House of Assembly: Vol22 - TUESDAY 5 MARCH 1968

TUESDAY, 5TH MARCH, 1968 Prayers—2.20 p.m. QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Income Tax Assessments *1. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Finance:

(a) How many persons in each race-group were assessed for income tax in 1966-’67 and (b) what was the total amount of the assessments of each group.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Statistics in respect of the 1966-’67 tax year are not yet available.

Persons Registered as Nurses *2. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Health:

How many (a) White, (b) Coloured, (c) Indian and (d) Bantu persons were registered nurses at the end of 1965, 1966 and 1967, respectively.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH:

The numbers of registered female nurses, male nurses and midwives were as follows (unfortunately no distinction is made between Coloureds and Indians).

Year

(a) Whites

(b) and (c) Coloureds (Including Indians)

(d) Bantu

Total

1965

22,115

1,685

8,624

32,424

1966

22,906

1,835

9,275

34,016

1967

23,415

2,016

9,835

35,266

Compensation for Bantu Moved from Meran to Limehill *3. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) What amount has been paid in compensation to Bantu moved from Meran to Limehill;
  2. (2) (a) how many persons (i) have received and (ii) still have to receive full compensation and (b) when will all compensation payments have been made;
  3. (3) whether the removal of Bantu from Meran to Limehill has been completed; if not, (a) how many still have to be moved and (b) when is it expected that the removal will be completed.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) R5,226.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) (i) 44 family heads, (ii) None.
    2. (b) Falls away.
  3. (3) Yes.
Third-Party Motor Vehicle Insurance Premium Income and Claims *4. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Transport:

(a) What was the total premium income of the third-party motor vehicle insurance consortium companies, (b) how many claims were (i) reported and (ii) settled, (c) what amounts were paid in settlement of claims, (d) what amount is estimated for claims notified and unpaid and (e) what profits were made for each of the years ended 30th April, 1966 and 1967.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Reply laid upon Table with leave of House):

The undermentioned statistics refer to the period ended 30th November, 1967—

(a)

1965-’66

R 7,625,689

1966-’67

R18,399,299

1967-’68

R19,516,265

(b)

(i)

1965-’66

9,646

1966-’67

15,28

1967-’68

24,613

(ii)

1965-’66

6,172

1966-’67

5,872

1967-’68

646

(c)

1965-’66

R 3,485,861

1966-’67

R 2,382,644

1967-’68

R 214,554

(d)

1965-’66

R 5,140,970

1966-’67

R17,154,718

1967-’68

R 9,008,200

  1. (e) Not yet available.
Shunting of non-White Passenger Coaches *5. Mr. G. S. EDEN

asked the Minister of Transport:

(a) At what stations in the Republic are coaches carrying non-White passengers shunted from the front of passenger trains to the rear, (b) how many trains are handled in this manner annually, (c) what is the purpose of this operation and (d) what is the total annual cost to the Railways in time and money.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (a) Touws River.
  2. (b) 1,334.
  3. (c) To permit of non-White passengers detraining on that part of Cape Town station where facilities are provided for them.
  4. (d) Nil. The shunting operation involved is carried out in conjunction with the changing of locomotives.
Deposits, Guarantees in Respect of Emigrants *6. M. G. S. EDEN asked the Minister of the Interior:
  1. (1) What is the aggregate amount of deposits and/or guarantees furnished by emigrants in each race group prior to departure in each year since 1965;
  2. (2) whether any emigrants have been repatriated by direction of foreign governments during each of these years; if so, (a) how many in each race group, (b) from which countries and (c) at what cost to the Government of the Republic.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) No separate detailed records are kept of amounts deposited by emigrants prior to their departure from the Republic.
  2. (2) No statistics are available, (a), (b) and (c) Fall away.
Bantu Night Schools and Continuation Classes *7. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

Whether any alternative arrangements have been made for the pupils of (a) night schools and (b) continuation classes for Bantu adults in white areas of the Republic that have been closed; if so, what arrangements, if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

(a) and (b) No.

My Department of Bantu Education does not initiate the establishment of Bantu schools or classes in any European area. Government Notice No. R.26 dated 5th January, 1962, allows, under certain conditions, the establishment in European areas, of night schools and continuation classes for the Bantu, by private European individuals.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, is it the intention of the Department to discontinue completely provision for these classes?

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

Yes, outside urban Bantu residential areas, as far as possible.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Further arising out of the reply, will that apply to a district such as Soweto in Johannesburg?

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

Soweto is a Bantu residential area and I have said that there it is in order.

Wait-Listed Passengers for S.A. Airways *8. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether there has been an increase in the number of wait-listed passengers on the internal routes of South African Airways during the past 12 months;
  2. (2) how many passengers were (a) waitlisted and (b) unable to obtain seating accommodation on flights between (i) Durban and Johannesburg, (ii) Johannesburg and Durban, (iii) Durban and Cape Town, (iv) Cape Town and Durban, (v) Cape Town and Johannesburg and (vi) Johannesburg and Cape Town during the same period;
  3. (3) whether steps are contemplated to improve the position; if so, what steps.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) and (2) Air reservation data are recorded on statements printed by a computer at certain stages of each flight. To abstract the information requested by the hon. member would be an enormous task involving an analysis of thousands of these statements which are, in any case, only retained for a period of twelve months.
  2. (3) Yes; with effect from 1st April, 1968, an additional Boeing 727 frequency between Johannesburg and Cape Town will be introduced. Frequencies will be progressively increased on all the routes mentioned in part (2) (b) of the question as additional aircraft become available later during the year.
Delivery of Air Mail Letters *9. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether complaints have been received in connection with delayed delivery of letters posted air mail; if so, how many complaints have been received during the past 12 months;
  2. (2) whether steps are being taken (a) to ensure that the sorting and delivery of air mail letters is keeping pace with increased and accelerated air services and (b) to increase postal delivery services in residential areas of the main cities which at present receive one delivery per day; if so, what steps and in what areas;
  3. (3) whether computerized sorting equipment has been introduced into the postal department; if so, in which centres; if not, when is it proposed to introduce such equipment.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) Yes. As such complaints are dealt with by postmasters throughout the Republic and a centralized record is not kept, the number is not available.
  2. (2) (a) and (b) Yes. Use is made of all air services which can speed up the conveyance of mails. Two postal deliveries are invariably provided in the residential areas of the major cities when manpower permits.
  3. (3) A semi-automatic letter sorting machine is at present being installed in the Pretoria post office. The introduction and development of automatic mail sorting in South Africa will depend on the practical results attained with this machine.
Civil Pensions *10. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

  1. (1) (a) How many persons are receiving civil pensions and (b) how many widows are receiving pensions;
  2. (2) how many civil pensioners are receiving a temporary allowance;
  3. (3) (a) what is the present means limitation to qualify for a temporary allowance and (b) when was it determined;
  4. (4) whether consideration has been given to (a) raising and (b) abolishing the means limitation applicable to the payment of temporary allowance; if so, what steps have been taken or are contemplated; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE (for the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions):
  1. (1) (a) 23,750. (b) 8,523.
  2. (2) 16,435.
  3. (3) (a)

Race

With one or more dependants per annum

Without dependants per annum

White persons

R1,800

R900

Coloureds and Asiatics

R900

R450

Bantu persons

R450

R225

    1. (b) 1st April, 1959.
  1. (4) (a) and (b) Yes.

Since any changes in this connection concern Budget proposals, it is not considered advisable to issue a statement at this stage.

Railway Pensions *11. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) How many persons are receiving railway (a) pensions and (b) widow’s pensions;
  2. (2) how many railway pensioners are receiving a temporary allowance;
  3. (3) (a) what is the present means limitation to qualify for a temporary allowance and (b) when was it determined;
  4. (4) whether consideration has been given to (a) raising and (b) abolishing the means limitation applicable to the payment of a temporary allowance; if so, what steps have been taken or are contemplated; if not, why not.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) (a) 25,434. (b) 10,349.
  2. (2) 31,225.
  3. (3) (a) Whites:

Per annum

Married

R1,800

Single

R900

Coloureds:

Married

R 900

Single-Single

R 450

Other non-Whites:

Married

R 450

Single

R 225

    1. (b) 1st April, 1959.
  1. (4) (a) and (b). Yes, the matter is considered by the Cabinet from time to time.
Staff Changes In S.A. Railways *12. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) How many white employees terminated their employment with the South African Railways during 1966 and 1967, respectively, owing to (a) retirement, (b) resignation, (c) discharge, (d) death, (e) abscondment and (f) transfer to other Government departments;
  2. (2) how many white employees entered the employment of the South African Railways during the same years.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

1966

1967

(1)

(a)

1,988

2,098

(b)

7,968

9,316

(c)

1,092

1,044

(d)

631

600

(e)

7,006

7,522

(f)

13

15

(2)

19,050

20,352

The details are in respect of regular staff. Similar information in respect of casual staff is not readily available.

Public Works Employment of Staff in Higher Posts *13. Mr. W. T. WEBBER

asked the Minister of Public Works:

  1. (1) Whether (a) artisans and (b) charge hands are employed in his Department as (i) sub-foremen and (ii) foremen; if so, how many in each category;
  2. (2) (a) for how long has this position existed and (b) for how much longer is it anticipated that it will continue;
  3. (3) whether he will consider promoting these persons to the higher posts they occupy; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE (for the Minister of Public Works):
  1. (1) (a) and (b) No, except for short periods whilst incumbents are on leave or pending filling of vacancies.
  2. (2) Falls away.
  3. (3) Falls away.
Public Works: Pension Scheme for Artisans *14. Mr. W. T. WEBBER

asked the Minister of Public Works:

Whether (a) white artisans, (b) non-white artisans and (c) non-white labourers employed by his Department participate in any pension scheme; if so, in which pension scheme; if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE (for the Minister of Public Works):

(a), (b) and (c) Yes.

In the case of (a): the Government Employees Provident Fund.

In the case of (b) and (c): the Government non-White Employees Pension Fund.

National Road from Libode to Port Edward *15. Mr. T. G. HUGHES

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether the survey of the national road from Libode to Port St. Johns and Port St. Johns to Port Edward has been undertaken; if not, when is it planned that a start will be made; if so, (a) when is the survey expected to be completed and (b) when is construction of the road likely to commence.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

No.

The existing shortage of engineers precludes an immediate start with the survey and at this stage no indication can be given as to when it will be undertaken.

(a) and (b) fall away.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Arising out of the Minister’s reply, I wish to ask him whether his Department has considered engaging the engineers and surveyors who are at present doing the survey from Umtata to Libode, to continue on from Libode to Port St. Johns? It is a private firm.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Will the hon. member please give notice of that question?

Cost of Telephone Calls between Durban and Pietermaritzburg

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS replied to Question *19, by Capt. W. J. B. Smith, standing over from 1st March:

Question:
  1. (1) Whether there is a difference in the cost of a telephone call from Pietermaritzburg to Durban and from Durban to Pietermaritzburg; if so, (a) for what reasons, (b) since what date and (c) what is the difference for a call of 3 minutes, 6 minutes, 9 minutes and 12 minutes, respectively;
  2. (2) whether he will consider refunding the difference to subscribers who have paid the higher tariff; if not, why not;
  3. (3) whether he intends to take any steps in regard to the matter; if so, what steps.
Reply:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) calls from Durban to Pietermaritzburg are metered on the variable time interval metering basis, while calls from Pietermaritzburg to Durban are metered on the repeat metering basis,
    2. (b) 24th November, 1967, and
    3. (c) from Durban to Pietermaritzburg— 14c for 3 minutes, 21c for 6 minutes, 28c for 9 minutes and 35c for 12 minutes, and from Pietermaritzburg to Durban—14c for 3 minutes, 28c for 6 minutes, 42c for 9 minutes and 56c for 12 minutes;
  2. (2) and (3) no, the anomaly is merely of a transitional nature and all such anomalies will be eliminated with the progressive introduction of facilities for national subscribers’ trunk dialling. These facilities are being provided as fast as possible.
Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, what does the Minister mean by “progressive”?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Erection of Bust of the Late Field-Marshal J. C. Smuts

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT replied to Question 20, by Dr. E. L. Fisher, standing over from 1st March:

Question:

Whether a bust of the late Field-Marshal J. C. Smuts is to be erected at the Jan Smuts Airport; if so, (a) by whom was the bust commissioned, (b) when will it be unveiled and (c) who will unveil it.

Reply:

Yes.

  1. (a) The bust was not commissioned. It was sculpted and presented to the State by Dr. Jack Penn.
  2. (b) No unveiling ceremony is contemplated.
  3. (c) Falls away.
Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Why not?

Increased Charges for Local Telephone Calls 1. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

What was the (a) estimated and (b) actual amount derived from increased charges for local telephone calls during the calendar year 1967.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (a) R14,000,000.
  2. (b) This amount cannot be indicated as separate statistics are not kept of the different sources of telephone revenue, e.g. metered calls, trunk calls, rentals, etc.
Registered Medical Practitioners, Dentists, Chemists 2. Mrs. H. SUZMAN

asked the Minister of Health:

(a) How many (i) medical practitioners, (ii) dentists and (iii) chemists and druggists were registered at the end of 1967 and (b) how many were practising in (i) the White areas and (ii) in the Bantu homelands.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH:
  1. (a) (i) 9,639 plus 564 interns, (ii) 1,424.(iii) 3,639.
  2. (b) (i) and (ii). Unfortunately particulars are not available.
Vehicles Transferred to Transkei Government 3. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether any decision has been arrived at in regard to the amounts to be paid and the methods of payment by the Transkei Government for the vehicles which according to his statement of 21st February, 1967, were transferred to the Transkei Government; if so, (a) what decision and (b) what payments or other compensation were involved;
  2. (2) whether any further vehicles have been transferred since 1st July, 1964; if so, (a) how many in each year, (b) what was the estimated total value and (c) what arrangements were made for payment or other compensation.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) No. (a) and (b) fall away.
  2. (2) No. (a), (b) and (c) fall away.
British Postal Orders in Republic 4. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) What was the value of British postal orders sold in the Republic during the last completed year for which statistics are available;
  2. (2) whether negotiations were entered into with British authorities after devaluation in regard to conditions and new exchange rates for British postal orders bought in the Republic; if so. (a) with what British authorities and (b) on what date;
  3. (3) whether the negotiations have been completed; if so, with what results; if not, when is it expected to be completed.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) R2,186,722 for the year ended November, 1967.
  2. (2) Yes, (a) the British Post Office and (b) 28th November, 1967.
  3. (3) Yes. British postal orders are at present being prepared by the British Post Office and are expected to be available at post offices in the Republic towards the middle of June this year.
Committee of Enquiry into Greater Independence for Post Office 5. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

Whether all bodies representing employees of his Department were asked to give evidence before or submit proposals to the committee of enquiry into a greater measure of independence for the Post Office; if not, (a) which bodies were (i) asked and (ii) not asked and (b) for what reasons.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

No recognized staff association or other body representing employees of the Post Office was requested to give evidence or to submit proposals to the Committee. However, all representations on this subject which over the years were made to either the Department or to previous committees of enquiry by the staff of the Post Office as well as the Associations or bodies representing them, were fully taken into account by the Wiehahn Committee and suitably recognized in its report.

Commission Earned by S.A. Airways 6. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

What are the particulars of the commission which the Airways received in 1965-"66 and 1966-’67, respectively.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Commission amounting to R413,225 and R451,950 was earned by South African Airways during the financial years 1965-’66 and 1966-’67, respectively. This revenue represents commission received from other airlines (a) for the business derived by them from passenger tickets, consignment notes and miscellaneous charge orders issued by South African Airways for conveyance on the services of such airlines, and (b) as compensation for the services rendered by South African Airways acting as general sales agent in the Republic and South West Africa on behalf of certain airlines.

Suspected Irregularities in Connection with National Roads Unit, Heidelberg, Tvl. 7. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Justice:

Whether any further steps have been taken in connection with the suspected irregularities in regard to the National Roads Unit at Heidelberg, Transvaal; if so, (a) what steps and (b) with what result; if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Yes.

  1. (a) A certain H. Eckhart was charged in the Regional Court with fraud and theft.
  2. (b) He was acquitted on all counts.
Deposits for New Telephone Services 8. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) From what date were all applicants for new telephone services on the Witwatersrand required to pay a deposit;
  2. (2) (a) how many such applicants were there on 31st March of each year since 1964 and (b) what amount was obtained each year by way of deposits;
  3. (3) for what reasons is a distinction drawn between the Witwatersrand and other centres.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) October, 1963.
  2. (2) (a) October, 1963 to 31st March, 1964 —2,221, 1st April, 1964 to 31st March, 1965—9,871, 1st April, 1965 to 31st March, 1966—13,609, 1st April, 1966 to 31st March, 1967— 6,999, and
    1. (b) separate statistics are not kept of deposits that were collected from subscribers for the various reasons.
  3. (3) While advance payments are collected in the case of new subscribers in other areas, it is necessary to collect deposits from new subscribers on the Witwatersrand owing to the particular mechanized telephone accounting system which is in use there.
Telephone Exchanges on Witwatersrand 9. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) How many telephone exchanges are there on the Witwatersrand;
  2. (2) (a) how many telephone lines at each exchange (i) have been allocated to subscribers and (ii) are still available and (b) how many outstanding applications are there at each exchange;
  3. (3) what was the total number of available lines (i) at 31st March of each year since 1964 and (ii) at the latest available date;
  4. (4) whether steps have been taken to make new lines available; if so, (a) what steps and (b) what is the total number of lines expected to be available by 31st March, 1969.
The MINISTER OF POST AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) 48.

(a)

(i)

(ii)

(2)Johannesburg Central

17,636

nil

738

Johannesburg City

19,313

144

54

Auckland Park

3,467

140

13

Bramley

6,538

nil

529

Bryanston

4,006

104

1,206

Halfway House

579

28

nil

Hillbrow

8,504

610

294

Honeydew

854

94

19

Houghton

2,933

1,200

20

Jeppe

6,925

112

880

Joubert Park

8,423

128

861

Kensington

6,690

394

1,108

Linden

8,285

128

1,281

Mayfair

6,045

71

522

Mondeor

1,043

nil

54

Newlands

3,987

496

513

Orange Grove

5,892

855

73

Parkview

6,681

255

54

Rosebank

10,713

84

193

Rosettenville

5,975

16

67

Sandown

2.482

nil

93

Turffontein

5,583

109

1,402

Yeoville

8,446

1,040

49

Alberton

5,181

86

812

Benoni

8,038

197

1,325

Boksburg

5,616

nil

659

Brakpan

5,287

629

122

Dunnottar

588

84

44

Edenvale

4,861

109

414

Germiston

7,227

nil

313

Isando

448

76

38

Kempton Park

3,274

610

1,608

Nigel

1,289

26

128

Noord-Rand

1,361

105

152

Primrose

6,550

nil

208

Springs

8.686

nil

612

Wadeville

741

nil

526

Florida

6,377

185

63

Krugersdorp

5,063

397

62

Lewisham

2,075

937

40

Muldersdrift

79

nil

nil

Randfontein

2,268

910

72

Roodepoort

4,031

752

155

Bank

73

57

nil

Blyvooruitsig

574

43

nil

Carletonville

2,828

974

43

Rysmierbult

21

nil

nil

Welverdiend

97

50

nil

  1. (3)

(a)31.3.64

136,500

31.3.65

188,700

31.3.66

246,000

31.3.67

247,700

(b) 31.1.68

249,900

  1. (4) Yes.
    1. (a) Four new automatic exchanges will be established during the next 12 to 18 months, while seven existing exchanges will be enlarged.
    2. (b) 271,000.

Note: The figures under 2 (b) include applications which are in the process of disposal or which cannot be disposed of owing to lack of cable leads or on account of other technical reasons.

Aircraft at Disposal of Cabinet Ministers

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT replied to Question 6, by Mr. E. G. Malan, standing over from 1st March:

Question:
  1. (1) Whether aircraft are placed at the disposal of (a) Cabinet Ministers and (b) Deputy Ministers; if so, (i) how many, (ii) what types and (iii) what is the cost per aircraft;
  2. (2) whether any special equipment has been installed in the interior of the aircraft: if so, what is the nature and the cost of this equipment.
Reply:
  1. (1) (a) (i) and (ii) An aircraft has not been set aside for the exclusive use of Ministers but, when necessary, a Dakota DC-3 aircraft, which is also used for normal scheduled services, is made available.
  2. (iii) Falls away.
  3. (b) No.
  4. (2) No.
FIRST REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS (ON UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE, 1966-’67)

Report considered and adopted.

The Minister of Transport brought up a Bill to give effect to the resolution adopted by the House.

RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE BILL

Bill read a First and Second Time.

ESTIMATES OF ADDITIONAL EXPENDI-TURE-CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (Motion to go into Committee) The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the House go into Committee on the Estimate of the Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue and Loan Accounts during the year ending 31st March, 1968 [R.P. 2-’68].

It is necessary to request Parliament to approve an additional amount of R84,647,651 so as to meet expenditure up to 31st March, 1968. Of this amount R51,165,871 is in respect of the Revenue Account and R33,481,780 is in respect of the Loan Account.

The amount requested on Revenue Account, is only 3.7 per cent more than the amount provided in the Main Estimates for this year. But if the special contributions to certain pension funds, which amount to a total of R17,000,000, are not taken into account, the picture is quite different and the increase is approximately 2.3 per cent. The amount requested on Loan Account represents approximately 6.3 per cent of the amount voted in the Main Estimates for the current year. This amount, too, includes certain unusual items which, if we were to leave them out of account, would give us a much lower percentage deviation, namely 1.83 per cent, on the Main Estimates for the current year. It is probably not expected of me to go into the various Votes in detail. My colleagues are present and will, as they did in the past, be prepared to reply to any questions hon. members may have.

Mr. S. EMDIN:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is asking us to-day for an additional R51,000,000 on Revenue Account and an additional R33,000,000 on Capital Account. While the House is in Committee we will make inquiries from the respective Ministers as to why these amounts are wanted. There are, however, a few general observations I should like to make.

