live and which is much worse than the one they had before. After these people have been forced to live in these separate areas, a Bill is now being introduced to deprive them of their municipal franchise which they enjoyed since that franchise was introduced in this country. The hon. member alleged that there would be no discrimination under this Bill, because according to him, it would be applied to all races alike. It appears now that hon. member is concerned about giving Coloured people municipal rights which they are being deprived of by this Bill. That is an hon. member who, when he was still a member of the provincial council, introduced a motion which aimed at depriving the Coloured people of their municipal franchise altogether.

Order! The hon. member should come back to the provisions of the Bill.

I submit that what it has to do with the Bill is that this Bill makes a drastic change in regard to the Coloured people’s municipal franchise rights. In dealing with the Bill, the hon. member hailed it as a Bill which will not discriminate and which will treat all races alike. My submission is that the hon. member was not sincere in making that statement. In the first place it is not true, and in the second place it is not sincere, and in the third place he is a man who has been consistently in favour of debarring the Coloured people from all municipal rights. [Interjections.] I leave it to other speakers to deal further with the matter. The hon. member, in justifying the Bill to the people whom I represent in this House, and not he, used the argument that the local authorities in South Africa can be compared with the best in the world. I do not dispute that, but if that is so I want to ask that hon. member and the Minister and the Government if it is correct that the local authorities in South Africa can be compared to the best in the world, why cannot the Coloured citizens participate in the working of those local authorities, as they have done since the inception of local authorities in South Africa? Why must such a Bill come before the House, at this stage, the second half of the twentieth century. Of course, I do not blame the Minister for introducing it. As a matter of fact the Minister has my sympathy, because I do not think it was his intention to introduce this Bill. It was the Prime Minister who announced that such a Bill would be introduced and that the Coloured people would be herded into so-called municipalities of their own. The Minister knows that what I am saying now is the truth. That announcement was made in December last year and I would be very glad if the Minister could say that the Prime Minister consulted him before he made that announcement, but I do not think that was so. But that announcement was made on 12 December and this Bill is now brought before the House. I ask the Government again, in all sincerity, is there any justification for coming with this Bill which is tantamount to the complete dis-franchisement of the Coloured people in municipal affairs? [Interjections.] The question is: What has happened up to the present day that justifies the disqualification of Coloured people from playing their part and taking their fair share in regard to the municipal franchise rights that we have known up to now? I submit that there is no justification whatever for depriving these people of the same rights as the White people who own property on which they pay rates.

Why did Tossie introduce the weekly rates that deprived them of their votes?

Order! Give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

Thank you, Sir. The hon. member went right back in history to 1786, when the municipal franchise was applied in South Africa as we know it to-day. Again at question arises: If since those days the Coloured people exercised their franchise rights in municipal affairs in the same way as any other property-owner and ratepayer since 1786, not a single word of justification was heard across the floor of this House as to why they are not worthy of exercising the same rights to-day. In fact, there was not a single argument advanced as to why the time has now arrived that the Coloured people would be deprived of this basic right which any ratepayer has, a right which they have enjoyed since those rights were extended to ordinary Citizens. [Interjections.] I wish certain hon. members who make interjections would first read the Bill before interjecting, because in the 1½-hour long introductory speech by the Minister, the Minister did not say what the qualifications of the Coloured people would be to have a vote under this Bill, and according to the Bill it will be solely within his discretion whether they have a vote or not. The Minister did not tell us what percentage of the consultative committees or management committees would be elected, and by whom, what percentage he will appoint and what their functions will be. One would say in all sincerity—and I cannot be more sincere than I am now—that on the experience of the past years of nominated and appointed boards, which the Minister should also have experience of, it is perfectly clear that it is immediately viewed with suspicion by the Coloured people and that they do not accept it.

You sow the suspicion.

I submit that no decent civilized people with the standard of civilization and education of the Coloureds can possibly accept it. [Interjection.]

But you make them suspicious.