Firstly, the additional R51 million required for Revenue Account is, as the hon. the Minister says, 3.7 per cent of the original estimate. The hon. the Minister told us that if it had not been for the special contributions to the pensions funds, the amount would have been considerably less. This is so. But the hon. the Minister must realize that every year there is something special in the Estimates. It is no good eliminating one item from the Estimates and then making comparisons. Last year the Additional Estimates on Revenue Account showed an increase of 2.5 per cent on the original Estimates. At that time we asked whether 2.5 per cent was not too high a percentage to ask for in the Additional Estimates. This was the hon. the Minister’s reply:

However, I want to agree with the hon. member for Constantia on the general principle, namely that it is the task of a government and a Minister of Finance to submit estimates which are as accurate as possible, and as far as it is humanly possible to see to it that the amounts furnished in the Estimates are as accurate as possible. The hon. member for Constantia will agree with me that it is not always possible in a growing economy in a country where conditions are liquid and where so many demands are made upon the State from time to time, it is impossible for any framer of estimates to foresee a year in advance precisely what demands will be made upon the State. I want to tell the hon. member that I agree with him on the general principle and that we as a Government will, to the best of our ability, always endeavour, as we have done in the past, to make the Estimates as accurate as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to refer the hon. the Minister to the words contained in Luke, chapter 24, verse 11: “Their words seem to them as idle tales …” But I hope in the light of the remarks of the hon. the Minister last year, he will comment far more fully than he did in his opening remarks as to this increase from 2.5 per cent to 3.6 per cent. Because, if he was relying on the contribution to the pension funds, then I ask him why it was necessary in these Additional Estimates to provide for these amounts for the pension funds. He has provided for the Public Service Pension Fund R10 million; for the S.A. Police and Prison Service Pension Fund R5 million; the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund R2 million; making a total of R17 million. Had these additional contributions been left over until the main Budget, of course, the hon. the Minister would have had a quite different picture.

We know that there had been some actuarial valuations of the Pension Funds which took place in 1963, the reports of which the hon. the Minister no doubt received last year. These reports show that there are greater deficiencies in the funds than there were previously. Before these valuations were received the Public Service Pension Fund showed a deficit of R8 million; the Police and Prison Service Pension Fund, R3.12 million; and the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund, R3.62 million. Since the actuarial valuations which are as at the 31st March, 1963, there have been changes. The Public Service Pension Fund remains at R8 million; its actuarial valuation has not been received; the Police and Prison Service Pension Fund is now R24 million; and the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund is now R8.121 million. One would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have looked at the balances of these funds at the 31st March, 1967 before he asked for these additional appropriations in the additional estimates. The Public Service Pension Fund had R264.6 million in it. The Police and Prison Service Pension Fund stood at R75 million while the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund stood at R44 million. Last year the payments out of these funds were: The Public Service Pension Fund, R12.5 million; the Police and Prison Service Pension Fund R3.9 million; and the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund R2 million. It is quite clear that the hon. the Minister has in these funds more than adequate capital to meet any demands on them. It is nonsense for the hon. the Minister to provide in these additional Estimates R17 million when the money will not be needed for years.

I think the hon. the Minister is making somewhat of a mockery of budgeting when he asks us for these additional amounts. Their proper place is in the March budget. The hon. the Minister knows better than I do that the purpose of the Additional Estimates is to provide funds which are urgently required before the end of the fiscal year. The hon. the Minister I hope will explain to us why he has taken these amounts at this stage. If of course begs the question that the hon. the Minister’s position may be such that he is very anxious to get rid of a very large surplus. Of course we know nothing about that. We are also asked to vote in these Additional Estimates some R2 million odd under the Police vote for equipment, arms and ammunition, an increase of over 60 per cent. I am not querying the amount that is involved. But again I say that it seems to us inexplicable that within a month of the Budget it should be necessary for the hon. the Minister to come and ask us for this additional amount. It seems inexplicable that the amount on equipment, arms and ammunition should have urgently increased by 60 per cent.

The second point I want to raise is this. The figure of R51 million which the hon. the Minister gave us, really does not reflect the true position. What he is in fact asking us to do is to agree to new expenditure not of R51 million, but R61,606,394. Quite rightly the hon. the Minister has used his powers of virement and in addition to the R51 million that he is now asking, he is also going to spend an additional R10,600,000, which he has saved on other heads, on new items which he has presented in the Additional Estimates. And if we work out this percentage, we find that what the hon. the Minister is asking for is not 3.7 per cent of new expenditure, but 4.5 per cent of new expenditure. Now, 4.5 is a very high percentage indeed. Surely the additional expenditure should not be approximately one-twentieth of the Budget? But this is perhaps not surprising, because if we look at some of the items in these additional estimates we come across some very surprising things. Miscellaneous expenses for the Senate have gone up by 40 per cent whilst the postal, telegraph and telephone expenses for the House of Assembly have gone up by 50 per cent. This might be attributable to the ex-Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I do not know when he increased the rates. The item “general” under the Police Vote has gone up 20 per cent, expenditure on postal, telegraph and telephone services by 30 per cent, while the expenditure on detective services have gone up more than 60 per cent. Surely, Mr. Speaker, when the original Budget was drawn up these things should have been foreseen. We can anticipate that there will be items of additional expenditure every year, items which no one could have foreseen. But when you have this extra expenditure on ordinary items of administration, it surely is bad budgeting. I can refer to a host of others—for example: In the Agricultural Technical Services Vote there has been an increase of more than 80 per cent for veterinary field services and an increase of more than 500 per cent in respect of plant pest control expenditure. I concede that these might have been instances where nature took control, something which the Minister concerned could not have foreseen. In such cases we cannot object to the additional expenditure. But let us look at the Defence Vote now. We budgeted to spend R32 million. The Minister has now transferred an amount of R29,999,950 saved on other heads—in other words, he has doubled the expenditure. This is a strange way of budgeting. So I can go on and on. Under the Foreign Affairs Vote there has been an increase of more than 30 per cent in respect of rent and of more than 40 per cent in respect of residential premises. These are not things that happen overnight but should be covered by proper forward planning. This does not seem to have been done here. Under the Justice Vote the item “barristers’ fees and expenses” have gone up by 130 per cent. We realize that it may have been necessary to employ outside barristers but, surely, to a certain extent it could have been foreseen. So, I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to explain to us the reason for these extraordinary high increases.

I want to come to a third matter. When the hon. the Minister presented his Budget for the financial year 1967-’68, he budgeted for a revenue surplus of R50.8 million. At the same time he provided for a transfer of R43.7 million thereof to capital account, leaving on a cash basis—which the hon. the Minister now seems to like, as I do—a surplus of R7.1 million. But, what do these additional estimates now mean? With a surplus of R7.1 million the Minister is now asking this House to vote a further R51 million. Well, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be an accountant to know that if you have R7.1 million and you want to spend a further R51 million you are faced with a deficit of R43 million. The Minister has given us no indication that there has been any change in the fortunes of the focus so far this year. We can only go by what he told us when he presented his Budget, i.e. that he had a surplus of R7.1 million. Therefore I do not think it is correct for him to come to this House and ask us to vote a further R51 million, so that we end up the year with a deficit of R43 million. I think it is the duty of the hon. the Minister, if he wants us to vote funds over and above the surplus he anticipated when he introduced his Budget last year, to take the House into his confidence. I do not expect the Minister to anticipate his main Budget but we can expect him to tell us that we can vote these amounts without fear and trepidations of disturbing the financial equilibrium of the country. He may add something more, but if not, we are prepared to be patient until the 23rd March.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

You are going to embarrass him in a minute.

Mr. S. EMDIN:

No. He will not be embarrassed. Wealth has never embarrassed anyone. As far as capital expenditure is concerned, the hon. the Minister has done a little better this year because the figure in this respect is 6 per cent in comparison with 10 per cent last year. At this stage we offer no criticism in regard to the capital estimates but shall deal with the items in detail when we go into committee.

*Mr. J. J. LOOTS:

As regards this additional expenditure, the hon. member for Park-town raised three points. I do not intend to react to the last of these three points. That is a matter I shall leave to the hon. the Minister. I realize that this is not the time for a general financial debate, and for that reason I only want to react briefly to the first two points he raised.

The first allegation he made, was that the additional amount the Minister requested here was very large and compared poorly with what it ought to have been. This additional expenditure represents an increase of 3.56 per cent on Revenue Account and 6.27 per cent on the Loan Account. Let me say that as far as this is concerned, the record of the National Government is a good one. Last year the additional expenditure was 2.5 per cent more on Revenue Account and 10 per cent more on Loan Account, and in 1965 the additional amount required was 6.2 per cent on the two accounts taken together. Over the period 1959 to 1964 the average annual requisition was 2.7 per cent. If one calculates this over a period of nine years, one will find that the additional money required every year has on an average been just under 4 per cent. If we compare this year’s 3.7 per cent with that, we shall find that these additional estimates of expenditure do not compare very poorly. We must remember that the Main Estimates are drafted more than a year before the time, and that is why it is impossible to budget for exactly the right amount. In fact, it is impossible to go into a financial year without additional estimates.

*Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

What percentage do you regard as fair?

*Mr. J. J. LOOTS:

The percentage the National Government is maintaining is to my mind a fair percentage. Hon. members must bear in mind that we find ourselves in a period of inflation, and that the Government has instructed departments to curtail their estimates drastically. If that is taken into account, one finds that these additional estimates are extremely fair. They are for R50 million on an original Estimate of R1,400 million. But apart from this there is yet another consideration. Hon. members opposite are continually pleading that the State should spend less money. Well, in the Main Estimates the State tried to do so, but now hon. members come forward and say—now that we have to request additional funds—that we are budgeting poorly.

While we are talking about percentages, what was the state of affairs in those years when that side still governed the country? In their last few years after the war, until they came to a fall, they had an average annual increase on the Additional Estimates of 10 per cent—over four years—whereas this Government could over a period of almost ten years maintain an average additional requisition of just under 4 per cent. This is my reply to the hon. member for Parktown who said that the percentage was too high and that this was bad budgeting.

The hon. member for Parktown raised, in the second place, the question of the heavy increases in respect of certain items, and he mentioned the pension funds. I do not intend discussing this matter, because that is the function of the hon. Minister in question. But as far as the pension funds are concerned, I just want to remind him that last year he and I served together on the Select Committee on Public Accounts and that we submitted a report to Parliament in which we pointed out to Parliament that there were deficiencies in these pension funds. In fact, the actuarial valuation of these funds—all of which were not yet available at that stage, but are in fact available now—showed that the figures we had submitted to this House had in fact been quite too low, and some of the funds showed much larger actuarial deficits. Now the hon. member says that there is sufficient money in the funds and that there is no risk of their being unable to meet the demands made on them. As an ordinary layman, I do not want to argue with the hon. member about that, but I nevertheless want to tell him that he as a qualified and reliable auditor would attach the necessary importance to the report of the actuaries. Any fund which is actuarially unsound, is after all not a sound fund. Therefore the Minister has to supplement these funds, and now the question is raised: When? It is not for me to say, but if the hon. the Minister sees that he might have funds available for this purpose, then my contention is this: Why should one wait for a new financial year and then have to take a much larger amount, when at a later stage one will nevertheless have to find additional money for the funds; in that case it is better to vote at present a relatively small and reasonable amount so as to keep these funds sound. This is my reply to the second point the hon. member raised. Therefore I want to conclude by saying that we do not accept this accusation of bad budgeting, that we reject it.

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I do not think the hon. member for Parktown is very serious in what he said here. I think the hon. member merely regards it as his duty to rise and to say that he is warning against over-budgeting as he called it. But as against that I want to say that over-budgeting or under-budgeting for 2 or 3 per cent, on a budget such as the one we have, is really an achievement under the circumstances in which we are living. The hon. member for Queenstown pointed out that the expenditure side of the Budget is drafted in November or December for the following year. We have to budget here for a period of almost 18 months, and I do not know whether there is a single individual who is capable of planning in advance, within 2 per cent, his own budget for 18 months, n this regard we are dealing with a State that has to estimate its expenditure for 18 months in advance, with an economy in which circumstances change all the time. We are not living in a static period in South Africa. We thank the Lord that we are living in a growing economy in which special items occur all the time. The hon. member for Parktown says that we are talking about special items every year, but there will be special items every year, and we are pleased that this is the case. The day when special items no longer occur, there will be a deadness in our development. I can assure him that in spite of his words of criticism I shall come with special items again next year and the year after. [Interjection.] I am adhering to the principle I stated here Last year, namely that it is the task of a Minister of Finance and a Government to keep its Estimates as close and accurate as possible, but I feel very happy under the circumstances. Although I was not responsible for drafting the expenditure side of these previous Estimates, I nevertheless feel that as far as expenditure is concerned, we managed very well to remain within the limits of the estimated expenditure. In actual fact, 2 per cent or 3 per cent is nothing to complain of in Estimates such as these.

The hon. member spoke about the pension funds. If we know that there are deficits in the pension funds and we meet those deficits even though the amounts in those funds are still very high, I do not know what the country will lose. But if the actuarial reports we received in August show that there are considerable deficits in those funds, why can we not meet them now while we have the money? And this is no secret; I can tell the hon. member for Parktown that we do have the money. Since we do have the money, why can we not meet those deficits now? I think that it is simply sound finance to set aside reserves—even if it is in pension funds—when one has the opportunity to do so. I think that as an auditor the hon. member will agree with me that an ordinary business concern would do that. The hon. member must also bear in mind that these funds which we are now putting in the pension funds so as to make them more sound actuarially, do not represent money that is going to waste. That money is always at the disposal of the State if it wants to borrow it again from the pension funds.

Then the hon. member called attention to certain items of expenditure. I do not want to go into those items of expenditure now. My colleagues will do so when their Votes are discussed. But it is very easy to select individual Votes and to say that expenditure increased here by 50 per cent, or 100 per cent, but then the hon. member should also be fair enough to say that there are items of expenditure that showed a decrease of 50 per cent or 20 per cent, and that the over-all picture we have is very favourable.

Then, the actual question the hon. member put to me, was how it came about that we were now budgeting for a very large amount of money, because it would result in a deficit if we went by last year’s Estimates. Well, I think hon. members opposite are slightly jealous, because we know that we can afford these items of expenditure. We are grateful that our financial position in South Africa is so strong that we can afford this additional expenditure and even much more if we want to. I do not want to mention any figures, but we anticipate that on our Estimates we shall have considerable surpluses which will enable us to afford this additional expenditure.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

Estimate of the Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Accounts [R.P. 2—’68].

Expenditure from Revenue Account:

Vote 4,—Prime Minister, R15,500:

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Under sub-head E, “Miscellaneous expenses: General,” there is an increase of more than 100 per cent. Will the hon. the Prime Minister tell us what this amount is for?

*The PRIME MINISTER:

Firstly, there is an amount of R5,000 in respect of the State funeral of the late Dr. T. E. Dönges; secondly, there is an amount of R607 representing money wasted as a result of the cancellation of the State banquet that was to be held for the retiring State President. The additional amount of R1,593 is in respect of the presentation that was to be made to the retired State President at the banquet which eventually did not take place, a presentation produced by the Mint and which hon. members know about.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 5,—Police, R7,345,329:

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the reasons are for the increase of R1,460,000 under sub-head B “Subsistence and Transport: General” and also for what reasons ex gratia payments of R1,500 each were made to Weideman and Biaggio.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE:

The hon. member for Parktown referred to this Vote when he participated in the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply. I think that hon. members on that side can make a very good guess as to why this Vote contains such considerable increases throughout. The reason for this, of course, is that when the Estimates were prepared last year it was impossible to foresee that there would be such an increase in police activities on our borders and also in Rhodesia. This additional amount of R1,460,000 is largely due to the fact that subsistence, motor transport, general transport, etc., in connection with the extensive services to be performed there by the police resulted in increased expenditure. I should like to furnish the hon. member with the details he asked for: Subsistence costs amounted to R500.000. The subsistence costs will obviously be higher when members of the Police Force are sent out of the Republic as was the case during the past months. It is also obvious that there will be a considerable increase in motor transport costs, particularly as a result of the special conditions under which motor transport is used in that territory, for example the lack of good roads, a high rate of wear and tear, heavy fuel consumption, etc. The additional amount asked for in this regard is R935,000. Then there is an amount of R9,000 for general transport. A further amount of R16,000 is included for the purchase of two boats that are being used on the Zambezi River in connection with the activities of the police there.

The hon. member also asked me for what reasons these two ex gratia payments were made. In the case of Weideman the position is that he was a passenger in a Government vehicle which was involved in an accident with a private motor-car. Weideman sustained very severe injuries in the accident, and with the approval of the Treasury, it was then decided that an ex gratia payment would be made to him on account of the pain and suffering he had endured. The relevant amount is R1,500. In the case of Biaggio the position is as follows: Detective Constable Venter, official driver, was involved in a motor-car accident while on duty on 9th December, 1964. The other car was driven by Biaggio. Biaggio was subsequently charged with driving while under the influence of liquor and was in fact convicted, but afterwards a claim was put in on the grounds that Venter had also been negligent to a certain extent in connection with this accident. A claim for R6,667 was put in to begin with. The case was referred to the State Attorney, and eventually the matter was settled and it was decided to make an ex gratia payment of R1,500. …

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister indicate to us what the other ex gratia payments are which fall under su-ex gratia payments are which fall under subas distinct from sub-head B?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF POLICE:

I am not in a position to furnish the hon. member with the reason for this immediately. Presumably there are reasons why these items of expenditure have been placed under different sub-heads. The details in connection with the ex gratia payments under sub-head E are as follows: Hon. members will remember that in the case of Muller we have already asked approval for an ex gratia payment of R2,500 in the past. This resulted from an accident which occurred at Elsies River when the services of a certain Mr. Robbemont were called in to help the police in pursuing a suspected burglar. While they were pursuing the latter, Mr. Robbemont. who is not a member of the Police Force, apparently slipped and the pistol which he was holding in his hand went off and he shot Muller. As a result of this we asked for the approval last year of an ex gratia payment of R2,500. The amount being asked for now. is in respect of the legal costs, which were not included at the time. The next case is that of Roos.

On 15th August. 1966. Sergeant S. J. Roos placed a revolver which was an exhibit in a case, in the drawer of the desk of another constable. Constable Fourie. For some unaccountable reason or other the revolver went off. The Committee will just have to accept the fact that it sometimes happens in the case of these young men that fire-arms go off in unaccountable ways.

The reason for this simply cannot be determined. In any case. Constable Fourie was shot through the hand. There were certain expenses amounting to R1,288 in connection with this accident, and it was then decided that an amount of only R100 would be collected from Roos in respect of these expenses and that the balance of the amount, namely R1,188, would be paid by way of an ex gratia payment.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

But Fourie was shot.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes, but Roos was responsible for it.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

But why are you paying Roos then?

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

This was not a case of payment for pain and suffering; this was a question of responsibility. Roos is the man who handled the revolver and for that reason he was held responsible and an amount of R100 was collected from him.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Who received the money?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The R100 was simply paid in. Nobody got the balance. It is a claim against Roos that was written off. The details of the expenditure are as follows: Workmen’s Compensation contribution, medical costs, salary and allowance. These are costs that were involved here and they had to be defrayed in one way or another. Consequently the Department had to make provision for this ex gratia payment.

Concerning Constable L. H. W. Hornschuh I want to give the following explanation. He put in a claim against the Pearl Insurance Company, but failed to include particulars as to salary, allowances, transport and medical costs in his claim. This claim was subsequently settled between the parties. As I have said, these particulars had not been included in the claim, and consequently provision had to be made therefor. It was decided that provision would be made by way of an ex gratia payment.

The next case is that of C. S. Venter, and this is a very long story. The hon. gentleman on the other side has asked me about it. and I am now going to tell this story.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

It is a large amount.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes, it is a large amount. A certain Constable Esterhuizen was on duty as a police van driver in Pretoria on 2nd July, 1966. He saw a collision between two vehicles. The driver of the one vehicle reversed in order to get away, and a constable who was with Esterhuizen in the police van, jumped in before the vehicle and was almost knocked down. Thereupon the vehicle drove off at great speed and the police pursued it in their van in an attempt to detain the driver. I understand that they drove through the streets of Pretoria at a speed of 70 miles an hour at times. The fugitive crossed against red traffic lights at high speed. After a while the police caught up with the vehicle and even fired at it in an attempt to stop it, but all their efforts were to no avail. Eventually the driver of the leading vehicle collided with a pole round a corner and then collided with oncoming traffic. The vehicle then came to a stop, but the driver jumped out and ran away. Constable Esterhuizen fired shots in the direction of the running man and also ran after him. He could not stop him and then fired in order to hit him. He did succeed in hitting him, but unfortunately the man was so seriously wounded that he died three days later. A criminal charge was brought against Esterhuizen as a result of the fatal shot which he had fired, and a judicial post-mortem examination was held. The magistrate found that there had been no negligence or default on the part of Esterhuizen and that he had acted in the execution of his duties. Mrs. Venter, the widow of the man who had been shot, put in a claim through her attorneys on the grounds of her husband’s death, and after lengthy deliberations it was decided to assist her, and in the light of all these circumstances it was decided to make an ex gratia payment of R10,000 to her. The deceased left behind his wife and three young children.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 7,—Education, Arts and Science, R1,202,500:

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Mr. Chairman, under sub-head H we find reference to technical colleges. I wish to know whether these are advanced technical colleges under the new scheme or are they the ordinary vocational technical colleges?

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

The increase of more than R500,000 is attributable in the first place to the fact that a sum of R201,990 was added to the basic subsidy as a result of the new legislation. In addition there is an amount of R2,240 in respect of language instruction for immigrants. Salary adjustments in the case of the technical colleges amounted to R466,000. There was also a vacation savings bonus of R44,000. This gives us a total of R714,000. However, savings affected in respect of subsidies and interest on the redemption of loans for college purposes amounted to R21,000; on subsidies in respect of interest on loans for the erection of departmental buildings, R70,000; and in respect of financial help for bursaries for educational courses and free education not taken up, R57,000. This explains the increase of R565,000.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell us more about the ex gratia payment to A. I. E. de Villiers under the sub-head E?