That is a very interesting interjection. I should not cry. If the time comes when I cry about what is happening in South Africa, that hon. member will be weeping a long time already, and if he does not look out that time will arrive soon.

The hon. member for Malmesbury used the argument here, which is very interesting because he named a place in his own constituency, Bloubergstrand, where the ratepayers in the Ratepayers’ Association refused to accept a proposal by the Administrator to become a local authority. He went further and said that the Coloured people, when this Bill becomes law, will be able to decide on their own local authorities. But the question arises —and I speak with a little bit of authority on the matter, because that very ratepayers’ association was originally formed by me in 1947 and I was chairman of it for many years. The point is that the ratepayers of that area decided that they did not want to become a local authority for the very same reason that I took up that attitude 15 years ago, namely that if they become a local authority they will not be able to develop the place as it should be done from the rates they could levy themselves. They could not develop it to the extent it is now being developed from the general rates levied by the Divisional Council.

But that is not a Coloured community.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) should read the Bill again. Here we have a situation which proves exactly the opposite of what the hon. member tried to prove. Ratepayers in this case refuse to have a local authority because one of two things, or both, would happen. Firstly, their rates would go up, and secondly, they would still not be able to develop the place as it is being developed now by the Divisional Council of which they form part. If a community like that cannot see its way clear to becoming a local authority because they will not have the necessary revenue, how on earth can one expect an area, purely a residential area as the Coloured areas will necessarily be—the industrial areas will not be included in their municipality—where are those people going to find revenue to develop that area and to provide proper facilities and amenities as any municipality should have? Apart from that, why, if such a municipality is established under this Bill, cannot those people then become a municipality or a village management board or a local authority under the existing provincial ordinances which we have been accustomed to for many years? The point is that this is exactly what the Coloured people resent and do not want, to be forced and bludgeoned, because the governing bodies in regard to these areas, these so-called municipalities they will get, will be the Department of Coloured Affairs, with the Minister of Coloured Affairs in the position where not only indefinitely—because he has not told us how many members will be elected and how many will be nominated—he has the sole power to nominate them and even decide who should serve on those boards and who should have the right to vote.

But you have no realization of what you are talking about.

That is the same difficulty I have.

That being the case, in his 1½-hour dissertation, why did the Minister not touch on this very vital point? Why did the Minister not tell us what qualifications a person should have to be a municipal voter? Why did he not tell us what qualifications a man should have before he appoints him a member of that board? [Interjections.] I wish to say that you can call this Bill what you like. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must stop their levity.

You can clothe this Bill in what you like. You can give it any name. You can talk about your own areas, your own local municipalities. You can call the Group Areas Board now amalgamated with the Group Areas Development Board, the Department of Community Development, but it still remains the worst form of discrimination which is most bitterly resented by the people whom we represent in this House, because it still forms part of the Group Areas Act. I will not say that everything that is done as far as implementation of the Group Areas Act is concerned … [Interjections.] I will never make the allegation that all phases and aspects of the development which has been brought about so far by the Group Areas Act is repugnant to the Coloured people, is unnecessary, and that there is no good in anything, but I wish to submit that had there not been political motives in all these matters, and had it not been for the fact that for the sake of political propaganda to influence the White electorate, these measures …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. We are not discussing the Group Areas Act as such. We are dealing with amending legislation and the hon. member must come back to that.

As I understand it, the Bill before the House is the final form of the implementation of the Group Areas Act, and here we have a case where the Group Areas Act is being used in this way to implement or to justify what the Prime Minister in December last year held out to the Coloureds, namely a form of government based on the conception of a state within a state. I wish to submit that it is no good, in justifying this Bill, to adopt the attitude the Minister did and other hon. members who have spoken so far, that they know what is good for the Coloureds, regardless of the fact that it is necessary, that they want it, that they will agree to it, but what the Government does is right. Never mind what the opposition to it is, or what arguments are raised, or what any one of us who are in contact with these people every day of our lives think, the Government is correct.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) concluded by warning the Minister not to make use of stooges to arrange things for him. Sir, I wish to point out, with the greatest respect and sincerity, that this sort of thing where the authority which has the power to-day to do what they are going has tried to create a facade of agreement amongst the people with whom they are dealing …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

The principle of this Bill is the further implementation of the Group Areas Act, and as I have said, it is the final form of implementing that Act and to use that as the basis for the idea of a state within a state.

The hon. member has repeatedly used that argument.

I say that because my submission is that the Coloured people have no areas of their own in South Africa except the whole of South Africa. This Bill will create facilities by which the Coloured people will be herded together, will be deprived of their municipal franchise rights which they have had for generations, and it boils down to the fact that they will be herded into certain areas like third-class compound cattle.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill or resume his seat. This is my final warning.

There are other aspects of this Bill which will be dealt with, but I will not concern myself with that at this stage.

I would, however, like to know this from the Minister. This Bill makes provision for management committees and consultative committees which he will establish. I should like to know from the Minister whether these bodies which he will establish will also meet in secrecy and discuss the matters which they are permitted to discuss without the public, whom they are supposed to represent, knowing anything about it. If that is going to be the case, I can say here and now that this measure will be one of the final important steps towards alienating the Coloured people completely and of finally proving to them that they will never have a hope in this country while this Government is in power of participating in the political life of the country, even in its municipal affairs. The hon. the Minister never gave clarity as to how these committees will be constituted and what their functions will be and how those municipalities will be run. I wish to submit that on the past experience which the Minister should know about and bear in mind, the Union Council for Coloured Affairs was constituted and as the result of the way in which their meetings were conducted in secret without the public knowing about it, people who served there with the greatest and most noble intentions are unfairly under suspicion in the eyes of the public because the Coloured public had no say in putting them there and had no access to what they discussed, what they are doing and how they performed their duties. I shall leave the matter there, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not tell the Minister and the Government that with this sort of measure which is before the House now they will never be able to lift their heads in the civilized world and justify why the Coloured people are being dealt with in this way.

Finally, I feel as in regard to the political rights of the Coloured people, that if they had the development together with the White people throughout the years as far as municipal politics are concerned, they have gained the necessary experience to continue with that development, and if a Coloured man could have been one of the greatest city councillors that Cape Town ever had in the 1920’s and 1930’s, a man who could have been Mayor of Cape Town ten times over if he were not Coloured …

Would the United Party not allow him to be Mayor?

The fact remains that the people are there who can administer their town as part of the municipality under which they resort, rather than to be something independent in the sense that they are under the direct control of the Minister and the Government. I submit that the Coloured people deserve much better than what is being meted out to them in this Bill. But they will not accept it: and they will not be satisfied, and the Government is wilfully creating a dissatisfied and a hostile section of the community which otherwise would not have been so, and it is solely the responsibility of this Government.

I agree with previous speakers who have participated in the debate hitherto that the most important amendments contained in this Bill are those which deal with the institution of consultative and management committees and which also provide for the eventual provision of local government bodies for non-Whites in their own group areas. Right in the beginning I want to emphasize again that this is in line with the stated policy of the Government wherever possible and whenever the time is ripe for it, to give to the non-White races their own separate government bodies in their own residential areas. Right from the beginning the idea in regard to establishing group areas was that when they had developed to a certain stage separate residential areas would be provided for the non-Whites where they would have the opportunity of being trained in local government and running their own affairs in the sphere of local government.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked the Minister yesterday what his object was in regard to these local government bodies? How far is he prepared to go with it? As I interpret the statement by the hon. the Minister, this will afford an opportunity to enable the non-White communities eventually to have full control of their own townships, thereby in the sphere of local government completely controlling the affairs of their own people. Therefore the Group Areas Act right from the beginning provided for the institution of forms of local government for non-White communities in their own residential areas, and the then Minister of the Interior, who is now the Minister of Finance, said very clearly in his second reading speech when introducing the Group Areas Act on 29 May 1950 “A further characteristic of this Bill is the provision which is made for the training of persons in the group areas in democratic procedure and self-government ”. What we envisage in this amending Bill is a positive and constructive measure to mature these non-White communities, to train them and to assist them practically gradually to take over more responsibilities in their own separate communities. This is no negative policy. The non-Whites are not losing any rights. They are not being disfranchised. They lose nothing, but in the long run they will derive great benefits from this legislation. I also want to state that it is in the interests both of the Whites and of the non-Whites that this legislation should be proceeded with as fast as possible.