*The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:

Mr. Chairman, this is a case of a bursary received by Mr. De Villiers. He was a trainee teacher and had been admitted to the teachers’ training course at the Pretoria Technical College on 1st February, 1965. There he received training for one year at the expense of the Government. By agreement he had to serve as a teacher for three years after the completion of this training. He was placed at a technical high school from 1st January, 1966, and he requested that his services be terminated on 31st December, 1967, when he would have completed two years’ service. The total cost of his training, i.e. his salary, allowances, and course fees, amounted to R2,316. In terms of a Treasury authority he owed the Department one third of this amount, i.e. R772. He paid this amount. The Treasury then ordered the balance of R1,544.47, representing two-thirds of the debt owed by him, to be remitted in his favour.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 12,—Government Printing Works, R36,000:

Mr. H. LEWIS:

Can the hon. the Minister explain to the House why there is this ex gratia payment of R30,000 to National Salvage?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, the Government Printer gets rid of waste paper by tendering for its removal. They called for tenders for a lot of waste paper which they wanted to get rid of, and National Salvage submitted a tender. After its tender was accepted, National Salvage discovered that it had tendered for too high a figure altogether because the paper mills did not want to pay as much for the paper as it had expected, and as a result it withdrew and cancelled its tender. In other words, it could not carry out its tender obligations. The Government Printer again called for tenders, and much lower tenders were then received. This R30,000 is a fictitious loss because someone had over-tendered and could not meet his obligations in terms of the accepted tender, and consequently it appears here as an ex gratia remission. The Government Printer obtained legal advice, because he wanted to take action to recover this money. The legal advisers advised the Government Printer rather not to put in a claim because it would only entail expenditure while they would not be able to recover their costs in any case. That is why this was paid by way of an ex gratia payment.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

What was the amount of the original tender?

The MINISTER:

I think that the original tender was for an amount of R30,000 but I am not sure of the exact amount. I am informed that the real loss amounted to R24,000. The original amount was therefore actually R30,000.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that the real loss amounted to R24,000. Why then did he make an ex gratia payment of R30,000?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The original R30,000 was in terms of a contract which had not been executed. We then called for another tender. The second tender, which was accepted and carried out, does not come into the picture at all.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that the original tender amounted to R30,000. He then accepted another tender. But the Government Printer must have been paid something in terms of the first tender. The amount concerned therefore is the difference between R30,000 and whatever amount they got in terms of the tender. I must say that I do not understand the position in this regard.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister must be able to give us a reply in this regard. While he goes through his figures I just want to point out to him that if he wants us to grant this amount of R30,000, it means that the price of the tender must have been written off. But he must have received some payment for this waste paper. I quite understand that there must be a lot of this kind of paper to be got rid of in this Department.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wants me to give him all the particulars, I shall gladly do so.

A contract which had been concluded with National Salvage, was cancelled with effect from 1st November, 1966, because of the fact that the contractor had failed to pay within 30 days for the waste paper which he had received. New tenders were called for and only two were received, one from National Salvage and one from Cape Salvage. The former tendered at R4 per ton for unbaled paper and R7 per ton for baled paper. The previous tender had been for an amount of R9 and R19 per ton, respectively. Cape Salvage’s tender was for R8 per ton, but applied only to the paper which was available in Cape Town. Its tender was therefore accepted in respect of Cape Town. As far as the rest of the country was concerned, there was no choice but to accept the tender of National Salvage. Because the tender price was so much lower than before, the State naturally suffered a loss. But in view of the difficult position in which National Salvage found itself, it was decided to write off the loss after legal opinion had been obtained. Consequently there was an amount of R7,000 which had to be written off as a loss last year and Parliamentary authority is now being requested for the remission of the other R30,000. It was therefore a total of R37,000. The amount in respect of last year was R7,000, and this year it is R30,000.

*Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Mr. Chairman, can the Minister tell us why Cape Salvage can pay R8 per ton and National Salvage only R4 per ton?

*The MINISTER:

That the hon. member must ask the firm itself.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the hon. the Minister correctly, National Salvage originally tendered at a relatively high rate per ton and then defaulted on the contract. They were then in respect of all areas outside Cape Town given the contract at a much lower price per ton. I should like to know whether it is correct that they were given the tender at a much lower price after they had defaulted on a previous contract.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the hon. member correctly, he is saying that National Salvage received two tenders.

*Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Cape Salvage first tendered at a relatively high price and then disregarded the tender. Then it received the tender from the Department at a much lower price.

*The MINISTER:

As regards the paper in Cape Town, the tender was carried out by Cape Salvage. There was a difference between the prices of the tenders of Cape Salvage and National Salvage. I explained the position in this connection a moment ago. The Government Printer again had to call for tenders in respect of the paper outside the Cape Town area. National Salvage was the only firm which tendered for this; consequently the Department had no choice but to grant them the tender at that much lower price.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister just tell us what the amount was which National Salvage mentioned in its tender before it defaulted on the agreement. In other words, what was the amount in respect of which National Salvage was committed before it undertook the tender of R4 per ton?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I have already replied to that question.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Would the Minister please explain the position in this regard once again?

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member can read it in Hansard.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, if what the hon. the Minister tells us is correct, the original tender by National Salvage amounted to R37,000. This was the original amount because afterwards R7,000 of this was paid. The Minister is trying to justify the difference of R30,000 by putting it in the Estimates.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If the hon. member will read my reply, he will understand the position.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that after certain paper had already been delivered, National Salvage defaulted. Can he tell us how much paper was delivered and whether it has been paid for?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member can table that question.8

Mr. S. EMDIN:

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister going to answer our questions? I am not at all amused by his saying that the hon. member must table his question. It is our prerogative in considering these Additional Estimates to ask Ministers for replies and to keep on questioning them until we get those replies. We have not had replies to our questions from that hon. Minister yet.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Chairman, in his reply, the Minister intimated that certain paper had been delivered to National Salvage and that the contract with them had been cancelled because they had not paid for that paper. Can the hon. the Minister now tell us how much paper was delivered, what the amount concerned is and whether it has been collected?

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order ! The hon. member for Transkei has had his three turns to speak on this Vote.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move that the House report progress on this aspect of the Vote to obtain some clarity in this regard. We have the right to ask questions about this additional expenditure and the Minister is making a joke of the whole matter. The purpose for which we are in Committee is not being served. I therefore move—

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—34:Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C; Bloomberg, A.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H. M.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.: Mitchell. M. L.; Moore. P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.;Radford, A.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—102: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys. D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse. J. H.; Visser. A. J.; Volker. V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Visloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

There may be a very simple explanation for it; but I cannot understand why there is an item of R30,000 down here at all. In other words, on the face of it, an amount of R30,000 must be paid out, and on the facts we have had the Department concerned was to have got in an amount perhaps in excess of that figure, and now it is getting in a smaller amount. Why then must an amount which appears to be an outgoing amount, be voted? If the hon. the Minister would make that clear, it would help us very much. *The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR: A contract was entered into with National Salvage at a certain price in November, 1966.

*HON. MEMBERS:

What was the price?

*The MINISTER:

I have read out the prices. I shall read them out again if hon. members want me to do so. According to the document of tender, payment had to be made within 30 days. Because they failed to do so, the contract with them was, of course, cancelled, and then new tenders had to be called for. Only two new tenders were received.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

But what was the old price?

*The MINISTER:

If the hon. member will give me a chance, I shall reply. [Interjection.] Only two tenders were received. The one was from National Salvage and the other from Cape Salvage. They are not the same people; they are two different firms. National Salvage then tendered at R4 per ton, unbaled, and R7 per ton for baled paper. Their previous tender was for R9 and R19, respectively. Cape Salvage’s tender was for R8 per ton, but it was only in respect of what was available in Cape Town, and they got the tender. As far as the rest was concerned, the Department had no option but to sell it at the second, reduced tender price. This is the difference between the first tender, which had not been carried out and the second one, which was carried out, but at a reduced price. That accounts for the difference of R30,000 which appears here.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

I should like to ask just one question: Is National Salvage a public company or a private company?

*The MINISTER:

I do not know.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I just want to ask one question about something which is not clear. If the State suffered a loss of R30,000 as a result of the failure of a company to honour its contract, is that company then not responsible for paying compensation to the State? What steps have been taken by the Department to recover that amount?

*The MINISTER:

I have already replied to that question as well.

*Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

Mr. Chairman …

*The CHAIRMAN:

I am sorry, but the hon. member has had his three turns.

Mr. S. EMDIN:

Have I understood the hon. the Minister correctly. That when he was advised by his legal advisers, he was told that National Salvage was not worth suing, and yet at the same time they were able to re-tender for an amount which even on the new basis, would be considerable, namely some R10,000

or R20,000? It does not seem to tie up. Were they a firm of substance or not? That is the information I think we want.

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

I wonder whether the Minister could tell us how many tons were sold or offered for sale.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

The hon. the Minister said that the actual loss was R24,000. Is that in fact so? One gathers that ths is a book entry in the accounting. But was the actual loss R24,000? And if it was, why is it put down as R30,000?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I am sorry to say that we are still waiting for a reply from the hon. the Minister. I have before me now the Hansard record of the debate that took place in this House last year, when this amount of R7,000 mentioned by the Minister was discussed. He told us that at that stage this was the estimated amount of the loss which had been incurred through the failure to carry out this contract. Now he comes with a further R30,000, and he comes with exactly the same answer, word for word, which he read out in the second reply he gave, which is here in this Hansard. Where does this R30,000 come from now all of a sudden? And there are other questions which require answering too. What sort of paper is this that is involved?Is it waste paper, or paper which is unsuitable, or is it paper which has been used? There are many questions but the Minister will not answer. Is there any use in putting questions in this Committee at all?

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 14,—Public Works R335,000:

Mr. H. LEWIS:

I want to. know the details of the increase in the general repair services and in the minor works and alterations services.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS:

In connection with the general repair services I want to furnish the following details to the hon. member. The revised estimate is R5,377,963, the original estimate was R5,210,000, and the increase is R167,963. An amount of R62,000 will be defrayed from savings on other sub-heads, with the result that an amount of only R105,963 requires to be voted. This increase is necessary for the purpose of carrying out essential and urgent repairs to a large number of buildings which are in a dilapidated condition and which would already have been replaced had funds been available on the Loan Vote. These repairs are necessary to maintain these buildings in a fit state for occupation. The fact that many of these buildings date from the previous century and that many others are more than half a century old, means that they constantly require more and more attention. Then the hon. member also asked for details about sub-head M. In view of the increase in building costs and problems experienced in connection with the financing of new minor works, the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Department, granted approval for the restriction in respect of new minor works for which the Department may call for, consider and accept tenders from contractors on the approved list, to be raised from R12,000 to R15,000 per annum per service per site where the valuation of improvements on the site does not exceed R1 million. Owing to the practical problems experienced with the minor works restriction per annum per service per site in meeting the needs of client departments occupying large complexes of buildings on one site, the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Department, also granted approval for the joint restriction on more than one new minor work on the same site to be based, with effect from 1st April, 1967, on the valuation of improvements on the site, as indicated below—

  1. (i) Where the valuation of improvements on a site exceeds R1,000,000 but is less than R3,000,000, R25,000;
  2. (ii) where the valuation of improvements on a site exceeds R3,000,00 but is less than R4,000,000, R35,000;
  3. (iii) where the valuation of improvements on a site exceeds R4,000,000 but is less than R5,000,000, R45,000;
  4. (iv) where the valuation of improvements on a site exceeds R5,000,000, R60,000;

provided that no single service which will cost more than R15,000 shall be undertaken on any site.

Further reasons are the curtailment of major works on Loan Vote B, necessitating the conversion of existing accommodation in order to meet the most pressing needs, the normal expansion of Government Departments, and urgent services called for by Departments and provision for which had not been made in the minor works programme.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 15,—Social Welfare and Pensions, R18,983,400:

Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD:

Under Sub-head J there is reference to the contributions to pension and provident funds, and under General there is R1,589,000 being asked for. We shall be grateful if the Minister would give an indication as to the reasons for this additional amount. Then as regards “Special Contributions” the hon. the Minister of Finance gave an indication as to the reasons for the allocation of some R17 million to the Public Service Pension Fund, the S.A. Police and Prisons Service Pension Fund, and the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund. These, you will observe, Sir, are all new amounts. The Minister of Finance also mentioned the question of the actuarial valuation of these three funds. I was hoping that the Minister responsible for this Vote would be able to give further details in regard to the position of these three funds. I understand that the actuarial report was in the hands of the Minister by August last year. We would like to have further details in regard to how these items were arrived at, amounting to R17 million.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

I should like to have an explanation regarding these three amounts being asked for the three pension funds. Is it because the actuarial calculations were not in order, or does it mean that the Government is agreeing to the suggestion of public servants that the Government should take over half their subscriptions?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is engaged in the Other Place, but I think I have sufficient information at my disposal to satisfy the requirements of the two hon. members in respect of sub-head J. The total amount involved is R18,983,400. The reasons are as follows: (a) The amount provided in respect of the new pension fund for non-Whites was under-estimated. In the original Estimates provision was made for R1 million, but current expenditure indicates that the annual expenditure will be considerably more; (b) a large number of salary adjustments were made as a result of the new salary structure, which meant that the increase in the Government’s contributions to the funds was larger than had been anticipated; (c) the amounts in respect of normal scale increments were also under-estimated slightly; (d) as far as the provident funds are concerned, the membership increased beyond expectations, and on account of this and the fact that contributions in respect of normal scale increments had been under-estimated, inadequate provision was made for this item; (e) the shortfalls which occurred in the Public Service Pension Fund when the pension rights of Indian teachers were transferred as a result of Indian education having been taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs, are being met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Provision for these shortfalls was made in the previous financial year, but the majority of these cases were only adjusted in the present financial year, with the result that the provision in respect of the items concerned is now inadequate; (f) in carrying out the valuation of the pension funds the actuaries found that there were shortfalls in respect of the funds concerned. In order to meet these shortfalls the following contributions have to be made to the funds: (i) The Public Service Pension Fund, R10 million; the total actuarial shortfall amounts to R51,700,000; (ii) the South African Police and Prison Service Pension Fund, R5 million; the total actuarial shortfall amounts to R24,016,000; and (iii) the South African Permanent Force Pension Fund, R2 million; the total actuarial shortfall amounts to R8,121,000.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

I understand that this is only the initial payment.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 16,—Treasury, R200,000:

Mr. S. EMDIN:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how this item arose and what it comprises.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

This item of R200,000 is in connection with the R.S.A. savings campaign. As hon. members know, we launched this campaign last year in September, and we took the advice of public relations experts who guided this campaign. The total costs in connection with the campaign—-advertising costs, Press, radio, placards, posters, production costs—are estimated at about R200,000 for this particular year. I could give the hon. member a breakdown of the costs. We think that this money has been well spent because of the success that we have had with the campaign.

Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD:

Is the campaign to stop now?

The MINISTER:

No, the idea is to continue. This campaign in any case will continue until September. We envisage that we will always have some form of savings campaign on the same lines as the present campaign, but it might vary according to the circumstances.

Vote put and. agreed to.

Revenue Vote 21,—Inland Revenue, R107,061:

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Will the hon. the Minister tell us what these three new items are: Stamp duties: Trust Bank of Africa Ltd., R7,139; Death Duties: Estate late H. R. Mosenthal, R85,548; and Income Tax: Transvaal Associated Hide and Skin Merchants (Pty.) Ltd., R14,374?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

These are rather lengthy explanations but I will try to be as brief as possible.

Some time ago the Trust Bank of Africa Limited, at the request of the Registrar of Banks, issued certain unsecure debentures. The interpretation which was placed on this circular by the Trust Bank of Africa Limited was that the limit had only to be taken into consideration at the time of issue of the debentures. As a result of this interpretation the Bank issued debentures to the Trust Finance Corporation to the value of R4½ million, which amount was within the prescribed limits at the time of issue but subsequently moved beyond the limits due to a substantial increase in the Trust Bank’s liability to the public. As its liabilities increased the debentures had to be increased. In respect of the issue of these debentures, stamp duty amounting to R11,250 was paid to the Receiver of Revenue, Cape Town, for which a receipt was issued. The Trust Finance Corporation in its turn sold the aforementioned debentures to the public in units of R100. Seeing that it was the intention of the Registrar of Banks that the limits had to be observed after the issue of the debentures, he insisted that the debentures should either be redeemed or otherwise the paid-up capital and reserves had to be increased sufficiently. In view of the fact that the Trust Bank did not see its way clear to increase the paid-up capital and reserves the Bank decided either to refund the debentures or to convert them to fixed deposits in those cases where the persons to whom the debentures had been issued preferred to do so. These fixed deposits were also stamped. On the date on which the Trust Bank was informed that the debentures had to be withdrawn, debentures to the value of R1,644,600 had already been issued to the public, while debentures for R2,855,200 were still in the Bank’s possession and had not yet been issued to the public. At no stage did the Bank therefore have the use of the full amount of the R4½ million. The Trust Bank applied for a refund of an amount equal to the stamp duty on the debentures which had not yet been sold to the public.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

The stamps had not yet been cancelled?

The MINISTER:

They were cancelled. As the Bank did not receive any payment in respect of the R2.8 million debentures which had not yet been sold to the public, the Secretary to the Treasury has approved of a refund of R7,139 as an act of grace, subject to prior parliamentary approval being obtained. The stamps were cancelled and they made no use of them.

As far as the amount of R85,548 is concerned, the position is as follows: A certain Mr. Mosenthal died in Britain. At the time of his death he had an interest in a certain trust created by a certain Mr. William Mosenthal. Both were resident in Britain. This trust had certain shares in South Africa and when Mr. H. R. Mosenthal died we in South Africa taxed him in respect of death duties in relation to the shares which belonged to the trust. Afterwards it transpired that Britain had also taxed him since he was domiciled in Britain at the time. South Africa and Britain have a double tax agreement. We took legal advice from which it appeared that actually we had no right to tax him because he had already paid the tax in Britain.

In the case of the third item, this company was formed in 1950, since when they have carried on the trade of buying, selling and salting hides and skins which it purchased from various abattoirs. From 1954 onwards it had the sole contract for the purchase of hides and skins taken from the freshly slaughtered animals at an abattoir in Botswana. The hides and skins obtained in Botswana were sold in the normal course of business to the company in South Africa and the proceeds were included in the company’s income and subjected to South African tax. In 1964 the Botswana authorities took the view that in terms of the double taxation agreement between South Africa and Botswana the company was maintaining a permanent establishment in their territory and that they were entitled therefore to tax a portion of the profit attributable to the sale of the hides and skins obtained by the company in Botswana. Botswana claimed a part of the tax and their request was acceded to.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 25,—Health, R1,925,000:

Dr. A. RADFORD:

I would like the hon. the Minister, if he can, to explain sub-heads K, L and N. Under sub-head K, “Medical Poor relief”, the additional amount asked for is R400,000. Under sub-head L, “Tuberculosis: General Expenses” there is an increase of R1 million, and under sub-head N, “Other Infectious Diseases: General Expenses” there is an increase of R100,000. Is this increase of R100,000 particularly due to the spread of venereal disease which is apparently spreading generally throughout the world?

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

Under sub-head B,-“Subsistence and Transport” there is an increase of R175,000. Is this money going towards the payment of subsistence and transport for district surgeons and district nurses, or is it for some other persons or groups of persons?

The MINISTER OF HEALTH:

Let me deal first with the increase under sub-head B. The increase is due first of all to what the hon. member suggested, namely payments in respect of full and part-time district nurses to the extent of R10,000; secondly, it is due to the transport of indigent patients to and from hospitals, to the extent of R165,000. It is also attributable to the increased travelling by more district personnel and to the rising motor transport costs. At the same time it is also due to the higher railway tariff and the greater demand for services.

The increase of R400,000 under sub-head K is due to three factors: firstly increased fees and allowances for medical services to the extent of R50,000; medicines and dressings or allowances in lieu thereof, to the extent of R320,000, and family planning services to the extent of R30,000. The increase is attributable to the enhanced supplementary fees payable with effect from the 1st January, 1967, to part-time district surgeons, and the higher charges charged by dentists for dental extractions. The demand for these services is continually increasing and can unfortunately not be controlled. The cost of medicine at the same time continues to rise. In addition to this, the drug allowances of part-time district surgeons are revised annually, and on the strength if our statistics these have had to be increased. The last item which I mentioned, namely R30,000 for family planning services, is due to the considerable progress which is now being made with the extension of these services in the Bantu areas.

Dr. A. RADFORD: Does that include birth control?

The MINISTER:

It is for family planning generally and not only for guidance on birth control Then the hon member asked me to explain, if I could, the extra expenditure of R1 million. Of this amount R600,000 is a refund to local authorities and R400,000 in respect of magisterial cases—those cases where the magistrate is really the local authority. It is also due to the higher tariffs at provincial hospitals in Natal and to the hospital fees for non-Whites having been increased from R4 to R6 per day with effect from July, 1967. In addition to this the number of TB sufferers receiving treatment on an in or out-patient basis is continuing to increase and, consequently, hospital fees also continue to rise as use is being made of new and expensive drugs. The hon. member will know that we are now using entirely new drugs, drugs which are very expensive.

In regard to the R400,000—this is due to the high tariffs at provincial hospitals in Natal and also at S.A.N.T.A. centres. As I said, the number of patients was rising continually and the cost of that is reflected in this.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

Could the hon. the Minister explain the increase of R250,000 in item A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances?

The MINISTER:

This is due, firstly, to the remuneration of private medical practitioners who act as locos for district surgeons and are remunerated on a session basis; secondly, to the increase in establishment; and, thirdly, to the filling of vacant posts for which no provision had been made in the main estimates.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

How much of this expenditure is due to the employment of additional health inspectors whom the Minister had to employ in connection with the administration of the general health regulations promulgated last year?

The MINISTER:

I can only say that it is in respect of 241 additional posts. I do not know how these posts have been allocated.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

Is any part of this expenditure due to the employment of additional health inspectors?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member may not suggest reasons; he may only ask for reasons.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

Let me re-phrase my question, Mr. Chairman, and put it to the Minister this way: Is any part of this expenditure due to salaries paid to additional health inspectors …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member is again suggesting a reason.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH:

As I have said, it is not possible for me to say exactly what these posts are. All I can say is that this expenditure is in respect of an additional 241 posts.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 29,—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, R514,200”:

Mr. H. M. TIMONEY:

Mr. Chairman, can the responsible Minister give us an explanation for this additional amount of R514,200? Can he explain what properties are being expropriated? I am referring to sub-head L.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Mr. Chairman, the provision on this Vote would have been reduced by R12,000 in the second revised estimates, had it not been for the fact that the Treasury, on 5th February, 1968. requested that an amount of R526,200 be included in respect of the payment of a contribution to the Cape Town Foreshore Board. This amount was in respect of expropriation costs for properties required for Boulevard East. When virement is applied as regards the decreases and increases it results in a net shortfall of R54,000 on the General Estimates. In other words, R526,200 had to be appropriated for Boulevard (East). I just want to inform hon. members that the Ministers of Finance and of Lands decided in 1958 that a contribution not exceeding R550,000 should be paid to the Cape Provincial Administration in respect of the expropriation of private properties required for the construction of Boulevard (East) which is an access road into Cape Town. The amount of the contribution was calculated at 50 per cent of the calculated value of R1.1 million of these private properties. This was approved on condition that the costs involved including interest and redemption, would eventually be debited to the Government’s share of one-third of the net profit derived from the sale of land in Rogge Bay. Consequently. on 29th March, 1958, the Cape Town Foreshore Board was granted a special loan by the Treasury for the purpose of meeting claims in this connection. Up till now the Board has already paid an amount of R526,219 to the Cape Provincial Administration and the provision which is being made here now. is for the purpose of refunding this amount to the Board.

Mr. H. M. TIMONEY:

Mr. Chairman. it seems strange that we have to vote this money. It is a new item. The Foreshore Board was originally established to sell ground and the profits derived therefrom were to be used for the development of the Foreshore. I, and I think many other hon. members, am surprised that we are now being asked to vote money for the expropriation of properties in view of the relationship with the other authorities. The Foreshore Board is a selling unit and it makes substantial profits, as an investigation of its books will reveal. Yet the Treasury is now being asked to provide money to assist in the expropriation of ground for a road to join the Foreshore. I wonder what ground is going to be bought because the Foreshore Board controls only that ground which was reclaimed from the sea. Can the Minister explain to us why we are now being asked to vote money to a board which derives its income from the sale of properties?

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Mr. Chairman. I have already explained the matter to the hon. member. I have explained that the Foreshore Board, which sells the properties, has not sold all the properties yet. In terms of a contract a large portion of the income derived from the sale of the properties goes to the Cape Town City Council. The money required for Boulevard (East), which forms part of the development of the reclaimed area, has already been approved so that the road may be built there, and the Government and the Provincial Administration will help to provide that money for the purposes of expropriation. That money has already been paid out by the Provincial Administration. The Government now wants to meet its obligations and refund the money to the Provincial Administration while the Board does not have the money as a result of sales.

Mr. H. M. TIMONEY:

Does the hon. the Minister accept the fact that the Foreshore Board is there to sell property? It is well-known that it sells properties at a considerable profit. Surely the understanding was that the profits it made from these properties would go towards the development of roads and reticulations systems. If any money is required to be contributed as a result of a joint agreement to which the Minister referred, should it not come from the profits made from the sale of land? Why is the Treasury now being asked to pay towards the costs? We are now being asked to pay over money to a board which should really live on its own fat and which makes a considerable profit.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

Mr. Chairman, the money is paid to the Cape Provincial Administration. In the meantime the Foreshore Board has paid the money to the Administration and the Government now wants to compensate the Board. That is the position. The point is that the Government is entitled to one-third of the income derived from the sale of plots on the Foreshore. This money is paid over to Government funds. The Government entered into a contract with the Provincial Administration for the construction of the Boulevard. I shall explain it again to the hon. member. In 1958 the Ministers of Finance and of Lands decided that a contribution not exceeding R550,000 should be made to the Cape Provincial Administration in respect of the expropriation of private properties required for the construction of Boulevard East, which is an access road into Cape Town. The amount of the contribution was calculated at 50 per cent of the calculated value of R1.1 million of these private properties. This contribution was in respect of the purchase of properties situated on the site where the road had to be built. This was approved on condition that the costs involved, including interest and redemption, would eventually be debited to the Government’s share of one-third of the net profit derived from the sale of land in Rogge Bay. In terms of Treasury minutes dated 3rd March and 29th March, 1958, a special loan was granted to the Foreshore Board in order to meet claims in this connection. Up till now the Board has already paid an amount of R526,219 to the Cape Provincial Administration in this connection, and the provision which is being made here now is for the purpose of refunding this amount to the Board. Surely, this is clear—I do not know what the hon. member’s difficulty is.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

INTRODUCTION OF TELEVISION SERVICE Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name—

That this House in view of, inter alia, the magnificent part played by television during the past weeks in bringing the triumphs of distinguished South Africans to the favourable notice of the civilized world, coupled with the disappointing inability of their fellow countrymen to share in the visual record of these achievements, urges the Government to consider the immediate introduction of a nation-wide television service.

Mr. Speaker, as this will be the first major debate in which the new hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will be taking part, it is only appropriate that we on this side of the House should congratulate him on his appointment to the new post. We bid him welcome and wish him well in solving the great problems that are facing him. I hope, at a later occasion, to pay an appropriate tribute to his predecessor, who, although he did not accomplish much, at least reached a height which I do not think the present Minister will be able to reach, and that is causing a great boom on the stock exchange on his resignation.

We have a new Minister. I believe that we can now have a new approach to the problem of television and that we can approach it with a clean slate. The public statements we have had from the new Minister have led us to believe that he has a more forward looking view in regard to matters such as these. He has already stated that he is an opponent of the crabbed verkrampte type of conservatism. That leads us to the hope that we might be hearing some good news here this afternoon. I certainly share the doubts of those people who do not believe in the existence of the curious political hybrid known as an “enlightened Nationalist”. I see good signs, however, that the Government is moving out of its palaeolithic age into the neolithic age which is at least a step forward. With that step forward I believe that we can approach this problem of television in a new light.

I do not know whether you were listening to the radio last night when the announcement was made that that wonderful South African girl, Karen Muir, had equalled her previous world record. The broadcast announcer stated that at that moment a television team was taking a television film of Karen Muir equalling her world record. That was meant for the rest of the world, but not for South Africa. Can you therefore understand why it is that the listeners of South Africa are becoming frustrated, bitter, even angry at this state of affairs when they cannot see the great things being achieved by their own sportsmen and representatives of this country? Only after some time did we Members of Parliament have the privilege of seeing a film of the colour television show of that other great South African, Dr. Chris Barnard. But we were in the minority. Weeks ago, millions and tens of millions of citizens in other countries of the world saw that great man in action, felt his personality and were proud of South Africa and of his achievements. We shall be represented, I am very glad to hear, at the Olympics this year. Millions and millions of people will see our athletes in action. But I doubt whether we shall see it. We shall only later see something in the bioscopes and cinemas of our country. Our cricket and football teams will be achieving great things this year in the local and international spheres. But again we South Africans who are proud of those people and who would have liked to see them in action will be prohibited from seeing them. Can you then blame us for saying that in this refusal to give South Africa television we find something utterly disgraceful after all these years? Therefore my appeal here this afternoon is that we should take this new approach. Let us first of all find the one point on which I am sure we can all agree, and that is that television is inevitable. Television will come to South Africa, sooner or later. I want to know whether there is a single hon. member on that side of the House who does not agree with this statement.

An HON. MEMBER:

[Inaudible].

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The only exception would appear to be the hon. member for Carletonville. He is of course a bit of a lone wolf. I understand that he is starting a new newspaper of his own too.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! That has nothing to do with the motion.

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Except for the hon. member for Carletonville there is not a single other member who does not believe that sooner or later television in South Africa is inevitable. I believe that it is a very great step forward which we have taken. Our problem now is therefore not whether we should have television. Our problem is how we should get it. And here I believe we can act constructively in the months to come. After all, television is nothing new. The first television broadcasts took place 30 years ago. Those were public broadcasts. To-day—and I wonder whether we realize it—there are in the world as many television sets as there are telephones. I did not know it myself. But it is a fact and has been established. In the United States of America there are alone 70 million television sets. Recently 400 million people in 14 countries on five continents saw a single television broadcast in which the President of the United States of America was involved. Television is infinitely more than just a medium. And I think intelligent people realize that it is not only a luxury. I can quote to the hon. the Minister the words of—I think this person is a supporter of his—Professor P. C. Coetzee of Pretoria in an article in Dagbreek some time ago. He said the following—

Only two other discoveries in the whole history of mankind can, as regards their cultural impact, be compared to television. The first is the invention of writing and the second the invention of printing.

This distinguished professor classifies television with the invention of writing and printing as amongst the three great cultural events in the history of mankind and in the history of the world. We cannot and we dare not ignore television in this country.

It is indeed a pity that one still has, on an occasion such as this, to enumerate some of the benefits of television. Surely they should be obvious. Surely one should realize that one cannot act like king Canute and hold back the waves. Its value in the educational, entertainment and news spheres is incalculable. We have had a previous motion here this year on the educational value of television. I shall therefore refrain from saying much about that on this occasion. I can only point out that it has recently become known—I believe after that motion was discussed—that in London this year and towards the beginning of next year no less than 1,300 schools will have closed circuit television where they do not have it to-day. That is just one small example of the expansion of educational television throughout the world. Already there are 28 universities in Great Britain alone which have the closed television circuit for educational purposes.

If we only think of what we are missing in the field of say entertainment, sport—I have mentioned Karen Muir and I could mention Gary Player—music, symphony concerts, folk music and visiting celebrities. All these we could see and enjoy in our homes. Listening to a concert or to a theatre production over the radio to-day is like going to a concert hall or a theatre blindfolded. If we have television we will see as well as hear what is happening. Think of the value of television in regard to news. Think of how the great events are immediately communicated to the rest of the world through this medium. In America to-day the viewers can follow the war in Vietnam, see the actual shooting within 12 hours or less after it occurred. We could have seen the inauguration of our new State President in a few weeks time. Privileged ones, a few of us, will see it. But how we would have liked the whole of our country to see this distinguished occasion. We could have viewed the shipwreck off Mouille Point and the opening of our atomic reactor. It would have been one of the great actual news events seeing people being rescued by helicopters on television itself. Presumably hon. members who are laughing would not have cared to watch it. I had the privilege of seeing it personally that day. I was most impressed and I think they would have been impressed too had they seen it on television.

Think, too, of the great opportunities television could offer to our own artists and writers. How it could propagate the cultural interests of all language groups in our country. I think of how it can improve the image of South Africa about which we are all so much concerned. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation would favour the introduction of television if he could see the Olympic Games in South Africa or our rugby players wherever they may be in the rest of the world, because when he was Minister of Information he made great use of television. To-day his successor is doing the same thing. I think also of the immigrants. If the immigrants have one complaint, it is that in their usual loneliness they miss television. It is the one thing which they had overseas and which this fine country of ours cannot offer them. In many cases it has been the reason why immigrants have gone back to their mother country. I have here a cutting from Die Transvaler where an immigrant in a letter to the newspaper says just that. He refers specifically to immigrants from Holland. They are going back to their mother country because they miss television.

One can also think of the great advantages it can have for the electronics industry in South Africa. Technicians will have to be trained and our small electronics industry will be able to expand with new knowledge. Even from the ranks of the Nationalists words are coming in favour of television. Recently the Nationalist Administrator of the Cape Province, Dr. Nico Malan, went overseas. When he returned he stated that a television service, if properly controlled, could he of great benefit to South Africa. This is a sensible and a fair statement. Some time ago Mr. Gert Claassen, a Nationalist member of the Provincial Council in Natal, wrote a long article in favour of television for the Natal Mercury. It appeared under the following heading: “Nationalist puts case for T.V. in South Africa”. He even called for a crash programme in regard to television. Even in the ranks of the Nationalists therefore there are growing demands for television. Despite all the denials on the part of the Government and in spite of all that they have been doing to frustrate the introduction of television, the signs exist that inevitably television must come. Closed circuit television is becoming increasingly popular. There are several hundred television sets in use in South Africa to-day. Several hundred closed circuit television systems are in use today. The Groote Schuur Hospital has a closed circuit television as well as some of the gold mines and the organizations investigating the sink holes in the Western Transvaal. We also have closed circuit television in the Cango Caves. Some businesses have it and the stock exchange is getting a closed circuit television system. So, television is taking hold of South Africa even if it is in this limited field.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member. Are the hon. member and his Party in favour of State-controlled television or commercial television?

Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I do not see why the one should exclude the other. Springbok Radio is State controlled but still has an advertising service. Why can we not have both together? Both systems can be included in one television network or each system can be operated separately. I am glad to answer questions from the hon. member for Randfontein because he is a distinguished front-bencher of the Nationalist Party. He is in fact their propaganda secretary for the whole of the Republic. We can therefore regard anything that comes from his lips as being the “ware Jakob”. I therefore trust that when he rises to speak on this motion he will be very careful about what he says.

The seven large radio factories in South Africa are ready to manufacture television sets at short notice. They can do all the necessary wiring of the circuits. All they will need to import is the television tubes and a few other important components. The fact is that they can build T.V. sets in South Africa. They are capable of starting production within 24 hours. A company has even been registered in South Africa to deal with T.V. rentals. Incidentally, we often hear about the great cost of television sets, but in Britain to-day television sets are not bought, but rented. 70 per cent of the television sets in Britain are rented at a fee which covers service. This ensures that one has a new set all the time. It can also ensure that one need not incur great expense when there is a change-over from black-and-white to colour television. 190 channels for television were granted to South Africa four years ago. This was done for the introduction of television and not for F.M., as some people say. The National Film Board of South Africa has four television units— one for the Department of Information, one for the Department of Defence and two others. It has said that it is prepared to make television films for distribution in South Africa, should the S.A.B.C. or the Government call on it to do so.

Last year the South African Tourist Corporation continued its good work in showing television films throughout the rest of the world to advertise South Africa’s tourist potential. Last year the South African Tourist Corporation showed no less than 1,060 telecasts in North America alone. These were viewed by 40 million people living in North America. This shows that there are people in South Africa who realize what the value of television can be to South Africa and who believe in it as a system of information and a form of entertainment. And if the Government itself believes in television, why then is this great benefit still being withheld from us?

I therefore say that we must adopt a new approach to this problem and the problems associated with television. I want to admit freely that there are problems in this regard. There are some problems in connection with the introduction of television which are greater in South Africa than they may be in some other country. But let us also accept the fact that television must come and start working now on how to get it going. Let us make our plans for its introduction now since it must inevitably come sooner or later. I think that first of all we should clear our minds of the misconceptions we have heard in the past. I see the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is leaving the House. We must clear our minds of the misconceptions that the Government has been spreading throughout the country in regard to television. Some classic statements have been made in this regard. I think that they are so classic that they can bear being repeated. I think especially of those made by the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and by the hon. member for Innesdal. Let us look at a few of them. Dr. Hertzog said:

The British Empire has in 15 years been broken down to the ground largely as a result of television.

Are there really hon. members on the other side who are prepared to swallow statements such as that? They have swallowed such statements in the past and I feel that they need no longer do it. Here is a statement by the hon. member for Innesdal:

Television only benefits the idea peddlers of the liberalistic, communistic strivers after racial equality. It is being advocated to weaken the white race and to transform us into a mindless, powerless, colourless mass.

If television is so bad, are we trying to make of the Americans a mindless mass by using television as a secret weapon, by showing 1,060 shows to them a year? I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention. Let us get rid of these misconceptions. I have here another statement by the predecessor of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in which he told of scenes of poisoning appearing on American television influencing the youth. I quote from Hansard of the 19th February, 1965, column 1516:

There was trouble between a man and his wife, and the child said to his father: “But Dad, surely it is easy; you can easily solve this”. His father asked how, and the child said: “Just put poison into Mum’s coffee”.

It is no wonder that the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and myself, as well as most of the hon. members on this side of the House, were never on the same wavelength when it came to the discussion of television. I am therefore so glad that we have a new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs with whom we can discuss this matter sensibly, without him using arguments of the kind I have just quoted.

I said that there are some real problems in this regard. Let us look at some of them. Naturally one is the problem of costs. I want to commend the hon. the Minister for his forthrightness and honesty a few days ago. I asked him whether he had made any investigations or whether any Government subsidized or sponsored organization had made any investigation into the costs of television. He was forthright in his reply and said “no”. That means that no one can say to-day with real honesty and truth what television will cost South Africa. Any figures which we hear in this regard this afternoon—and I believe that the hon. member for Randfontein has some very fanciful figures to quote to this House— can be taken with a pinch of salt. I should like to know on what authority he bases such figures, should he start quoting figures, because the Minister has said that no official estimate has been made of what television will cost. We have heard strange estimates, taking the running costs only, of television, apart from the capital cost. Dr. Hertzog once estimated the running costs a couple of years ago when he addressed the Bellvillese Sakekamer at R12 million. Some time ago the hon. member for Innesdal estimated that the running costs would be R50 million a year, and when he spoke about colour television he arrived at a figure of R300 million a year. It shows how fanciful these estimates are, R12 million, R50 million and R300 million, and whatever figure the hon. member for Randfontein will mention to us when he speaks. These are wild figures.

Can we really say that it will be so difficult to find the money for television? We were all here a few minutes ago when in a very short period this House voted R84 million for necessary expenditure, enough to carry the running expenses of television for six or seven years. This R84 million was for unforeseen items, but it was blithely voted here this afternoon. We remember the startling incident earlier this session when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration spoke about his Bantustan policy and said that that policy would be carried out, no matter what it cost. Take the case of an ordinary lonely pensioner or householder or an isolated farmer who asks the Government for television. The reply is that he cannot get it because there is no money. But if the Bantu overlords of the Transkei demand money, they are told to go ahead, it does not matter what it costs. No wonder the country is getting frustrated.

We have all made our sums in regard to the cost of television. Here is mine. I am not saying it is an accurate estimate. I accept the figure of R12 million a year for the running costs as given by the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to the Bellvillese Sakekamer. How can we cover those running costs, which will also include the interest on the capital for the additional equipment which will have to be bought? I believe that if we have 500,000 television sets in this country, which is not at all an impossible estimate, and you charge a licence fee of R15 per set, it will give you an income of R7.5 million a year. Add to that advertising for 30 minutes a day at R250 per minute, and that will come to another R5 million a year, which already gives you an income of R12.5 million a year, sufficient to cover the administrative costs and to give a profit of R500,000 a year. This is not a fanciful estimate. After all, remember that there are 600 private television stations in America today, all running at a profit. Rhodesia’s three television stations are running at a profit. I believe the last dividend declared by Rhodesian Television Limited was 12½ per cent, and that is a small country. But I am not going to lay down the law in regard to what the costs are or what they should be. I say the time has got to come for us to investigate these matters thoroughly, because we are all agreed (with the exception perhaps of the hon. member for Carletonville) this afternoon that television must come.

There is the problem of manpower. Let me admit that, too, but are we not exaggerating that problem? The whole of the Rhodesian system to-day is run by only six qualified engineers. The rest of the technicians—and there are quite a large number of them—have been trained, and I have been told that it took only a few months to train them. But if we come up against the question of the manpower shortage, should we not put against it the inestimable advantage of having dozens and dozens of fully trained electronic technicians available in South Africa, who can also be used in other spheres, once they have been trained in television?

The problem of programmes has also been mentioned. Will there be sufficient programming to run a bilingual service? I admit that it is a problem, but I want to know what we are doing to meet that problem, seeing that we are agreed that television is inevitable. Why has nothing been done about that? One need not go to Hollywood, to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, to Warner Bros. or to the National Broadcasting Company for television programmes. There are no less than 250 large firms throughout the world, running from Sydney in Australia to Salisbury in Rhodesia, in New York, Berlin and Italy, large concerns supplying material for television to-day. There will not be a dearth of material. I take it the problem will be that we will have to translate many of these programmes into Afrikaans, but even that is not an insurmountable problem. The television service in Switzerland caters for three different languages, French, German and Italian. Canada has a bilingual service in the French provinces. Belgium has a bilingual service, in Flemish and in French, and Flemish is very much like Afrikaans. Apart from its being a closely related language, it is also the language of a limited group and not a world language as such. Yet the Belgians have solved the problem. I am not saying we should adopt the same solution in this country, but I say again that we agree that television is inevitable, so let us start investigating this matter as soon as possible. After all, for a newscast of a football game or a cricket game, you do not really need two different channels; you do not really need two different television systems. You only need the one channel, and you have the one commentator in Afrikaans and the other commentator in English. You have these two commentators to-day on the ordinary broadcasting system.

There is a new argument which has recently been used against television, and that is that there are so many other priorities in this country. I believe that that is a specious argument. It is, I go so far as to say, a dishonest argument, a weak argument. After all, when sound broadcasting started in South Africa, the first Nationalist Government was in power, and they did not tell the country that a dam had to be built in the Orange River and Iscor had to be established, and that these were priorities which we must first have before we could have a broadcasting system in South Africa. They had the guts to go ahead with it, and good luck to them. The same applies to Escom. Did anybody say that we could not have a broadcasting system because Escom first had to be built? Did this Government in the past say that we could not have Radio Bantu or Springbok Radio because they first had to build Sasol? These are important matters, naturally, but why exclude television and say that it is so low on the priority list that we cannot do anything about it to-day? Each Minister has some or other great project in mind to which he would like to give priority. I believe it is an aspect of wise statesmanship that one should seek in one’s actions, one’s legislation and one’s deeds the greatest happiness of the greatest number. I should like the Minister to mention to me one project which will bring greater happiness for a greater number of people in the country than television. Let us think about that before we start talking about priorities. No, there are other motives—I am not going into them—why the Government has in the past refused to give us television, motives which I believe are not as honourable as one would like to call them, motives involving newspaper advertising in newspapers sponsored by Government leaders. It has been admitted by the Minister’ predecessor that it would affect the Afrikaans newspapers, and that is one of the reasons why television should not be introduced.