The hon. member for South Coast said that every point of contact created between the different groups is a point of friction. Today we have such points of friction right throughout our whole municipal and local government system all over the Cape Province. Intermingling on the municipal gevernment level between Whites and non-Whites, particularly in communities with a large Coloured population, has resulted in increasing racial friction and intolerance. The election here and there of a few non-White city councillors has in no way contributed towards promoting good racial relations. On the contrary, these group areas and their development have had the effect that whereas formerly in a community a large non-White population was spread over the whole municipal area, the effect of the group areas is that the non-Whites are increasingly being concentrated in one or two wards where they then become an important municipal voting factor, and that increased the unrest, and exceptional municipalities to-day fear that the non-Whites will obtain control of the municipalities. In other city councils they find that as the result of the operation of the Group Areas Act the number of non-White city councillors will increase. But in most cases it is feared that as the result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act non-White city councillors will be elected in places where formerly they could not have been elected.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) mentioned the committee of investigation appointed by the Administrator of the Cape Province a few years ago to examine the desirability of the establishment of separate management bodies for Coloured group areas, and I still want to refer quite a few times to-night to the report of this committee. Inter alia, the committee says the following in their report—

It is therefore absolutely essential that we should continue as fast as possible giving separate rights of government to the non-Whites by means of this legislation. Otherwise it cannot be prevented that increasingly more mixed city councils will come into existence, and only by the creation of separate municipal governments will the points of friction referred to by the hon. member for South Coast, which already exist to-day in this sphere, and which under the present set-up must necessarily increase, be eliminated and the basis laid … [Interjections.] Only in this way will the basis for sound co-operation and good neighbourliness by established.

But it is not only in the interests of the Whites that this legislation should be continued with. It is of equal importance to the non-Whites because it is a well-known fact that under the present system of local government in the Cape Province, and I am not even referring to the other provinces, because in the Cape Province the Coloureds have made most progress in this sphere, but under the present set-up the Coloureds have progressed and obtained very little. In theory there was equal treatment. There was no discrimination on the grounds of colour, but in practice it was in most cases a mere illusion and a bluff, and one found most of this bluff in these large urban city councils with their so-called liberal outlook.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

In a typically highhanded manner the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) said yesterday that the Coloureds are not interested in self-government. Of course the Coloureds are interested in local self-government, but it is pointed out here how large municipalities, by making use of housing schemes for Coloureds, kept large numbers of potential voters from the municipal voters’ roll, and that is also the reason why the number of Coloured voters is out of all proportion to the non-White population in many of these areas.

I should like to quote a few figures in this regard to show beyond all doubt what a pathetic share the non-White has hitherto had in the local government bodies in the Cape, where they have made most progress. In order to appreciate it, hon. members should bear in mind that Municipal Ordinance No. 19 of 1951 provides that the qualification for a municipal voter is ownership of a taxable property of R400 or the occupation of property with a taxable value of R800. Now it will be seen that according to figures made available in 1959, in urban areas like Pinelands and Fish Hoek, where apartheid can be bought, there simply are no Coloured municipal voters at all. In places like Milnerton, which is laid out by the Graaff’s Trust, there are 400 Coloured inhabitants but none of them have a municipal vote. In Simonstown there are 2,448 Coloured inhabitants, of whom only 171 have the municipal franchise. In Port Elizabeth there are 44,366, and only 2,000 of them are municipal voters. I have here, apart from Cape Town, the 11 urban areas in the Province, which have a joint non-White population of 137,279, of whom only 11,155 have the vote, and that excludes the Municipality of Cape Town. They have no figures available to show how many Coloured voters there are. But I want to put it this way, that the proportion in Cape Town will not be better than it is in Port Elizabeth. In Cape Town there are 229,310 Coloureds, as against 196,560 White inhabitants—not voters but inhabitants. But I also have the figures for nine of the large municipalities in the Cape Province with an aggregate Coloured population of 80,665, of whom only 3,288 are municipal voters. Out of the 80,000, only 3,000 are municipal voters. Take Montagu, with its 7,400 Coloureds. Only 19 have the municipal vote. But that is not the end yet.

We have 17 municipalities in the Cape Province with a Coloured population of between 1,000 and 2,000, which have fewer than ten registered voters. Hermanus, the breeding-ground, the place where the kindred spirits of hon. members opposite live, has 1,300 Coloureds and not a single one of them has the municipal vote. Take Hopetown. It has 1,494 Coloureds, but none of them has the municipal vote. Springbok has 1,800 Coloureds, none of whom have the vote. So I can continue dealing with these 17 municipalities and conclude with King William’s Town, with the consent of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). King William’s Town has 2,086 Coloureds, ten of whom have the municipal vote. Mr. Speaker, here we have 17 municipal areas with a total Coloured population of 24,576, of whom a mere 80 have the municipal vote. And then the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) and the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) still ask: What is wrong with the present setup; why do you not leave things as they are? Sir, I would be ashamed of myself if I were in their boots and put such a question.

What is the solution?

The only solution is the conclusion to which the Rossouw Commission arrived. I quote—

Where is the danger?

I now come to the establishment of these consulative and management committees. Clause 22 of the Bill creates the machinery for establishing these elementary forms of local government, the consultative and the management committees. Here I must mention two important amendments under Clause 22, two amendments of the old Section 25 of the principal Act. It amounts to this, that formerly the members of these committees or these bodies could consist of more than one race. The present amendment provides that the members of such a committee can consist only of the members of the group for which the committee is appointed. Another amendment has the effect that whereas formerly the Minister could not establish such a body without the approval of the Administrator, and the Administrator in turn had to consult the local government body concerned, now the Minister has to consult the Administrator, and thereafter he can continue and give instructions that such a management committee should be established. In this amendment the possibility is borne in mind that when the Minister has to establish these management committees, unsympathetic and unwilling Administrations and local authorities may thwart the Minister in the execution of his duties. If I have regard to the attitude of hon. members here and I think of the experience we have had with the Cape Town City Council and that their officials had to be subpoenaed to give evidence before the Group Areas Board, then I agree that this amendment is very essential. The hon. member for South Coast said: “ If we have to establish these management committees, why do we not start in the conventional manner and appoint bodies according to the local pattern? Let us start on the basis of the ordinary local bodies.” I can tell the hon. member for South Coast that is what we want to attain. We will follow the local pattern. In terms of this Bill, the Minister will follow that pattern. But I quite agree that we should start on a lower rung, because the Rossouw Commission was of opinion that in the Cape Province there was no area where an independent local authority could be established in terms of the existing provisions of the provincial legislation. Where in the near future such local bodies can be established, it is essential that there should be a transition period and a period of training for these communities. And these consultative and management committees must bridge that transition period and that period of training. A modest start in the beginning will perhaps be to nominate the majority of the members of these committees. Their functions will be mainly advisory. But it is quite in line with the preparatory steps which lead to the establishment, under the present set-up, of full local government bodies. It resembles the regional committees under the Peri-Urban Boards in the Transvaal and the local regional committees in the Cape Province which in terms of Ordinance 13 of 1917 can be formed by divisional councils in particular areas. I go further and say that when it comes to the members of local bodies, which will be the first step towards real local government in the Cape Province, the Administrator nominates the majority of the members.