We also heard another argument: Let us wait for colour television, which is just around the corner, and do not let us waste our money on black and white television at the moment. Sir, I am not rejecting that argument completely, but eight years ago the then Prime Minister told us in this House that colour television was just around the corner. I am quite sure the Minister himself and hon. members opposite do not yet know when colour television will actually be practicable in South Africa. If I am told that we cannot have a decent colour television system in this country for the next 10 years, then I say that is a very good argument for going ahead with black and white television immediately. If, on the other hand, I am told: My information after full investigation is that in 24 months’ time we can have a good colour television system in South Africa, I am personally prepared to wait those 24 months, if I know that after that we would have a good television system in colour. It is a question of finding out what is the best, but it needs finding out, and that is something the Government is not doing.

I want to say something about a new method in television broadcasting which is being used in the rest of the world to-day, the Telstar and the Comsat communications system. Now, a great deal of nonsense has been spoken about this. Basically, the Telstar system consists of satellites moving with the earth around its axis from which you can beam television broadcasts from one country to another covered by the cone of that satellite. I said a lot of nonsense has been spoken about this. I want to refer to some of the costs mentioned in some of the newspapers in South Africa in connection with such a satellite. Apparently a Government spokesman—was it the hon. member for Randfontein?—told a Natal paper that it would cost something like R200 million to have our own satellite. What nonsense, Sir! Here I can give exact figures. I have here a communication which I got from the Satellite Communication Corporation itself, and this is what it says on the front page. It says that the cost in orbit of the Early Bird satellite is only seven million dollars, or R5 million, and not R200 million. Where do these nonsensical figures come from? But why should we put up our own satellite? We already have one. At the present moment 22,300 miles up in the sky there is a Telstar satellite covering Africa, South America, the western part of the U.S.A. and the whole of Europe. In other words, any country in this area can beam a television broadcast to another country if it has the necessary base station and if it has permission to do so. We are part-owner of that satellite. We are a member of Comsat. We can demand the use of those channels, and these Telstar satellites are being improved year after year. The 1970 model will be able to carry 86,000 telephone conversations simultaneously, and they can carry 24 simultaneous colour television transmissions. This is the development of the future; this is what we can use and what we should try to use. For that we naturally need local stations, earth stations, which magnify the signal they receive from the satellite. By 1970 there will be 40 such stations throughout the world. Ten of them will be in Africa. Why cannot we have one of those stations? It will not cost even the R7 million that is usually estimated for such stations. I have a letter here from the C.S.I.R. in which they say that we already have such sensitive equipment at our radio space tracking station—I believe it is in Pretoria or Johannesburg—that we can receive television broadcasts from satellites approaching the moon. We can do that to-day. We have most of the basic equipment for that to-day. We need not worry therefore about too large a cost in this regard.

Sir, my time is up and I think I shall now conclude. I want to repeat that I think we are all agreed that the introduction of television is inevitable. I believe it would be a dereliction of duty, it would be blindness, it would be political insanity to do nothing in order to prepare for the introduction of television, and to prepare for it now. Let us therefore prepare; let us start by having an urgent investigation. I quite frankly would prefer the appointment of a commission, not to investigate whether the introduction of television is necessary, but to investigate urgently what priority must be given in regard to the introduction of television within a stated period of time. This commission could then evaluate the position and put forward a solution with regard to the problems of cost and manpower, with regard to the alleged danger to health and the availability of programmes. But above all, my final appeal is: Let us do it now.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

We have now heard the annual motion of the hon. member for Orange Grove here. The hon. member comes forward with this motion each year. This year there were only two changes. The first was that his speech was not interspersed with personal attacks on the Minister because, as it happens, there is a different Minister. The second difference is that he is going to receive precisely the same reply as he did last year from the mouth of a different Minister.

Mr. Speaker, in brief I want to say the following about television. I want to begin by saying that nobody on this side of the House has ever said that we will never, in the history of this country, have television in any form. There has never been a general denial that we will ever make use of television in any way. It would be foolish to say anything like that, and it has never been said. Television has its advantages and it has its disadvantages. When the pros and cons of television are weighed up, it is the duty of a responsible government to take all the pros and cons and all the implications into account and subsequently adopt a sensible and wise attitude, and this attitude can fluctuate from time to time, depending upon quite a number of factors.

My main objection to the motion by the hon. member is that in the first instance he is asking for television to be introduced immediately. He concluded his speech with the words, “Let us start now”. If we were to introduce television immediately the question as to what it is going to cost would at once arise. As far as the question of costs are concerned, there are two aspects which we must take into consideration. If you were to introduce television based on advertisements, as the hon. member is apparently prepared to accept, it means that you must cover your expenses by having advertisers pay for advertisement time. In this regard I want to quote a few figures from a very authoritative source which I have at my disposal. I am not only quoting from last year’s television costs in Britain from the book, “B.B.C. Hand Book, 1967”, I am also quoting from private notes which I made in the presence of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is my witness, while we were paying a visit to the B.B.C. Television last year and spoke to their chief expert in the field of technical development. [Interjections.] I call the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as witness, because I want him to contradict me if I am not speaking the truth. This is the source I want to use, not an investigation in loco. In the first place I shall furnish hon. members with the costs according to the B.B.C. television personality himself. I can furnish his name as well, because he was friendly enough to sign my book. I am referring to Mr. Allan Skeanpton of B.B.C. Television. I mention in the first place the present costs of advertisements, and I am referring here to the television on channel No. 9, which functions entirely on an advertisement basis. Tariffs for advertisements vary in Britain from £250 per minute, during dead periods, to £2,500 per minute in specific periods when there are many listeners. It works out an average of £1,000 per minute. The advertisement costs in Britain are R2,000 per minute over the B.B.C. advertisement television. They determined the costs per hour of television at more or less £6,000. That full costs has to be covered of course, and it has been worked out by technicians and experts that one cannot use more than six minutes per hour for advertisements, otherwise the programme is dead; the viewers simply do not want to keep on viewing. Therefore those six minutes must cover the costs of six £6,000 per hour, and the costs of television therefore work out at £1,000 per minute. In spite of these costs, television in Britain last year, on an advertisement basis, worked out at a loss of £5,212,000 according to this book. [Interjection.] The hon. member can dispute this matter with me as much as he likes afterwards. I am confining myself now to the facts which were determined in Britain. This is the first aspect. What is associated with this is the purchase of land for television stations throughout Britain, the renting of buildings, the erection of new buildings and of new stations, the expansion of technical equipment, the payment for programmes, fees for artists and writers, etc. I shall go deeper into the costs aspect of television in Britain in a moment.

The second aspect is the following: The alternative is that the State should introduce television itself on the basis of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, with a body such as the Board of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, which functions independently, and then make an attempt to cover the costs from licensees. Once again I should like to quote the British figures to the hon. member. In Britain there is at present, according to the figures furnished to us, almost 15 million television licences. Britain has a population of 55 million, and if one considers that four people sit around one television set. then practically the entire British population has television coverage. The licence fees at present amount to £5 per annum, and will this year be increased to £6 per annum. In addition almost 3 million licences are being issued to persons who do not want television in their homes, and who only take out radio licences at a cost of 14s. per licence. Mr. Speaker, that is the cost in Britain. But as is indicated in this book, there is a loss on this service of £6,452,000 per annum. And that is apart from all the additional costs. Let us transfer these same figures and numbers to South Africa. I am going to compare the situation in Britain with the situation in South Africa, and I am going to confine myself to the economic side of the matter only. In Britain, as I have already said, there are 55 million inhabitants, of which 15 million have television sets. South Africa has a total population of 18 million people, and we must remember that very few of our Bantu will be able to afford television. I think I am putting the figure exceptionally high when I say that 200.000 television sets will be purchased in South Africa. Let me now take the argument further, using this as a basis. Britain itself covers less than one-fifth of the surface area of South Africa. As the hon. member knows, if he knows anything about the technique of television, television is specifically linked to a maximum radius of 60-70 miles. As soon as the State has to control television and financing, one cannot merely provide television for the thickly populated urban areas, for then all taxpayers are paying for it and one has to provide a service to every taxpayer in the most outlying areas of South Africa; otherwise one is not being fair. One will therefore have to distribute a network of television stations throughout the Republic of South Africa, which is going to cost five to six times more than at costs at present in Britain because one has to cover a greater surface area.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

How does Australia manage?

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

Australia is managing in her way. I have nothing to do with Australia. Australia can decide on its own priorities. A responsible government in South Africa is deciding upon its priorities; it is that government’s affair and that government’s task. I say that we in South Africa will have to make television available to every part of South Africa. The costs in that connection, if I make a rapid calculation and as favourable a calculation as possible for the hon. member for Orange Grove’s point, will be at least R40 million in the form of purely capital investment, simply to take the first step and introduce television. The running costs, once again calculated on the basis of Britain which broadcasts for six hours per day, will be R18 million per annum in South Africa; these are the costs in connection with technicians, staff, etc. The programme costs, once again in comparison with Britain, will be at least R30 million per annum. Initially a capital investment of R40 million will have to be made, which is going to cost us R88 million in the first financial year, and then we only have one television channel, and South Africa is a bilingual country. Afrikaans and English will therefore have to be treated on an equal basis, and that could mean that a good deal of the costs would be doubled. But what about all our Bantu races? Are we going to give them precisely the same television as the Whites? Are all the horse-opera films which are shown on television to Whites going to be shown to the Bantu as well? Are you going to do that, or are you going to be sensible and follow the policy of South Africa in that respect? I am asking the hon. member for Orange Grove whether he wants to give the Bantu precisely the same programmes?

If we in South Africa want to make provision for television for every taxpayer in all the outlying areas of the country for Afrikaans and English-speaking people and for the six, seven or eight different Bantu population groups, for the Coloureds and for the Indians who will all be entitled to that, then we regard it as foolish at this stage to spend so much money on something we can do very well without and be none the worse off. I have already said that it would cost R88 million per annum for television on one channel only. For that R88 million, if I assume that a house can be built for R8,000, 11,000 houses can be built for Whites. Should we not give preference to that rather than to television? Is that not more important than television? Should we not rather accommodate our people than spend money on this? If we take the water situation and the periodic droughts in South Africa into consideration, can we afford wasting R88 million per annum on a luxury item such as television? If we take the vulnerability of South Africa, in the sphere of crude oil, into consideration, is it not essential that we should rather spend R88 million per annum on stockpiling oil or undertaking research, or prospecting for oil?

Mr. Speaker there are so many priorities that I simply cannot understand how the hon. member can come here once again with his foolish arguments. But I want to return to his proposal that television be introduced immediately. We are just getting over the worst of the inflation situation in South Africa. The hon. member suggests that we should introduce television immediately.

*An HON. MEMBER:

That we should appoint a commission immediately.

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

In other words, he wants our business men to get to work immediately and begin publicizing and selling this luxury item amongst our people. Mr. Speaker, the average price of an ordinary television set. receiving black and white, not colour television is R200 in Britain: here it will probably be more expensive. If 200,000 people are going to purchase television sets, then that hon. member’s motion means that the public will have to pay R40 million for television sets, at a time when we are just getting over the worst of the inflation. Is it desirable, is it wise and clever of the Government to place our people in a position at this stage where they can purchase a luxury item? I am asking the hon. member a simple question: Is it desirable, is it essential?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Are you opposed to it?

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

I maintain that it is foolish to introduce television service into South Africa at this stage. The word “immediately” in the hon. member’s motion makes the entire motion immediately unpractical, impossible and completely unnecessary. In general it is foolish.

I now want to deal with a further argument of the hon. member. Television is at present still developing. When I was in Holland recently television broadcasts in colour were made there for the first time. We were in a position to see it, and the image was distorted and vague. In that country’s television there are numerous things which are not at all what they should be yet. Does the hon. member now want to force us to introduce black and white television broadcasts in South Africa, a service which is on the way out in all the television countries of the world? Or does he want us to introduce the incomplete and unperfected colour service now, which would entail that we will have to incur expenditure on experiments and replace our sets at a later stage, etc.? What a foolish motion this is! This side of the House maintains, let us be wise, let us first wait until television has been perfected, technically and otherwise, and then we can consider it again.

My time, as arranged by the Whips, is almost up, but before I resume my seat I would like to make a last remark. No government would be so foolish as to adopt an unrelenting attitude in respect of this matter and keep on saying “No”. But my attitude is unrelenting—I adhere to this strongly, the Government adheres to it strongly: We cannot, we dare not accept such a far-reaching mass medium, with all the problems and complex situations which it would entail before we are able to counteract the prejudicial effect it will have effectively. I have mentioned capital, finances and the fact that the service is not technically perfect. But what about the manpower, can we tackle such a project? In Britain, according to the information at my disposal, 22,000 people are employed in the television service. In South Africa we would have to have more stations than is the case in Britain. Can we afford to give up 20,000 to 30,000 highly specialized people for a television service?

I think the hon. member’s entire motion is misplaced; it is quite unasked for. He may as well cease agitating for such a service. This Government is responsible enough to introduce the right kind of television service when the time is ripe and when such a service will be of real benefit to us. But until such time it is the duty of this Government, as a responsible government, to keep this service out of the country in the interests of us all.

Mr. L. E. WINCHESTER:

Mr. Speaker: having listened to the hon. member for Rand-fontein, one might suggest or ask whether he in fact replied on behalf of the hon. the Minister. It sounded very much like that to me.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

The Minister can reply for himself, don’t you worry.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

I should like to start off by adding my compliments to the Minister on his assumption of office in the new department. I think he will find his portfolio a most difficult one and it will take him some time to put right the wrongs that have been committed in that department in the past. I feel a Minister has been appointed whose personality might help to a large extent to right some of those wrongs.

The hon. member for Randfontein said the Government must in the first instance consider all the aspects involved in a television service: the costs, the good and the evil of television. It seems strange to me that the Government, after all these years, still have to consider all the aspects, namely the costs, the good and the evil, etc., connected with television. It seems they are taking a long time to make up their minds on this particular score.

The hon. member also said there was the question of costs to be considered, and made great play of the cost of television in the United Kingdom. The figures he quoted were published in a certain Natal newspaper where all the costs and figures were set out, and we have had full opportunity of examining them. One of the points he made this afternoon was that it costs R2,000 per minute for advertising time on T.V. in Britain. But he did not compare the cost with the cost of newspaper advertising. One inch of advertising in a British newspaper costs ten times more than it does in South Africa. The reason is the higher circulation figures in Britain. So, these costs are completely relative. One cannot have it both ways. It costs more to advertise over the commercial radio overseas than it does on Springbok Radio in this country, simply because overseas there are more listeners. If the hon. member for Randfontein cannot appreciate that after his free trip overseas, then I cannot help him. [Interjections.]

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

The costs have nothing to do with circulation.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

With all the high costs of television in Britain, I am sure the hon. member for Randfontein did not find a single person in Britain who suggested that television should be scrapped because it was costing the country too much. I am sure nobody would make such a suggestion. I am curious to know why he quoted the figures and the high costs relevant to the British service, but did not tell us about the low costs in Mauritius, where one also finds television.

Moreover, Mauritius has television in two languages. Also, the hon. member did not tell us about the costs of the Rhodesian television service. He did not quote the comparative figures.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

There is no comparison as regards costs.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Oh, no. The hon. member also said the Government must tell the public of South Africa that it cannot spend its money on television. Perhaps the hon. member has some secret information; perhaps he knows the Government wants some more money when the Budget is presented in a couple of weeks’ time to spend on Bantustans and other projects. I want to tell the hon. member that the people of South Africa have quite enough common sense to know how to spend their money without any advice whatsoever from him.

For many years the Government’s opposition to television has been based entirely on moral grounds, namely that such a service would be harmful, it was a little bioscope, it was corrupt, it made the British Empire fall and it made the Dutch lose the East Indies. Another objection was that it was in the hands of the liberals. These were the reasons why the Government in its “wisdom” decided that we were not old enough or wise enough to have the advantage of television. But now, in their new “outward” way of looking at things, in keeping with the new image they are trying to create in the world, they feel this is no longer a good excuse for not having television in South Africa. They had to think of new reasons. Of course, the hon. member for Randfontein is an expert in this type of thinking. The whole basis of the member’s speech was that the latest objection was based on economics: We cannot have television because of economic objections based on moral reasons, the dangers confronting our children, and so forth. I think the hon. member for Orange Grove has more than answered the hon. member for Randfontein as far as the figures are concerned. I think he has more than answered in advance objections based on figures which the hon. the Minister might be able to advance.

The Government is continually telling us that we are the richest country in Africa. But it seems strange to me that this richest country on the continent cannot afford television.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

We do not want it.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

I will come to “we do not want it” just now. A report which appeared in the Sunday papers states that the B.B.C. radio transmitter in Francistown, which closed down at the end of last month, may one day help to bring television to Botswana.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

It “may”.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Not only “may”—they at least are doing more than we are doing, namely investigating the possibility of television in Botswana, as the report goes on to say so. If the hon. member would like to see it, I will show it to him. In other words, the richest country in Africa cannot afford television, so that side says, but a country like Botswana can. I cannot accept that this is so for economic reasons, as suggested by the hon. member who has just sat down. If they are economic, then they are so in an entirely different sense and not in the usual sense of the word. The entirely different sense is this. If television is introduced in this country, then obviously only one section of the community will lose something, and that section is the Nationalist Party. It will be detrimentally affected as far as the monetary interests it holds in the Afrikaans Press will be damaged. If the Nationalist Party did not have such wide Press interests in South Africa, we would have had television years ago, and they know it.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

What about the Argus group?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

The Press of both language groups will suffer if television is introduced, and the Argus group knows that as well as anybody else. Only the objective newspapers in South Africa will be able to weather the storm and survive. Most countries in the world to-day have television, in case the hon. member for Randfontein does not know. Experience has shown that in those countries the better papers survive and, after a short initial setback, indeed improve. This happens because they have to become more objective in their reporting. If one takes an interest in South African politics, or if one comes to this House, one inevitably notices how closely the Afrikaans Press is tied to the Nationalist Party. Their interests are identical to those of the ruling party. Many of the people working for those papers do not support the views of the Government, but they must do as they are told because their jobs are dependent on their doing so. When the Government sheds its financial control of the Afrikaans Press we will have television in South Africa, and not until then. All other excuses, for instance the high costs of television, and so on, are completely meaningless until this happens. In America 16.7 per cent of all advertising is done over the television services. The South African Press has a stake in the introduction of television in this country, and if those who control the Press also control the ruling party, then they have the upper hand as far as the introduction of television here is concerned.

Another factor is the cinema industry. The industry is going to be very hard hit by the introduction of television. This was of little importance up until two or three years ago. About two or three years ago a certain organization entered the cinema industry and now controls very many cinemas in this country. This development has also put back the introduction of television in South Africa because this concern, as hon. members know, is favourably disposed towards the governing party.

There is also a further reason why the introduction of television is not around the corner. It concerns the question of publications in this country. The publications I want to mention are these picture magazines of which I have any number on my desk. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation makes these his favourite reading matter. These picture magazines by and large, are published by publishing houses which are sympathetic to the governing party. When television is introduced in South Africa, I suggest that these picture magazines will disappear from the news stands. This is another reason why television is not just around the comer, as some people may think, despite the fact that we have a new Minister. One of these picture magazines happens to have a circulation of 75,000 a week, and of those 75,000 a week, 50,000 copies are sold to the Bantu population. This may mean nothing, but a few years ago in this House, hon. members used to get up and decry television because it was immoral. I remember reading a debate where they said there were so many murders per week shown on television screens in America. I do not want to advertise these magazines, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that there are more murders, rapes, robberies and bank holdups in these magazines than on any television station in America or the United Kingdom.

Dr. C. P. MULDER:

That is a sweeping statement.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

This is not a sweeping statement, and if the hon. member would like to count them, I will show him one of them. On page 1 of the magazine that I have here is a murder, on page 2 is the breaking into of a bank, on page 3 is a murder and on page 4 is another murder. These are the reasons why hon. members opposite said we cannot have television in South Africa, but these magazines are circulated among the Bantu people at the rate of 50,000 copies a week. Is there then any sense in the argument of that hon. member?

The MINISTER OF FORESTRY:

You should do a comic strip in the Sunday Times.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

I would suggest that the hon. the Minister should have stuck to rugby. That was the only time he rendered South Africa any service. Not long ago a leading personality told me that he was in favour of television, but that he could not advocate its introduction, as he was a publisher of this sort of magazine. I want to add that that leading personality happens to be public representative of that party sitting on the other side of the House. He is a member of that party. He blithely agrees at their congresses that we cannot have television, and he frankly admits that his reason is that he is a publisher of this sort of magazine. Can anyone place any credence in the views expressed by members on that side? There are a number of publications here and I am prepared to make them available to the hon. the Minister. I do not wish to advertise them here.

We have figures for television here given for various parts of the world. Eighty-six per cent of the people in Britain have television. Are 86 per cent of the people in Britain corrupt? Seventy to seventy-five per cent of the people in Britain rent their television sets. I do not want to go into this question of the cost of television any further, because I do not believe that that is the real reason. I believe that I have given the real reason already. Might one suggest that if this Government had been in power when the motorcar was invented, they would have got up in this House and would have said: Look at the cost of the roads, look at the cost of the bridges; look at petrol; look at what it would cost the poor taxpayer if he buys a motorcar for R1,000, so we had better not have motorcars. It was just as well that the motorcar was invented before they came to power. Perhaps they are waiting until they can make the announcement that they have invented a special type of South African television that will cost a good deal less. If we had waited for this Government to invent the motorcar, we would probably still be in oxcarts. We have been told of the dangers of television, motorcars kill 6,000 people per year in South Africa alone, but we do not hear about the dangers of motorcars when cabinet ministers drive around in these big black cars that are standing outside.