These committees will serve an important purpose. They will comply with a real need. Apart from the fact the hon. member for Peninsula wants to belittle these committees by using these peculiar arguments: He says these consultative committees will amount to nothing because the Minister does not provide in the Bill that the local authorities must take notice of them; they will be able to consult them but need not take any notice of them. Then he says further that if the Minister were to allow these consultative committees to prescribe to the local authorities, the latter will be nothing more than rubber stamps. Sir, the hon. member cannot have it both ways. These committees are just what the Bill intends them to be, consultative committees. To-day in many places, as I have already shown by giving the figures, there are comparatively large Coloured communities which take no part at all in the local government, not even when their most elementary needs are involved. Many of these communities, however, still find themselves at such a low level of development that for a long time to come they cannot have any real share in the existing governing bodies. These consultative committees will now in future be of practical value to such communities. It will stimulate their interest and their pride in so far as local interests and services to their own community are concerned. And the management committees will gradually be able to assume increasing responsibilities. These management committees will be in a position to assist and to advise in regard to the proper planning of this area of theirs and its development into a separate governing body. With the necessary guidance and control they will gradually be able to develop into effective governing organizations with well-trained men from their own ranks, which will eventually be able to take over these areas. It will offer opportunities to the non-Whites, opportunities to serve their own people, to occupy responsible positions, channels and opportunities which hitherto simply have not existed for the non-Whites. But it will also give certain Coloured communities, particularly in the rural towns, the same responsibilities for government which their people are already to-day exercising in the rural areas and on the mission stations under the Department of Coloured Affairs. What is more, it will gradually relieve the pressure on the municipal Voters’ Rolls in White areas.

I must express my strong disapproval of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula and supported by the hon. member for Outeniqua. In his amendment the hon. member for Peninsula intimates that the Coloureds are being deprived of rights here. Sir, that is not so. No rights are being taken away here, so much so that in the area of a local government body there will be Coloureds who will vote for these management committees and there will be Coloureds who will vote for the management committees and also for the local governments because they retain their municipal franchise. I go further. A Coloured who to-day has a shop or a property in a White area and who accordingly qualifies to be put on the local Voters’ Roll, will retain that vote and will be able to exercise it, notwithstanding the fact that in his own governmental area he will vote for a management committee. Sir, we can go further and say that where no management committee is appointed under the local authorities, the Coloureds’ vote is not affected at all.

All that is necessary is that we should develop these communities faster. In terms of the new Clause 25bis, the machinery is now being created eventually to give full governmental responsibility in some form or another to Coloured communities which have already reached the stage of having a management committee. I want to plead with the Minister that this machinery should be put into operation as quickly as possible in areas like Athlone, Elsie’s River, Bellville South and other areas where there is a large concentration of Coloureds and which have other characteristics and possibilities for development into independent townships. It is practically possible. I want to mention a few examples to support my proposition. In that section of the Athlone complex falling under the Cape Town City Council, approximately 50,000 Coloureds are concentrated. The taxable value of that area amounts to R 10,000,000, apart from municipal properties which have an additional value of R5,000,000. In other words, the joint taxable value is no less than R 15,000,000. Take Elsie’s River. The part of Elsie’s River which falls under the Goodwood Municipality has approximately 25,000 Coloureds. The rateable value of that area is R2,250,000. Take Bellville South. It has about 6,000 Coloureds and a taxable value of more than R 1,250,000, with an estimated revenue of £25,546 and an expenditure of £23,040. And the revenue can exceed the expenditure within three years at the present tempo of development there. But we need not look at the environs of Cape Town only. Take Paarl. At the west of the Berg River there live 12,000 Coloureds and the valuation of that Coloured area is R2,100,000. All that is necessary is that the new Department of community development must step in and give these areas the necessary co-ordination, planning and guidance. In terms of Section 13 of the Development Act, provision has already been made that certain essential services like water, electricity and sewerage can be provided in such areas by the parent bodies, which in fact provide it to-day. The planning section of this new department of community building will have to take the initiative, which is given to it by this Bill, in establishing new planned communities and, in consultation with the Department of Housing, to achieve greater co-ordination in the implementation of housing schemes which to-day are undertaken by various bodies, particularly with a view to the development of independent townships. In the same way the development section of this new department will have to take assiduous action and with the means at its disposal from the Group Areas Development Fund, as now defined anew in Section 38, do everything in its power and use every possible means, either through funds it obtains from the Department of Housing or even by making use of the Coloured Development Corporation, to stimulate the tempo of development in these communities. The key to success of this policy of ours, which is called good neighbourliness with borders, is the deliberate provision of oppotunities for Coloureds in as many spheres as possible within their own communities, including the creation of the opportunity to govern themselves in their own areas in the sphere of local government.