Television would be a boon. We have heard here how it would be a boon to education. It will be a boon to schools where we suffer such a great shortage of teachers. It will be a boon to farmers. In England they broadcast special programmes for farmers. It will be a boon to the aged and sick. If any member on the other side had ever visited the aged and sick, and had seen people well over the age of 90 years who cannot move from their bedrooms, then they would appreciate just what a boon television would be to people like that. In America they have special programmes for children between the ages of five and seven. Also of course, and this may be the subtle reason why they do not like television on that side, is that overseas leading politicians have to appear on television. I can imagine the hon. the Minister of Sport being quizzed on television. That party would be out of power as quick as you can wink an eye. Television will bring foreign capital into South Africa. Television will bring immigrants into South Africa. We need immigrants. Television will bring technicians and the people who have the know-how into South Africa, and we need them. The answer to television is a simple one. If you do not want a television set, do not buy one. The governing party has no right to deprive those people who do want television.

*Mr. V. A. VOLKER:

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a good reason why the hon. member for Orange Grove on the one hand, and the hon. member for Port Natal on the other hand, are pleading so ardently for television now. I have here a newspaper cutting, dated NovembeR1965, in which Mr. E. G. Malan, the hon. member for Orange Grove, had the following to say—

He told the central congress of the United Party that we will either drag this Government by the hair to introduce television, or we, as the Government, will introduce it.

It was also stated—

Mr. E. G. Malan, M.P. for Orange Grove, predicted here to-day that an announcement would be made about the introduction of television within the next 12 months.

He said that in November, 1965. Quite some time has now elapsed since he said that the United Party was going to force this Govern ment to introduce television, and that a statement would be made within 12 months from November, 1965. I can understand why it should be an annual undertaking for him to plead here for television, it is in order to keep his promise; after all we know what United Party promises are. I have also said that there is a good reason why the hon. member for Port Natal should be pleading so ardently for television here. Was it not the hon. member for Port Natal whose election slogan was, “For T.V., vote U.P.”? He succeeded in being elected with a small majority, but now he must carry out his promise. Let him do so. Let him try and prove that it is the right thing to introduce television. He made a very poor attempt to do so to-day.

Britain has television, and from July 1967 colour television was introduced. A few weeks after that colour television was also introduced into most European countries, such as Holland, Germany and France. In other words the system of colour television, which cannot be used on the ordinary black and white system, but which requires an entirely new capital installation, is rapidly developing towards greater efficiency. But in his motion the hon. member for Orange Grove asked for the “immediate” introduction of television. It reads as follows—

That this House … urges the Government to consider the immediate introduction of a nation-wide television service.

It is strange that the United Party should keep on asking for television without adopting an attitude in respect of the kind of service which should be offered. It is traditional that the United Party is incapable of adopting an attitude in regard to such matters, or otherwise adopts a negative attitude. I remember when this Government came into power in 1948 that the South African Broadcasting Corporation had not at that stage been developed far enough by the former Government to enable it to comply fully with the requirements of national news services. At that time the B.B.C. news services were being re-broadcast to South Africa. But the National Party Government is in favour of South Africa’s interests being developed, and it would like the spirit of South Africa to be communicated to all South Africans. When the National Party proposed that the B.B.C., news service broadcast be stopped. and that we should introduce our own comprehensive news service, there was fierce opposition to it from the side of the Opposition.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Opposition by whom?

*Mr. V. A. VOLKER:

B.B.C. Steyn opposed it. Subsequently the Government carried into further effect the idea that an entertainment service (which the radio generally is after all) should comply with the requirements of all the population groups being served by that service. The Government consequently saw to it that Bantu services were introduced in Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho and the other chief Bantu languages. The United Party also opposed the legislation which was to make the expansion of these services to all the Bantu nations possible. It is also clear that if we should in future consider the possibility of introducing a television service in South Africa, they will similarly be opposed to a television service in South Africa being nationally and group-orientated. It is for that reason that we cannot, under any circumstances, support the view of the United Party. The fact of the matter is that of the approximate 1,450,000 radio licences which are at present being issued in South Africa, 770,000 are for Bantu. At any rate, there are that many Bantu who possess F. M. sets. That is almost half of all the radio licences being issued. Of the two million Bantu radio listeners 88 per cent listen regularly to Radio Bantu. It is clear therefore that every group has a need to be served in the language of the cultural unit of which he is a member. It is also clear in the international spectrum that as great a need exists there in the sphere of entertainment in general.

I have interesting figures in regard to the number of films which are being manufactured in the various countries. The country which manufactured the most motion pictures in 1962 is Japan with 652 full-length motion pictures. Second was India with 319; then Hong Kong with 272; and fourthly the United States of America with 254 in 1961. Other countries which also manufactured more than 100 motion pictures were Italy, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Korea and the Philippines. From this it must be deduced that the various cultural units in the world are unwilling to have the forms of entertainment of other cultural groups forced upon them. They are only interested in those which derive from their own cultural circumstances. It is interesting to note that the countries which exhibit in their own country 90 per cent of the films which they manufacture themselves, are the U.S.A., India and Russia. But the United Kingdom manufactures only 25 per cent of the films which are exhibited in their own country. Sixty-five per cent of the films which are exhibited in Britain, are manufactured in the U.S.A. Argentina manufactures 35 per cent of the films which are exhibited in their own country, while 50 per cent comes from the U.S.A. if we want to provide television services in South Africa it is in my opinion absolutely essential that we do not offer a single bilingual service, in order to try and draw the greatest number of viewers. We cannot merely provide one service for English-speaking, Afrikaans-speaking and the various Coloured, Bantu and Indian population groups together. If we want to see proper justice being done to the public of South Africa, we will have to provide one service in Afrikaans, and another in English, as well as separate services in the various Bantu languages, because it is no less than right that those services should be provided on a basis which insures that justice is being done to the various population groups. The cost in this connection is a very real factor in the introduction of a television service in South Africa, as the hon. member for Randfontein has already said. He quoted figures to indicate the cost of television in Britain. It would cost no more in South Africa to draw up and present a television programme than it does in Britain. It is no use saying that we should simply import programmes from America and Britain and provide translations in order to present them in Afrikaans and the Bantu languages. Our entertainment programme must comply with the cultural requirements of every population group. Only news programmes, which comprise a smaller part of television programmes, can be translated. But to see that justice is done, it must be taken into consideration that every population group desires services in its own sphere of culture.

I would just like to reply to one question put by the hon. member for Port Natal. He said that the costs of advertising in Britain were so much higher because so many people were viewers there. The fact of the matter is simply that television advertisements in Britain cost approximately R2,000 per minute, because it is aimed at covering the costs of the programme. In Britain it is an economic factor to charge those tariffs for advertisements. In South Africa, with a population of less than a quarter that of Britain, particularly if the various services to the various language groups have to be taken into consideration, it would be quite uneconomic to charge a tariff which even approaches an economic tariff, because to manufacture a programme in South Africa will cost approximately as much as it does in Britain, or Germany or in America or elsewhere. It is for that reason, i.e. because the costs are entirely exorbitant, that we in South Africa, at this stage of our development, and where we have priorities, which require a great deal more attention, find it quite impossible to consider introducing a television service soon. We are not opposed to the service as such, because if it comes to that it will in any case be a Government-controlled service and, we will be able to control it. It is not that we object to that; we have, inter alia, objections to the effect which it is going to have on our economy at this stage.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

An interesting fact has emerged here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The position is that this Government has put up two speakers to oppose the motion of the hon. member of Orange Grove and peculiarly enough those two, I think, are about the only two members on the other side of this House who have ever seen television.

Dr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

That is nonsense.

Mr. T. W. WEBER:

We wonder why this has happened. These are the members who have just returned from visits overseas. They have been in contact with this terribly contaminating machine, this debilitating machine, and I am wondering if perhaps they have been put up here with this purpose in mind: they have been told to come once again with an affirmation of loyalty. Once again they have got to establish their bona fides, within the party that they have not perhaps been led astray by this funny little box in which they have seen pictures. Anyway, as I have said, this is rather interesting, but let us leave that point. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana quoted from a newspaper article reporting the hon. member for Orange Grove. This, he said, was published in November, 1965, but peculiarly enough, on 3rd December, 1965, we had a similar newspaper article published in the Natal Mercury in Natal, where a very strong case was made for television in South Africa. It started off by saying: It would not be wrong or even clever, to say that television for South Africa must come within the next 18 months. Some critics, no doubt, will say this should have happened long ago—I agree.” Now Sir, this was not a report of a correspondent from a newspaper—this was an article which was presented, with a photograph, under the name of Mr. G. J. Claassens, M.P.C., a leader of the Nationalist Party in the Provincial Council in Natal. [Interjections.] No, Sir, for all his condemning the hon. member for his prognostications, let me say that this hon. member of the Provincial Council was also wrong. Let me also say in reply to the interjection made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, that I agree with him that there is at least one sensible person who subscribes to the policy of the Nationalist Party, namely Mr. Claassens, when it comes to the question of television. Sir, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana also said that it was the policy of this Government that the spirit of South Africa should be shown to the country and to the people of the world. So, I want to ask: How better than through the medium of television? Of course, he did give us an insight into the tremendous cost, which the hon. member for Randfontein quoted to us when he said these programmes should be “volks-en groepsgebonde”. Sir, I think he meant, and he seemed to elucidate later in his speech, that we would need at least 12 duplicated services in South Africa. I agree that if that is what we are going to have to do, it will be too costly, but have we really got to do that? He talks about the films which will have to be imported and have to be translated into Afrikaans. Sir, I want to say to the hon. member Afrikaans is in no danger of being destroyed—Afrikaans will never disappear from South Africa and I think the sooner he accepts this and the sooner he gets away from this terrible fear the better I think it will be for the relationships between the language groups.

*An HON. MEMBER:

You have it all wrong.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

While talking about films, one of the points I had intended raising in this debate was this very question, and as the hon. member so correctly put it, films must be produced locally for local consumption. T.V. is something that would stimulate an infant industry in this country. The film industry which we have is battling and is trying to get onto its feet. And if they have the opportunity of producing films for television as well as for showing in the theatres, how much better it would be. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. members for Orange Grove and for Port Natal in congratulating the hon. the Minister on his succession to this portfolio. We know that he has a difficult job ahead of him. We wish him luck and we do hope that he is going to be able to solve the problems which have beset this department in the past. This Government has been boasting for the last 19 years of its achievements …

An HON. MEMBER:

Twenty years.

Mr. W. T. WEBER:

It has boasted for 19 years of its achievements during the last 20 years. It is always trying to get across, not only to the people in this country, but to the people overseas, what it is doing and what it has achieved in this country. And let me say once again they are losing out. I really believe that there are some intelligent members in the Government party, but I cannot see how they fail to see the importance of television and the powerful weapon it would be in their attempt to get this propaganda across, not only amongst our own people in this country and amongst the non-White people particularly, but overseas as well. Internally people in this country could sit comfortably at home at night and see the achievements of which this Government likes to boast. We were talking about personalities a little while ago, whether Ministers and members will have to appear on television. Let me say that after watching the performances of the hon. the Prime Minister in this House over the last few months, I begin to wonder at the wisdom of we in the United Party continuing to press for the advent of television in the country. Because, quite honestly, the hon. the Prime Minister would slay any of us when it comes to a show on television. However, what the United Party has done is to consider the wider interests and the benefit to the country as a whole. I want to say that the Government should have seized the initiative in South Africa to advance and to improve its own image by means of television, particularly amongst the Bantu people. And I want to quote an authority, once again my friend the M.P.C. from Natal. In this context any man who supports television is my friend. He said this—

Television programmes diffused into every home of the urban Bantu would have a far greater appeal than the unseen voice of the troubleshooter coming over the air from foreign and hostile countries such as China, Russia, India and some African states.

He goes further and I think here he has the answers for the hon. member for Randfontein who unfortunately has left the House. He goes on to say—

I think developments in the technical field have made it possible to-day to have diffusion sets at very low cost; and even if these were to be subsidized by the Government the ultimate pay-off would far overshadow the initial cost.

This is the point that I have been making, namely that the ultimate benefit to South Africa would far overshadow that. Mention was made earlier by the hon. member for Port Natal about those people who have vested interests in this country, particularly in the publishing industry and who are opposed to television. Now, with the change in minister-ship we are hoping that those grounds of opposition will fall away. But I do want to say that I was rather encouraged by the speech of the hon. member for Randfontein, who incidentally has now returned. As pointed out by the hon. member for Port Natal there is not to-day a direct stand against television. The attitude up to now has been: We are firmly against it. We do not want to hear about it. We do not accept it. We want to know nothing about it at all. But the hon. member for Randfontein gave us a hint—and this seems to be something which is coming up more and more from this Nationalist Party Government to-day. He gave us a hint to-day that they are not so much against television but that it has to take its place. There is now a list of priorities and we must consider television when the time is ripe. How this time is to be judged I do not know. But let me say that we are grateful for this glimmer of light which is shining through. At last it appears that we of the United Party are starting to make some impression on the National Party. They are beginning to show a little bit of sense and are beginning to think that possibly there might be some good in this. I therefore think that if the hon. member for Orange Grove continues with his annual pilgrimage there will be a time when he is going to break through.

There is no need for me to go into all the pros. These have been discussed in this House so often. But I do want to deal particularly with the subject which was dealt with here in this House a few weeks ago under a motion introduced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. That concerns the power of television as a medium of instruction; the power of television as a means of instruction in our schools. Unfortunately none of the three blind mice are here. I would particularly have liked to have spoken to one of the heads of Bantu Administration in this connection.

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG:

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to refer to members of this House as “three blind mice”?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member may proceed. It is not in very good taste, but the hon. member may proceed.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

As I have said, the power of television in this connection must be appreciated. I have here, thanks to the generosity of the hon. the Minister and his department, a periodical which is delivered to me regularly, i.e. Bantu Education Journal. In every issue of this magazine we have articles on the use of the radio as an organ to assist in education in the schools. We find that not only has the Department of Bantu Education fastened on to this idea and is using regular programmes put over radio Bantu, for educational purposes in schools—the department is actually placing radios in the schools—but it has gone further and found that audio-education is not as good as the combination audio-visual education. The department is now issuing what are called “photobooks”. These I believe are made up of pictures illustrating the lecture which will be broadcast over the radio. We are now arriving at what has been accepted in the outside world as the epitome of educational help, namely the audio-visual system. Now we are going to the trouble of putting over radio programmes and we are going to the trouble of drawing pictures and taking photographs to illustrate this. These two things should now be combined and I submit that this is the automatic next step. I should like to quote from one of these Bantu education journals. On page 28 of the September, 1967, issue we read—

As a modern teaching aid, the radio can rapidly become a powerful force in education, but only if used enthusiastically, intelligently and with discretion.

With that I agree one hundred per cent. It could be applied a thousandfold more positively to television. What this Government must now realize is that television is the most powerful instrument of communication known to the world to-day. It is capable of abuse. I grant you that. It is capable of abuse in the same way as the writer of this article mentions the radio in education. But, it is also capable of the greatest good. In conclusion I should like to say that it is not what television is but what we can make of it, that really matters. And I am sure that if it is introduced into this country it can be made a success.

Mr. J. W. E. WILEY:

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to add my congratulations to those of other members on this side of the House to the new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on his assumption of office. I wish him all success in his new portfolio. Statements have been made to-day that the Nationalist Party has certain objections to television under the prevailing circumstances, but that it has never been opposed to the institution of television as such in South Africa. The main arguments that were advanced to-day I think were that it would cost too much in our present economic circumstances; that we have just overcome inflation and that it would be an added burden; that there were other priorities; and that television was not as yet perfect. But it was also stated that they had never been against television as such. I should like to quote from Die Beeld of the 11th February, 1968. The relevant paragraph reads as follows—

“Veranderinge.”

Die Regering se standpunt oor beeldradio as medium het in die jare toeskietliker geword: eers ’n onomwonde verwerping daarvan nou dat beeldradio laag op die lys van prioriteite is.”

If the Nationalist Party was in favour of television it seems very strange that the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs a few years ago was to say this in the House—

Wanneer beeldradio in ’n huis ingevoer word en die kinders kyk die hele dag na die gewelddade, die misdade, die seksoortredings en die immoraliteit, moet dit noodwendig ’n nadelige invloed op daardie kinders hê.

He went further—

Ons durf nie daardie toestand hier in Suid-Afrika toelaat nie.

That is a strange way of supporting television in South Africa. Yet previous speakers have said that the Nationalist Party has never been against television in South Africa. They are merely opposed to the institution of television at this present stage for the various reasons that I have given. But let us leave that aside. Let me deal with the way I see the position arising from this debate. I think it is conceded by speakers on both sides of the House that television has an educational value, that it is obviously an information medium, for the dissemination of propaganda and that it has a very obvious entertainment value. Figures have been given by speakers on both sides of the number of television sets in the world. These figures are most impressive. I would be the first to agree with speakers on the other side of the House that what is done overseas is not necessarily the best for South Africa. Speakers on this side of the House have often maintained the same argument. I do not believe that because there is television in Britain, America or elsewhere in Europe, it is essential that we have it also in South Africa. But I believe that the arguments in favour of having television in South Africa outweigh its disadvantages. And for that reason I am pleased to support this motion. I will also concede that South Africa has her own peculiar problems which militate to a certain extent against television. There is the fact that we are a multi-racial society, that we have many languages in South Africa and vast differences in the standards of civilization among our various population groups. I believe also that there are disadvantages connected with television not only in South Africa but also elsewhere in the world, such as that a society can become what is known as a “gluepot society”; that there can be a loss of human intercourse; and that visual reading can never really take the place of the written word. It is also commonly conceded that television commercialism can become a very real danger, but then the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had other arguments. He said that our youth would be corrupted, but surely if there is judicious selection of programmes there is no need for the youth to be corrupted. Surely if the parents exercise the necessary parental control, the youth will not be corrupted. The previous Minister also said that there would be a shortage of technicians. I am given to understand, and I believe the hon. member for Orange Grove quoted these figures to-day, that the Rhodesian television system is run by six highly skilled engineers. [Interjections.] The previous Minister had a further argument, namely that there would be insufficient Afrikaans programmes. That is a very real fear and one which we on this side of the House fully appreciate. But I believe that a system of dubbing is practicable, and that you can build up a stockpile of Afrikaans films and programmes so as not in any way to engulf Afrikaans in the television programmes. But then the former Minister, in the last debate in which he took part, used the argument that television would be used to bring about the downfall of the white man in South Africa. I cannot seriously believe that there are members either on that side of the House or on this side who can subscribe to that argument, and therefore I do not think it is necessary to deal with it. But he had certain other hidden reasons for being opposed to television and there are hon. members opposite who share those reasons with him. The first is that the Nationalist Party inherently is fearful of change. For example one of the reasons why they stopped immigrants coming to South Africa was because they were afraid of overseas influences. One of the reasons why they refused to disclose information favourable and unfavourable to South Africa at U.N. and elsewhere in regard to South West Africa was because they relied on the argument that South West was a matter for the domestic jurisdiction of South Africa. But since those days we have seen a change. In the past they were opposed to black diplomats coming to South Africa, and now they are admitting Black diplomats to South Africa. They do not establish them in Bellville and Parow, but they establish them in Rondebosch, the seat of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We have seen that they were opposed to sending overseas a mixed Olympics team, but a change has taken place.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member is getting away from the motion.

Mr. J. W. E. WILEY:

The previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs also had another argument, and that was that the influence of the S.A.B.C. would decline. I think it probably would, but in any case if some of its influence were to decline it would probably be a very good thing. Then, I think, his third main argument, which he did not use in public, was that Afrikaans newspapers would suffer through the loss of advertising. I concede that that is a valid argument, but do you not think, Sir, that the members of the Nationalist Party should put the interests of South Africa before those of the Nationalist Press?

Dr. P. S. VAN DER MERWE:

What about the English newspapers?

Mr. J. W. E. WILEY:

Yes, it applies to the English newspapers as well; yet they support television. When I support this motion, I do so subject to the condition that if it is instituted in South Africa it should be rigidly controlled against any form of misuse or abuse. If it were to be handled by the Post Office, I have every confidence that it will not be abused and that it will be handled to the advantage of South Africa.

What are its advantages? There are social and political advantages, and I believe it could greatly improve our image overseas. We have only to quote the recent example of Professor Barnard’s film which we saw. It must have done South Africa a lot of good overseas. I can quote also the approval of Die Transvaler of July, 1965, referring to the gain lift to Lesotho, when it said—

As televise die wêreld se oë oor ons gesonde beleid kan oopmaak, dan het dit mos ’n goeie kant en nie ’n nadelige nie.

All this could be shown to the world so much more easily if we had our own television system. In that case it was shown to 17 million viewers in West Germany alone, and it must have done our country a power of good. I believe it would also awaken true national pride in South Africa. I believe that there are many people throughout South Africa who do not know what is going on in the other provinces of the country and the country as a whole. I believe it would be beneficial in awakening a proper sense of national pride among them. It has obvious advantages in attracting visitors from overseas through showing them in advance our natural beauties. In visual education it can be used to expedite the education not only of the Coloureds, but also of the Natives. We acknowledge that even for Whites there is a shortage of teachers, and it could be a very useful educational medium. The hon. member for Umbilo has frequently drawn the attention of members of this House to the advantages of television for the sick and elderly people. It seems a foregone conclusion that it will come. The question is when it is going to come, and what safeguards there should be. Here I should like to quote from Die Transvaler of 3rd July, 1967, quoting Mr. Meyer—

Die aanduiding is dat beeldradio die een of ander tyd in Suid-Afrika ingestel sal word. As Suid-Afrika daarin kan slaag om deeglike beheer uit te oefen oor die inhoud van programme, kan hy op dié gebied lei-ding gee. Mnr. Meyer, die voorsitter van Kavalier Films, het ook gesê Suid-Afrika kan aan die wêreld wys dat daar niks met beeldradio as medium verkeerd is nie.

I have already quoted Die Beeld to show that the Government has made a complete change in their policy as regards television. On 11th February, 1968, it says quite plainly: “Geen televisie voor 1971 nie, maar dat Suid-Afrika beeldradio sal kry, word nie meer betwyfel nie.”