I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé). I am sure it is heartening to see the tremendous interest that he has suddenly developed in the welfare of our Coloured citizens.

Don’t be childish.

I leave that to my hon. friend for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). I am not speaking from enthusiasm based on racial policies. I am speaking from a life long experience of local government. Fortunately I have not got to depend on theories, yet to be tested, for the views I advance in connection with this particular Bill. The hon. member for Parow got very hot under the collar in regard to a statement made by a previous speaker in respect of certain franchise rights which the Coloureds will lose as a result of this particular Bill. He said that it was not so, they would lose nothing. I want to tell him, and I want to tell other hon. members who think the way he does, that what the Coloureds will lose under this Bill is the greatest thing that any man values, namely his self-respect. They will be hived off from people with whom they have grown up, with whom they nave shared the rights and the responsibilities of local government in the Cape Province for a very long time They have helped to build the Cape. They have had the right to share with all of us in the task of building up the towns in which we all live. They will lost, yet another old established right. Because when you divide people into colour groups and set them apart into these groups they must sacrifice a certain measure of self-respect. That is how the Coloured people feel about this particular measure, if my hon. friend from Parow wants to know. And this is happening at a time when, as never before, it is imperative on the part of the White people to do all they can to keep the friendship and the support of our friends amongst the Coloured people. The hon. member for Parow gave us a list of figures purporting to show the proportion of Coloured people who enjoy franchise rights in various areas as compared with the total number of Coloureds in those areas. The figures he quoted mean just nothing at all. In certain cases they are not even correct. I say they mean nothing at all. Sir, I will refer to a case which happened only last week. And for this purpose I will accept the hon. member for Parow’s figures in respect of Simonstown as correct. I think he said there were 176 Coloured voters in Simonstown.

171.

That is 171 out of plus/minus 900 voters. I want to tell the hon. member for Parow and those who think like him that only last week, despite the tremendous disparity which he says exists in respect of municipal voters there, the voters of Simonstown, without opposition, elected a Coloured man to the council to help to serve the town in cooperation with the White men of the council. I think that is the answer to all his criticism. Where by his figures you have a preponderance of White voters of approx 6 to 1, a Coloured member was elected—without opposition although there were White candidates available,—to assist in the running of the town. That completely destroys any argument of the dangers that he tried to put up in regard to the disparity in the voting strength.

I want to come back to the opening remarks of the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Bill. I must say that the hon. the Minister went out of his way to do all that he could to clarify the intentions of this Bill and the various features that had led to the proposals as outlined in it. The hon. the Minister outlined the steps which have already been taken with regard to the reorganization of the two main group areas bodies at the moment, that is the Group Areas Board and the Group Areas administration itself. He dealt with the gradual merging of their responsibility and the work of these two bodies, and of the recent bringing together of those two bodies into the present Department of Community Development. I should just like to say in passing that there appeared to be somewhat of an oversight on the part of the Minister. He omitted to use the word “ Separate ” when he dealt with community development, because this is essentially a development on separate colour lines. The Minister went on to say that the proposals in the present Bill were in general the logical conclusion of the work of the Group Areas Development Board and administration, and he gave an outline of the consultation which had been carried out between the boards themselves and the special committees set up by the Provincial Administrations in the four provinces. The Minister rightly said that those committees were experienced in local government in the various provinces. There have also been consultation with the various municipal associations in the four provinces. That consultation was essentially on the lines of the legislation contained in the Bill which is now before us. Actually, of course, Sir, it is not possible to accept fully the hon. the Minister’s conclusion that the Bill before us is the logical conclusion of the gradual merging of the work of the two Group Areas Boards. Because, without any question, the Bill now before us started its career long before that. It is in the main the result of a personal directive issued by the hon. the Prime Minister as far back as December, 1960. In that directive he called for the immediate implementation of a very wide range of important matters particularly affecting Coloured South Africans in regard to local government. The Bill is one of the direct results of that directive. I want to quote from the Prime Minister’s positive statement issued on 7 December 1960 which is really the foundation of the Bill we are considering. The hon. the Prime Minister commenced by saying—