Lastly, reference has been made to the approval with which Dr. Nico Malan, the Administrator of the Cape Province, referred to television on his return from overseas recently, when he said that if television is properly controlled it can be of great benefit to South Africa. So it seems that the volume of opinion in this House and outside is building up in favour of television. I think that will be a healthy day and I believe that this new Minister will be the first person to introduce television into South Africa. The reason why I say that is because on his assumption of office, as quoted in The Star of 8th February, he is reported to have said this—

Mr. Basie van Rensburg, the new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, said in an interview to-day that he was taking on his new portfolio “without any preconceived idea about television or any other matter falling within the ambit of postal affairs. I will act in what I believe are the best interests of South Africa”.

The interests of South Africa dictate that television be immediately investigated and be introduced as soon as possible.

*The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

I want to begin by saying that I do not regard television as an evil. Television can undoubtedly be a very useful instrument in the hands of mankind, but it can also with equal certainty be a very dangerous instrument in the hands of mankind. The advantages and disadvantages of television in the various Western countries where it has been introduced, is closely bound up with the system and the policy which is being followed in that connection. It depends whether it is a commercial service, i.e. a service such as the one which is being provided in the United States by businessmen for their own profit, or a dual system of a Government Corporation, together with the commercial service, such as in Britain, Canada and Australia for example, or simply a Government co-operative undertaking such as is the case in Germany and Holland, or whether the control thereof is vested in a State Department, as in France. We must distinguish carefully between a commercial service and a cultural service. A commercial service, which is run by businessmen for their own profit, and a cultural service with advertisements, such as Radio Bantu, Springbok Radio and special F. M. services of the S.A.B.C., which are toy no means commercial services, but in fact cultural services with intermittent advertisements, controlled on the same basis as all the other services of the S.A.B.C. In addition the advantages and disadvantages of television are dependent upon whether the television service is restricted to certain times of the day as a supplement to the radio service or whether it is a 24-hour service which is offered independently and parallel to the radio services. And finally the advantages and disadvantages are also dependent upon whether high spiritual and cultural values and norms are laid down for the service in the country in question. Where the norms are low, as is the case with purely commercial services, the disadvantages are greater than the advantages. When television is well controlled and only programmes of the highest quality are offered, the advantages can outweigh the disadvantages, particularly if it is limited to a few hours per day as a supplement to an existing State cooperative radio service. When a television service has become primarily an extension of the film, i.e. when old motion pictures are merely re-screened to fill up the programme, as is the case in the U.S.A., the disadvantages this implies are greater than all the advantages. In general however the most important prejudicial characteristics of television abroad are that it makes for superficiality and that it offers competition to interests such as the radio, the Press and the film industry, particularly if it is a parallel 24-hour service and in addition is being run by businessmen for their own profit. Television displays its worst and most dangerous characteristics when it is introduced as a commercial service under the control of private entrepreneurs for their own profit.

It would be fatal for the intellectual future of our country if we were also to introduce a television service similar to those which exist in most other countries of the world. The disadvantages are so great that it would be difficult to gain an advantage from it. When it is used for educational purposes in an incorrect way, a person’s intellectual development can be tied down to the visual excessively for too long a period of time or incorrectly, thus retarding instead of promoting the process of development. Human thought develops from the concrete to the abstract and must not be tied down for too long a period of time or incorrectly to the concrete. The inherent problem with television is that it supplies a mass of knowledge which can be absorbed in an easy and visual way without an attendant intelligent and conceptual processing of that material. In England an experiment was conducted a few years ago and it was found, after television had been in operation there for a few years, that it was in fact the less intelligent child who spent the most time in front of the television set and that instead of increasing his intelligence, it only made him much less intelligent.

Television’s greatest advantage lies in the stimulus it provides for the further development of commerce and industry, and as a supplementary medium to the basic function of all communication mediums, i.e. that of entertainment, information, and conveying culture, in which is included all cultural activities, particularly if it is run exclusively by a State television service. On the positive side television in South Africa can be a supplement to and development of the radio services in our country, and, in the same way as radio, can only, as a supplementary medium, be a conservative force as regards the Christian-religious convictions, the history and traditions, the language and culture, the nature and the customs of our community. Mr. Speaker, in view of its customary criticism in this regard of the present radio services it is doubtful however whether the Opposition would see to it that this advantage which television can have, is utilized.

Television can be advantageous to South Africa in the fields of education, science, industry, commerce and the life of the community. With this qualification that proper points of policy are formulated, television, if put to the correct use in the field of education, can serve as an important supplementary medium, particularly in the field of interpretation by visual presentation. An inherent characteristic of television is after all that it can make a large amount of knowledge easily available in a visual manner. In the field of science it can be put to work very advantageously in the development of metal processing, operations and the visual presentation of scientific facts. Television can provide a stimulus to industry and commerce, as I have already said, which may lead to further development. Television can also be of great value in the field of medical science.

But before I return to this, I first should like to say a few words about the United Party’s attitude in regard to this matter. At the beginning of this Session not the least of my expectations was that I would have to participate in this Session in a debate on television, and yet it still seems strange to me to-day that I have risen to discuss television. But there is something else which I find even more curious and strange, and that is the United Party’s attitude in regard to this matter. Since the official Opposition is introducing a motion of this nature, one would expect that we would have listened here this afternoon to sober and convincing reasons why a country-wide television service should be introduced. One would have expected the United Party to have weighed up the pros and cons of television and that they would have quoted chapter and verse to this House and the country to prove that the advantages of a television service would far outweigh the disadvantages. But what did we get from them; what did we get from the hon. member for Orange Grove?

He simply adopted the attitude that it was a foregone conclusion that television was the best thing in the world; that there could be nothing better and that it was the only thing in the world to which no disadvantages at all attached. He took a purely superficial view of the matter. He told us how South Africa was being deprived of the privilege of seeing Karen Muir swim, of seeing Dr. Chris Barnard on television, of seeing the Olympic Games on television and of seeing our rugby teams on television. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove can go and see these things in the cinemas. Why does he make the assertion here that South Africans are being deprived of the privilege of seeing these people in action? I am really disappointed with the United Party’s display here this afternoon. The only hon. member on that side who, at the outset, adopted a reasonably realistic attitude in regard to the matter, was the hon. member for Simonstown, who has just spoken, but he soon became so entangled in his prejudices against the former Minister that he went completely off the rails. The hon. member for Simonstown was the only member on the other side who admitted that television did in fact have disadvantages as well.

*Mr. J. W. E. WILEY:

The other speakers before me also admitted that.

*The MINISTER:

No. I listened to them very attentively. Speakers on the opposite side also failed to tell us what kind of service they wanted. I have already indicated that the advantages and disadvantages of television depend upon various factors—inter alia, upon who controls it and upon the duration of the service. It is true that the hon. member for Rand-fontein almost got the hon. member for Orange Grove so far as to admit that the United Party wanted a State-controlled television service. But why did the hon. member for Orange Grove not go further and tell us whether he wanted a commercial service? Or a cultural service?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Let me say this for the umpteenth time, a cultural service with advertisements.

*The MINISTER:

Nor did he say whether it should be a limited service, or whether it should be an integrated service i.e. together with the radio, nor whether we should have a continuous 24 hour service. Nor did he say whether television should be an extension of the film. He had nothing to say about the standard of the programmes either. Since the United Party have been pleading for the introduction of a television service for years now, one would at least have expected them to have stated in clear language what they wanted in this regard. But instead of that they came forward here with a half-baked plan and did not go into the pros and cons in an unprejudiced way.

The hon. member for Simonstown quoted that I had allegedly said on 8th February that I was unprejudiced against television; that I would make a study of it and that I would then decide what would be in the best interests of the people of South Africa. That is so. But, Mr. Speaker, if it was the purpose of hon. members on the opposite side to convince me this afternoon of the need for television in South Africa, they certainly did not succeed in their purpose. Obviously the United Party expects to draw a few supporters with this call for television. But they are not going to succeed in that either, and if reaction on the part of the public to their call up to now has not been ill omen enough for them, then I do not know what would convince them. In fact, at every election since they first began with this call, they have received a worse drubbing. The United Party must take cognizance of the fact that the public will not allow itself to be prescribed to in regard to what is in the best interests of South Africa, and the public will not allow itself to be misled by the creation of an artificial need such as this.

Why do the United Party want television in South Africa. Do they want it in order to further the development of the country?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Yes.

*The MINISTER:

Do they want it for educational purposes?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Yes.

*The MINISTER:

Or for scientific purposes?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Yes.

*The MINISTER:

Or for industrial purposes …

*HON. MEMBERS:

Yes.

*The MINISTER:

Or for medical progress and development …

*HON. MEMBERS:

Yes.

*The MINISTER:

And also for the purposes of entertainment, I take it?

*HON. MEMBERS:

Yes.

*The MINISTER:

Precisely because the Government does not regard television as an evil, and precisely because the Government is able to recognize its usefulness, we are already, to an ever-increasing extent, making use of this medium in South Africa, for example, in the fields of medicine, education, science, industry and commerce. This takes the form of closed-circuit television, a medium which can be utilized to great effect for these specific purposes. Surely hon. members on the opposite side are thoroughly aware of this—

in fact, the hon. member for Orange Grove has already put questions in this regard to me, as well as to the former Minister. He has already mentioned this. Why did he not mention in his speech that the Government was already putting closed-circuit television to good use for the development of all these matters which I have just mentioned?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I did mention it.

*The MINISTER:

No, you did not mention it; all you did was to make a passing reference to its utilization for education purposes. A few years ago when the hon. member also introduced a motion here, he pictured South Africa as allegedly being a backward country when compared with the rest of the word, more backward than the most backward country in the world, even in Africa. Was the hon. member not also aware on that occasion of the fact that South Africa had, since as far back as the mid-fifties, been making use of closed-circuit television to further science, commerce, industry, medical science and education? If the hon. member was aware of that, then surely it was not criticism of the Government. It was sheer ill-will towards South Africa to have made statements like that.

At the moment there are 110 undertakings in the Republic which are making permanent use of this medium of closed-circuit television. Of these, 39 are making use of it for medical purposes, 12 for educational purposes, six for scientific purposes, 37 for industrial purposes, and 17 for commercial purposes. A number of these uses also possess more than one television set, so that they can get full coverage for their particular requirements. I now want to mention a few examples of such cases.

In the field of medical science closed-circuit television is being coupled with X-ray equipment for internal examinations; it is also being used to allow a group of doctors or medical students to watch an operation. It is also being used for observation during psychological and physical treatment, as well as for the research purposes. In the field of education closed-circuit television is being used by universities and teachers’ colleges to help overcome the problem of a shortage of trained staff. The classes are too large for one lecturer, but by making use of closed-circuit television, the same lecture can be delivered to various classes. In the case of demonstrations, these can be shown to groups of students simultaneously where it was otherwise only possible for a few to watch these demonstrations at the same time. As an example the medical school can be mentioned, where the details of an open heart operation can be simultaneously demonstrated to an entire class instead of to a few students only. Permission has also been granted to the Transvaal Education Department to conduct education experiments in this respect at one high school, one secondary school and one educational college. As many applications as are received from schools for essential purposes for the use of closed-circuit television will be granted.

*An HON. MEMBER:

This is real progress.

*The MINISTER:

It is not progress. It has always been the case. [Interjections.] Did the hon. member say he never knew that?

*Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON:

He said it is an evil.

The MINISTER:

No. Did the hon. member say he was never aware of this situation?

*HON. MEMBERS:

No …

*The MINISTER:

You were never aware of it? What a poor official Opposition we have in this country! [Interjections.] These things are happening and they do not know about them. The hon. member for Orange Grove has acknowledged before and referred in his speeches to the utilization of closed-circuit television in South Africa.

*Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST:

Nobody on this side is saying we were not aware of it. [Interjections.]

*The MINISTER:

In the field of industry we find the following: Closed-circuit television is being used in industry to Observe the functioning of machinery where this cannot be done with the naked eye because of heat or dangerous radiation, as in the case of the smelting ovens at Iscor. In addition it is being utilized for safeguarding human lives, or to observe performance where direct Observation is impossible, as at the building of the Hen* drik Verwoerd Dam for example, where it is impossible for the operator to see where he is pouring the cement.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Television is quite a wonderful thing, is it not?

*The MINISTER:

Yes, it is a wonderful thing. Nobody on this side has ever said that it was not a wonderful thing. Where does the hon. member get that from? I hope the hon. member will show me a quotation in which a Nationalist denied that television was a wonderful thing.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

What about Jaap Marais?

*The MINISTER:

The hon. member for Orange Grove has always deliberately tried to understand the hon. member for Innesdal incorrectly, but the hon. member for Innesdal has more sense than the hon. member for Orange Grove, so much more sense that he will not say such a nonsensical thing as that which the hon. member for Orange Grove is now trying to attribute to the hon. member for Innesdal. I continue. In the field of science closed-circuit television is being utilized for observation purposes to determine the effect of radio-active radiation on certain materials. These experiments are either being conducted underground or in research laboratories. In addition it is being used to observe, for research purposes, the habits of sharks. It is also being utilized to examine subsidences where it would otherwise be humanly impossible to do so. The Atomic Energy Board is using it to determine the design parameters of a prototype reactor.

In the commercial field closed-circuit television can be utilized for the following purposes: For control purposes, e.g. control over staff, and particularly cashiers; or to verify the signatures on cheques; or to relay proceedings from a venue which is too small to some other place. I am also prepared to grant applications from self-service stores where they want to combat theft. This has not been done up to now, but I am prepared to grant applications, because I think that television can serve a very good purpose there. Goods to the value of thousands of rand are being stolen from these shops each month, and we believe that closed-circuit television can be utilized with great success in combating these thefts.

The use of closed-circuit television has therefor never been opposed. The Government cannot be reproached with not having lent assistance in respect of the technological developments in all the various fields I have mentioned. [Interjection.] Will the hon. member listen to me. I have never interrupted him. Apparently he does not want to know what our policy is, he is not interested in it, because he is only interested in television in so far as he is able to make use of it as propaganda for his party. The hon. member for Orange Grove takes no interest at all in what is of importance for the country. He wants to know nothing about those things which the Government is doing in the interest of the country, because it cannot be used as propaganda for his party to catch a few votes with. [Interjections.] I was very courteous towards hon. members on the other side, and I expect them to be courteous towards me too. But I can never expect very much courteousness from the hon, member for Orange Grove—I know him too well.

I maintain that the Government’s policy in regard to the introduction of open television is quite a different matter however. It is based on considerations of the cost and the real advantages which such a service can hold for the country as a whole. Obviously the fact that the most advantages and the most important advantages of television can be obtained with a closed-circuit television must be a very strong consideration when a decision is taken in regard to the introduction of an open television service. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove is already sitting there with a sardonic smile on his face. The other day I gave a negative reply when the hon. member asked me whether a nation-wide investigation had been instituted into a television service for the entire country. The hon. member sat there with great satisfaction, and to the amusement of his hon. friends on the opposite side he asked me how I was then able to judge and decide on open television when I did not even know what the cost to the country would be. The hon. member forgot of course that he used the words “nation-wide”. Although the S.A.B.C. and the Post Office had not made an estimate of the costs of nation-wide television service, they had in fact made a calculation of what it would cost if a supplementary radio service to the radio service were introduced with ten broadcasting stations. It is a service with a programme of approximately three to four hours per day, which includes one bilingual white and one multi-lingual non-white service. As I have said, it would have ten broadcasting stations. The cost of such a limited and integrated service, integrated with the radio service, would be approximately R16.1 million for the S.A.B.C. and R8.4 million for the Post Office. That comes to a total of R24.5 million. Colour television would double the cost at least. What it would ultimately cost the country—and that is the question which the hon. member for Orange Grove really put to me— simply to expand an integrated radio-television service to the entire country and to provide it in the various languages for all the population groups, is absolutely impossible to calculate. Even a rough calculation or estimate would be misleading. The cost of a 24-hour service, similar to what is being offered by our radio service to the entire country, is quite incalculable. It is impossible to say.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I am satisfied with that figure.

*The MINISTER:

Well, why does the hon. member put impossible questions to me then? I shall say why it is impossible. Firstly, there are the programmes and the drawing up of the programmes which is an entirely un-ascertainable factor. We are dealing here with two official language groups and quite a number of non-White languages. Secondly, there is the cost to the public as a whole. Did the hon. member not think of that? It is impossible to make a calculation of how many television sets will be purchased by the public. The hon. member for Randfontein predicted this afternoon that there are possibly 200,000 people in South Africa who would purchase television sets. The hon. member for Orange Grove differed from him immediately and maintained that there would be many more.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I think 500,000.

*The MINISTER:

Very well, let us assume it is 500,000. It would cost the public buying those sets R150 million. [Interjection.] Just wait a minute. These are sets for black and white, to receive black and white broadcasts. If we have a colour service, it would cost anything from R200 million to R250 million.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

And if they hired sets?

*The MINISTER:

Here the hon. member is suggesting that the public should hire sets. Surely the hon. member knows what disadvantages attach to that. Surely it is much better to buy the sets. It would not pay the people to hire the sets. In the long run they will have to buy the sets. That will be the cheapest thing for them to do.

It is generally known that a television service is an expensive service. Unfortunately time does not allow me to go into this aspect any further. I should like to indicate what the costs would be. Now I am asking: Why should we introduce television when the most important advantages of television or the development of South Africa are already being enjoyed to the full by us? After all, we have the use of closed-circuit television. All that remains, is the entertainment aspect. Must we now accept that for the sake of that, merely for the sake of the entertainment aspect, the Opposition wants us to spend millions of rand in introducing a television service? Does the hon. member for Orange Grove expect that merely for the sake of entertainment the country should be burdened with expenditure to the value of millions of rand?

I think the Opposition have saddled a horse here which they are not going to ride very easily. This horse is going to throw them. I think the Opposition must give serious reconsideration to this matter and decide in their own interests not to mount this horse. I think they should rather let it go.

Preference must be given to more important matters than the spending of millions of rand on the introduction of such a service, and that for the purposes of entertainment. In a country such as South Africa, where a small white population has to tackle and carry out major undertakings in order to ensure the welfare of all our various population groups, the introduction of open television cannot receive preference. South Africa has to spend millions of rand, not only to ensure its white future, but at the same time to make peaceful co-existence with its non-white population groups possible. South Africa has to spend millions of rand on its defence, to guarantee peace and safety for its inhabitants here in South Africa in a threatening world and a hostile world constellation. In order to further the development of its industries and its agriculture millions of rand have to be spent on the development of our water resources, since our country is often stricken by serious droughts.

There are many other equally important reasons I could mention as to why other projects should enjoy preference before the introduction of a television service. There are other considerations as well, as I have mentioned, why we are opposed to an open television service in South Africa. I want to emphasize that it would be absolutely fatal to the intellectual future of our country if a television service, such as that which exists in most other countries, was simply to be introduced into our country. Hon. members on this side, inter alia, the hon. members for Randfontein and for Umhlatuzana, have already pointed that out. I am thinking in particular of the ineradicable influence which the service can have on our children. We must remember that the influence on people of what they see is much stronger than what they hear. The current opinion is that one forgets 80 per cent of what one hears, whereas one retains 80 per cent of what one sees. Many advocates of a television service on the opposite side of the House will not allow their children to go to see certain motion pictures. I see a certain member on the opposite side nodding his head in assent. They will definitely forbid their children to do so. But what do they want to do now? They want television to be carried into the house so that the children are able to see those kinds of pictures quite freely. [Interjections.]

In conclusion just the following. To sum up I want to say that a modern country cannot achieve great heights without a modern transportation system. It must also possess an advanced telegraph, post, Press, radio and theatre system. However, a country can achieve great heights without an open television service as an additional communication medium. The great value and advantages of television have already been introduced into the country by means of closed-circuit television. If it is essential, this kind of service will be expanded to an increasing extent.

The choice before the Government is an easy one. The attitude of the Government in regard to this matter is very clear. Firstly, the Government rejects the open service because of the very prejudicial influences it can have, particularly on our youth and our studying youth. It has nothing to do with our maturity as a nation, but it has a great deal to do with the immaturity of our youth. Secondly, the Government rejects the service on the grounds of the tremendous costs which will have to be incurred. I cannot emphasize this emphatically enough: The Opposition wants this service merely for the sake of entertainment purposes. In order to make it a self-supporting undertaking, that entertainment will not always be healthy and constructive.

I think we have enough entertainment in this country. Even here in this House the Opposition supplies healthy entertainment. That is why the hon. member’s motion cannot be accepted. [Interjections.]

*Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST:

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister got up this afternoon, I really thought that he would approach this matter quite objectively. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion lapsed.

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, 6TH MARCH, 1968 Prayers—2.20 p.m. RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE BILL

Bill read a Third Time.

ESTIMATES OF ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE-CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (Committee Stage resumed)

Revenue Vote 32,—Agricultural Technical Services; Administration and National Services, R987,000:

Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

I should like the Minister to give us some information on subhead E, the ex gratia payments to P. J. van Baal and T. S. Sanderson.

Mr. L. F. WOOD:

I should like to know whether the Minister can give some explanation for the high increase under sub-head R, “Plant Pest Control”.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:

The ex gratia payment under item 3, sub-head E, “Miscellaneous Expenses”, was made to Van Baal and Sanderson, who suffered a loss on the Nelspruit citrus station surplus valencia harvest for which they tendered. Because of diseases and hail damage the condition of the fruit was very poor and only 20 per cent of the harvest could be exported, while the firm based its tender on 50 per cent export quality. Instead of 50 per cent, the firm could only export 20 per cent, and the Tender Board recommended that the tender be reduced from 57.5 cents per 100 1b. to 30.5 cents per 100 1b., which the Treasury approved. This amounted to a loss of R1,900.

With reference to sub-head R, the increase of R383,200 is due mainly to a large-scale campaign to control locusts and finches, in respect of which large quantities of poison, etc., had to be bought and aeroplanes had to be chartered for the spraying. I may inform the Committee that we received several letters of thanks from agricultural unions for the efficient manner in which we totally destroyed the locust plague.