That was one of the directives which the hon. the Prime Minister issued and which started the inquiry going which eventually led up to the Bill which is now before us. The directive goes on and goes beyond the mere establishment of Coloured local authority areas, because it deals with a number of aspects including—

The Bill before us deals with the establishment of these local authority areas in the urban areas of the country. But the Prime Minister’s directive also lays down that—

In submitting these proposals to the hon. the Minister for his consideration, the Prime Minister stated that—

So as you will see, Sir, the Bill before us is not only the product of the merging of the responsibilities of the two Group Areas Departments into the Department of Community Development, but also the direct result of an official directive from the Prime Minister.

The Bill before us deals mainly with the proposed Coloured development in the urban areas. It is quite clear, therefore, that there is much more behind the Bill—when we take the Prime Minister’s directive in its entirety and it is not all covered by this Bill— that when you read the two factors together there is much more behind the present Bill than the hon. the Minister himself suggested in his opening remarks. That is again supported by the Prime Minister’s later statement issued towards the end of 1961 when he again outlined certain of these proposals to the Coloured community and at that stage told them that within 10 years it would result in the creation of a separate Coloured Parliament. This completely proves, to my way of thinking and to many other people, that the Bill now before us is indeed a start with the further fragmentation of South Africa into a number of small ineffective and in many cases completely uneconomic units …

Order! The hon. member is going too far now. He must come back to the Bill.

Thank you Sir. In actual fact the Bill before us now proposes to change very definite advantages and prospects which already exist under our present local government system for the self-development of the Coloureds, into complicated promises which can never be fulfilled under any system of independent separate community development.

I want to refer in passing to the hon. the Minister’s outline of some of the consultations that were carried out because they also have a very important bearing on the Bill before us. I should like to fill in some of the gaps which doubtless, due to the lack to time, the hon. the Minister, has left. I want to touch on the findings reached by some of the responsible bodies which the hon. the Minister told us had been consulted and which had taken part in the discussions. The Minister made it clear that a committee was set up with representatives of the municipal associations of the four provinces. That committee was set up in October 1961 with a view to obtaining the necessary information to enable this particular piece of legislation to be framed. That committee was set up under the chairmanship of Mr. J. H. Niemand and their terms of reference at the time were—

Well, that Committee was set up and in terms of its mandate, had consultations with the various authorities. I want to quote from certain of the discussions which the committee itself had with the representatives of the Cape Provincial Municipal Executive. They in turn had very little time to consider the matter. They say in their memorandum which they submitted to the Committee that they were only given 11 days to deal with the whole matter and therefore they had to be excused if they had not gone into it too fully. If I may just say this before I go on: In the accompanying letter which the Minister of Community Development sent to the Administrator of the Cape Province, he made a most enlightening remark when he said this—

I can only say with regard to that, Sir, that it has taken the hon. Minister quite a long time to discover that important fact that it was not without difficulties, a fact which we, who have been associated with local government over the last 30 to 40 years, could have told him and have been telling him down the years for a long time. In his remakrs the Minister stressed the fact that the proposals in the Bill have been discussed with experienced local authorities.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 1 March.