Dr. A. RADFORD:

Can the Minister give us an explanation as to why the amount for veterinary field services has been doubled?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The additional expenditure which will be incurred is as a result of the outbreak of Newcastle disease among chickens in the Western Cape and foot-and-mouth disease in the Kruger National Park and also in that part of the Eastern Transvaal, as a result of which compensation is being paid to the chicken farmers for their losses, and in addition it is for the purchase of apparatus, etc., for the combating of the above-mentioned diseases. An additional amount is also being provided for the stockpiling of supplies in case of sanctions.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 34,—Water Affairs, R2,296,076:

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would give us some information in regard to the item under subhead E, the ex gratia payments to farmers in the Vaalharts irrigation area, amounting to R1,446,200, and also the ex gratia payment to J. H. du Preez amounting to R1,256. In connection with the payment to the farmers in the Vaalharts irrigation area, I should like to know whether this amount of money has been arrived at as the result of a formula which had been agreed to by the farmers; whether consultation took place and whether a formula was finally arrived at, and whether this amount was paid out in terms of that formula which was acceptable to the farmers, or whether it was paid out in terms of some other arrangement, other than a formula agreed to by the farmers. What was the formula which was arrived at and did the farmers agree to it? Then there is also the case of Mr. Du Preez.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS:

The hon. member’s question is specifically in connection with the formula, but if he so desires I can give him the whole history of the matter.

The following Press announcement was issued by the Hon. J. J. Fouché, the previous Minister of Water Affairs, on 27th June, 1967 (translation)—

On 18th August, 1966, when increased restrictions on the abstraction of water from the Vaal River for use in the Vaalharts irrigation area were announced, it was envisaged that investigations would be made in order to find a method of compensating irrigators for losses which might be suffered by them as a result of the differentiated restrictions on the use of Vaal River water.

I now have the pleasure to announce … He did this at a later stage—

… that the Government has decided to compensate irrigators in the Vaalharts irrigation area on an ex gratia basis in respect of the above-mentioned losses, as follows: White irrigators at a general rate of R38.25 per morgen of scheduled land; non-White irrigators in the Taungs Bantu area and the Mayeng location at a general rate of R17.29 per morgen of scheduled land. The Government is at present engaged in finding ways and means of having the payment of the above-mentioned compensation made to irrigators at the earliest possible moment. As soon as the necessary financial arrangements in this regard have been made, which it is hoped will be soon, a further Press announcement will be made in this connection.

A special State President’s warrant has been obtained for the issue of an amount of R1,446,200, as a charge against a new item— ex gratia payments to farmers in the Vaalharts irrigation area—under Sub-head E of the above-mentioned Vote.

It must be mentioned that payment to the irrigators concerned was made with the least possible delay and that the payments have already been made, except in a few cases where the non-White irrigators have changed their addresses and have not yet been located or where disputes arose between lessees and lessors. These cases are receiving attention and ought to be finalized shortly. I can give the hon. member a reasonably detailed account of precisely how these two sums were arrived at. A formula was determined by taking into account what the losses would be for all persons abstracting water from the Vaal River— plus-minus 30 per cent—and subtracting this, and then calculating roughly what the total income per morgen on the settlement concerned was for the year as well as for the previous years in order to arrive at a realistic figure. From this a deduction was made of what it would mean if such a person had to forgo 30 per cent of his water, that is to say, the indirect loss on the proceeds of his crop, and a percentage was then determined accordingly. This is briefly the formula which was used.

The hon. member must remember that it was fairly late in the year when this occurred. The hon. member will also know that the water is allocated for a fiscal year. Luckily for the farmers a great deal of the water had already been abstracted when the crisis arose, and the calculation was made with the intention that the currency of the period would be until the end of the water year. But then it rained before the time. Persons receiving the compensation then in fact received more than they were meant to receive, but it was not withdrawn; it was given to them. The amount of plus-minus R38 is therefore a very reasonable compensation considering the fact that they had already had an income during the first part of the financial year, and that it rained subsequently, so that they could continue with their next crop. I can tell the hon. member that the Department and I are quite happy about the fact that this was the position and that the Vaalharts farmers were satisfied. I think that it was an equitable determination and the irrigators also considered it as such. The formula can also be justified in all respects.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us whether there was a concomitant advantage given to the irrigators of Vaalharts by means of perhaps a temporary reduction in the interest and redemption payments that they have to make towards the cost of the scheme, or whether there was any subsidiary benefit of that kind, apart from this financial contribution made by the State?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS:

No, there was no additional figure calculated, because the Department felt that it had taken all factors into account in the determination of the figure so as not to prejudice the farmers. I think that the hon. member will admit that the irrigators were indeed very well compensated, considering the fact that it rained shortly afterwards and that the restrictions lasted for approximately two months only. The income per morgen is only estimated at approximately R80. If you had had an income for eight months and you then get an extra R38, and it rains shortly afterwards so that you can carry on with your farming, I think that the hon. member will admit that it is a very reasonable compensation. There was no reason to take other factors into account, and this was in fact not done.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Under Sub-head M, “Subsidies on Minor Water Works,” there is an increase of R200,000. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister explain the reasons for this increase?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS:

As a result of the recent protracted drought the demand for minor water works has increased considerably, while the amount provided was reduced by R100,000 by the Treasury with effect from the 1966-'67 financial year.

At the present rate of expenditure it is expected that an additional amount of R200,000 will be required. This expenditure has become necessary as a result of the crisis in which we landed, and in such a crisis it is very difficult to foresee where matters are going to end, but we are satisfied, myself included, that this amount is a reasonable one.

I also want to reply to the hon. member in connection with the case of Mr. Du Preez. The circumstances under which this payment has to be made to Mr. Du Preez are briefly as follows: Mr. J. H. du Preez, owner of the farm Locate, District of Potgietersrust, applied on 8th July, 1965, for a subsidy on six boreholes. However, the application form was only received by the Department on 20th September, 1965, and was referred back to the applicant on 15th November, 1965, for amendment and for an improved sketch plan of his farm.

On a previous occasion, namely on 26th May, 1964, the Department had granted Mr. Du Preez’s application in respect of four proposed boreholes. According to the completion reports submitted by the applicant, the boreholes yielded 120, 150, 120 and 110 gallons per hour, respectively. In addition the applicant already had two existing boreholes of 60 and 120 gallons per hour. As the applicant only indicated three of the abovementioned six boreholes in his application form dated 8th July, 1965, the Department was not satisfied as to the merits of the application. The application form was therefore returned to the applicant for correction. According to the Department’s records the applicant had sufficient water at that time for his stock watering requirements, and consequently there was no justification for treating his application as an emergency case. But in the meantime the water had begun to diminish. We were, however, not aware of this. Mr. Du Preez then wrote on 25th November, 1965, to inform us that there were only two boreholes in use on his farm and that they yielded 16 to 20 gallons per hour and 60 gallons per hour, respectively. He declared that he himself had already sunk 64 boreholes on his farm and that since the date of his application he had already sunk six boreholes. Because he had sold his boring-machine, he was making a last attempt to find water. The Department accepted Mr. Du Preez’s explanations and he was informed on 30th December, 1965, that his application for a subsidy on four boreholes had been approved. According to the completion reports submitted by the applicant, the boreholes were sunk during the period 2nd November, 1965, to 29th December, 1965. All four boreholes proved successful. In terms of Government Notice No. R1016 of 5th July, 1963, it is a requirement that an applicant must make prior application and not commence with boring operations before having been notified by the Department that his application has been approved. That is perhaps what the hon. member has in mind. On 14th January, 1966, the said notice was replaced by Government Notice No. R.74/1966, with re-trospective effect to 1st April, 1965.

Because the boreholes were sunk without prior approval, the applicant was notified that he had forfeited the subsidy. The applicant made representations and claimed that the existing boreholes on his farm had dried up or weakened. He used his own boring-machine and at the time of his applicantion he was already sinking the ninth borehole. (He had not applied for a subsidy on the abovementioned nine boreholes.) Because he had sold his boring-machine and had to hand over the machine at the beginning of 1966, he continued with the boring operations in order to complete the boreholes in time.

The subsidy payable on the four boreholes in terms of Government Notice No. R.74/1966 amounts to R1,255.71. Particulars of the bore-holes are as follows: One borehole was sunk during the period 2.11.1957 to 13.11.1965 to a depth of 342 ft., and yields 200 gallons per hour; the subsidisable costs amounted to R513, and the subsidy paid was R425.79. I have further particulars here under the following headings: Period, depth in feet, gallons per hour, and the costs, inclusive of the subsidy, to complete the amount.

Because of the great expense already incurred by the applicant to find sufficient water, it was felt that he was entitled to assistance in respect of the four boreholes sunk after the date of his application. Under the circumstances the Treasury was approached for payment to Mr. Du Preez of the subsidy to the amount I have mentioned, namely R1,255.71, on an ex gratia basis, and the approval of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs was obtained for this. The approval was granted by the previous Minister. Because the amount exceeds R1,000, it requires to be specially voted by Parliament.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 37,—Defence, R4,476:

*Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST:

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister please explain to us why the original estimate in respect of the contribution to the Defence Special Equipment Account has almost doubled? I should also like to know under which sub-heads this amount of nearly R30 million is being saved.

*The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

Mr. Chairman, hon. members will know that various factors influence the acquisition of equipment for the Defence Force. I do not want to enlarge on the matter here. There are other questions of delivery, possibility of delivery, delays, and so forth.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

This side has asked for the appointment of a select committee in respect of this matter, but it just does not happen.

*The MINISTER:

Of what assistance will the committee be to the hon. member? The hon. member will not encourage people to deliver equipment when it should be delivered. The point is that certain equipment is ordered, but is not delivered at the expected time. With the composition of our Estimates under the present system, there were certain savings in respect of certain parts which were ordered but not delivered, and also in respect of other equipment of a less important nature. As hon. members know, the Special Account is more or less an account which is designed to make provision for equipment of a more important nature. It is desirable that the balance in that account be kept at a particular level, so that when certain equipment is obtainable, payment for it can be made. Now, on 31.3.1967 there was a balance of R58.2 million in the account, and the expenditure during the period 1967-’68 is now estimated at R63 million. In the main Estimates R32 million was voted for the account. In the light of the expenditures anticipated and the future commitments of the account it is deemed advisable to strengthen the account with R30 million. As a result its balance on 31.3.1968 will be more or less the same as at the beginning of the financial year. As I have explained, there were a number of savings under various sub-heads, and this information I can let hon. members have. I do not have it in front of me now. The savings were on sub-heads such as components, and so forth. They represented an amount of up to R30 million. It was then decided to transfer the R30 million saved there to the Special Account in the meantime in order to keep the balance in the account on just as sound a level as in the past.

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister as regards the two items under Miscellaneous Expenses. The one is an ex gratia payment and the other an ex gratia remission.

*The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

The first item of expenditure relates to something which occurred as far back as 1965. In a certain military unit there were a number of tents in which ballotees were accommodated. In some or other inexplicable way one of the tents caught alight and the strong wind that was blowing caused the fire to spread and several other tents also burnt down. In the fire some of the ballotees lost cameras and other personal possessions which were in the tents, and they submitted claims for damages. The matter was referred to the State Attorney, and he decided that there was no clarity as to how the fire started. He added—

As smoking cannot be considered as part of the duties of such trainees the State cannot be held liable for damage caused to the property of any of the trainees as a result of the fire. Under the circumstances, however, I recommend that, without admitting liability, ex gratia payments be made to such trainees to compensate for their losses.
Dr. E. L. FISHER:

How many ballotees were involved?

*The MINISTER:

Twenty-nine. The possessions destroyed by the fire included razors, radios, musical instruments and cameras, and we thought it no more than reasonable to compensate them.

The second item relates to services which a laundry had to furnish to a military hospital in terms of a contract which had been entered into. Hon. members will understand that the washing of a military hospital, in fact any hospital, must be very clean. After the contract had been entered into, it was found that the laundry delivered the washing to the wrong places and that the washing was not properly clean. There were also other complaints in connection with the laundry service. The Department of Defence then informed this laundry that it was going to have the washing done by another laundry which satisfied its requirements. The first laundry would, however, have to pay for it, and this first laundry agreed to the services of another laundry being obtained. Gradually the first laundry, which was a young concern, began to give better services. It could then meet its commitments in terms of the requirements of the Department as determined in the contract. It was then discovered that if the amount of R3,267 were to be demanded from the laundry, it would cause the laundry to go bankrupt. Since the laundry had improved its services and was satisfying the standards laid down, it was decided to make this ex gratia payment.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, is it a feature of the Government’s attitude to firms which tender for contracts that if these firms do not give the service that is required, one takes into account that if they are required to make good that contract, they may go bankrupt and therefore one must take pity on them? Is this what the hon. the Minister is saying, namely that this company might have gone bankrupt if this amount had been demanded of it and it was therefore decided to make a sort of ex gratia payment to them? If this is in fact so, then it is surely something new. We should therefore like to know on what basis this kind of recommendation is made. Is it made on the basis of whether a business is new, as the hon. the Minister said was the case in regard to this payment? Is it perhaps made on the basis that it has rendered fairly good service but has not fulfilled its contract? We should like to know on what basis this is done because it is quite important.

*The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that in all fairness it will depend on the merits of the case. I think it would be wrong for a young concern which has proved that it can maintain proper standards simply to be ruined as a result of action on the part of the State. This was the only decisive factor in this case.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Who decided in this instance that an ex gratia payment should be made?

*The MINISTER:

After the Department had satisfied itself that that laundry was again satisfying the requirements laid down by the Department, it took up the matter with the Treasury. In other words, that concern is now rendering the services as laid down by the military hospital.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (North). I want to say that this is a matter which in my opinion is important enough to be laid before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Why is this House expected to agree to the payment of this amount when, in my opinion, it involves an item of unauthorized payment in terms of a policy which I do not remember being approved by this House. Why does this amount merely appear in the accounts as having been approved? I say this quite objectively because I am not trying to be nasty. Why does this case not follow the procedure followed by other unauthorized expenditure? If unauthorized expenditure is made by the Railways and Harbours, it is submitted to the Select Committee for consideration. The Select Committee then discusses the matter and makes a recommendation which is there for the whole House to see. If such a payment is made by any other department, it is referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts on which I used to serve. We discussed the matter fully and took what evidence we required and the matter was properly aired in the Committee, where, I think, it should be done. We can be far more objective in discussing the matter as a select committee than we can be in Committee of the whole House. I want to ask this hon. Minister and all the other hon. Ministers whether they will not in future consider sending these items through the proper channels because then we will spare ourselves a lot of the bitterness such as we had in the House yesterday.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

We will consider the suggestions made by the hon. gentleman.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 41,—Foreign Affairs, R492,000:

Mr. J. M. CONNAN:

Mr. Chairman, I should just like the hon. the Minister to give us some information in regard to Sub-head E, namely “gift to Austin Friars Church, London”.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would explain to us how this additional amount of nearly half a million rand could not be foreseen. We are particularly interested in the items relating to increases in salaries and in transport costs. We shall also be grateful if he will give us the details in connection with the residential premises for which an amount of R88,000 is required. In this respect we shall be glad if the Minister will explain what procedure is followed when property is purchased abroad for South Africa. I am asking this question specifically because some time ago I had occasion to visit an ambassador’s residence in one of the European capitals …

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member may not now discuss transactions that were concluded in the past financial year. He may only ask for reasons for the increase in expenditure.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain why I am asking this.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! That is not relevant at this stage.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Then I just want to reiterate that I want to ask the Minister to explain the procedure that is followed in the purchase of residential premises and how it is ensured that the purchases are to the credit of South Africa.

*The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS:

Mr. Chairman, as regards Sub-head E, namely the gift to Austin Friars Church in London, I want to give the following explanation. After his visit to London in 1961, the then Prime Minister instructed the Ambassador for the Republic in London, at that time being myself, to determine whether the South African Government could make a suitable gift to the rebuilt Austin Friars Church. This church is the Dutch Reformed Church where, inter alia, Afrikaans-speaking South Africans in London go to worship. It is a very famous old church which was nearly destroyed during the war and was subsequently rebuilt. After consultation with the Church authorities the Ambassador indicated that the Church would be pleased to accept a baptismal font as a gift. The Department of Foreign Affairs, which has a permanent item “Gifts by the State” on its Estimates, was accordingly instructed to make the necessary arrangements in connection with this gift. It was decided to make a gift of a baptismal font in the form of a silver replica of the baptismal font in the Groote Kerk in Cape Town. Because the S.A. Mint could not undertake its manufacture, the work was entrusted to a Cape Town firm, Silvercraft. As a result of pressure of work and other unforeseen problems, this firm could only complete the work, which was a large and difficult assignment, in May, 1967. The cost of manufacturing the baptismal font amounted to R2,383, and the engraving to R30, giving a total of R2,413.

In terms of the principle laid down by the Select Committee on Public Accounts in Part 1 of its Second Report, 1960, a gift by the State which amounts to more than R1,000 must be approved by Parliament. When the Department’s estimates for 1967-’68 were drawn up, the final cost of the baptismal font was not known, and therefore approval of the amount is now being requested.

As far as residential premises are concerned, an additional amount of R88,000 is now being asked for. This is to make provision for the following expenditure in regard to official residences abroad: Firstly, for lighting, heating, water, etc.; secondly, for maintenance, repairs and renovation of premises, furniture, accessories, equipment, etc.; and thirdly, the purchase of furniture and equipment. The additional provision of R88,000 is required in respect of the official residences at the following missions: the Helsinki Legation which is a new legation; the Montevideo Embassy, which is now being opened; the Hong Kong Consulate-General, which has just been opened; and our diplomatic mission in Blantyre which was also recently opened. No provision in respect of these new missions was included in the original Estimates. Provision is now being made in the Additional Estimates for an amount of R73,000. R15,000 is required for the Consulate-General in Munich, which was opened in February last year. When the Department’s Main Estimates for 1967-’68 were drawn up, it was impossible to determine the requirements in respect of a residence with accuracy, and only a nominal provision to the amount of R11,000 was included in the Estimates. In the course of the year this amount proved to be quite inadequate, and the approval of the Treasury was obtained for the expenditure of an additional amount of R15,000 in respect of the furnishing, overhauling and maintenance of the rented official residence in Munich. The total amount required in respect of residential premises is therefore R88,000.

The general question in connection with the additional amounts required here, can be briefly summarized under three sub-heads: Firstly, there are salaries, wages and allowances. In this regard the increased provision for the period 1st July, 1967, to 31st March, 1968, is R40,000. Secondly, there is the periodic revision of the salaries of locally recruited staff abroad, i.e. 381 units, which amounts to R78,000. Thirdly, there is the opening of new missions, R50,000, and the creation of 39 new posts on the Department’s establishment, R46,000. Various minor adjustments of salaries, wages and allowances amount to R20,000. I do not know whether the hon. member wants more details and whether I must break up these figures.

Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

No, this is sufficient.

*The MINISTER:

A question was put as to what procedure is followed as a rule in purchasing properties for embassies and offices for our missions. We prefer to buy premises, residences and office buildings where it is at all possible and economical to do so. In such cases —as recently happened in the case of Malawi —representatives of the Department are sent to the capitals concerned to look around and make contact with local businessmen, etc., and if a suitable property is found, they act in close collaboration with our Department of Public Works. Experts are sent there and they make a thorough inspection and then a valuation prior to negotiations being entered into with the owner of the property concerned.

*Mr. J. C. DU P. BASSON:

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he personally, or a senior official of the Department, also looks at the properties to ensure that they meet the requirements of foreign representatives, which, after all, are different to those of ordinary representatives.

*The MINISTER:

Mr. Chairman, it is, of course, not always possible for the Minister to go to these various countries. For example, we recently opened a consulate in Formosa. I have not been there yet and I shall not undertake a journey there for this purpose alone: but I can assure the hon. member that the Minister and the Secretary of the Department are fully informed of the purchase of properties, and that properties are not purchased left, right and centre without the Minister being informed of the matter. In the case of the purchase of a very expensive property in Japan two or three years ago, for example, the then Minister of Finance, Dr. Dönges, saw that property which cost us a large amount of money, and defended the purchase thereof in this House.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 43,—Labour, R96,000:

Dr. A. RADFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister the reason for this rather large increase of R150,000. It is not the usual increase, and I should like to ask him whether he is extending the qualifications necessary for a person to be entitled to sheltered employment, or has there been a sudden increase in those who were previously qualified?

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know from the Minister whether or not this includes extensions to already established sheltered employment institutions, or whether …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member cannot suggest reasons. It is for the Minister to tell him the reasons.

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

I am not suggesting reasons, Mr. Chairman. I am asking the Minister to specify these reasons.

The CHAIRMAN:

That the hon. member may do, but he should not mention what he wants the Minister to specify. The Minister can do so himself.

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

May I also then ask whether or not salaries are being increased?

*The MINISTER OF LABOUR:

Mr. Chairman, as will be observed, it is correct that R487,000 was appropriated for sheltered employment factories, and that R637,000 is now being required. That is to say, there is a deficit of R150,000. An amount of R54,000 can, however, be utilized from savings under other sub-heads, so that only R96,000 is being requested. This excess is due to the fact that, on the instructions of the Treasury, all deficits on working capital in regard to sheltered employment factories in respect of the previous financial years have to be made good out of appropriated funds for the current financial year. To comply with this, R164,376 in respect of the years 1965-’66 and 1966-’67 had to be made good. In addition the Government’s anti-inflationary savings measures also contributed to the fact that fewer orders were placed with factories.

In addition it can be mentioned that these services had already been curtailed by R100,000 in the 1967-’68 Estimates in comparison with the 1966-’67 Estimates. The tariffs of the telephone services have also been increased from 2.5 cents to 3.5 cents.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 44,—Coloured Affairs, R1,351,000:

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, I should like details of Sub-heads A and U under this Vote. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he can give us under Sub-head A a breakdown of figures as between white and Coloured personnel, the reason being that I want to try and find out whether they are giving increased salaries to the Coloured personnel who are employed in the Department.

*The MINISTER OF COLOURED AFFAIRS:

Mr. Chairman, as far as Sub-head A is concerned, an additional amount of R1,164,700 is being requested in respect of salaries, wages and allowances in order to defray expenditure up to 31st March, 1968. As a result of the revised salary scales for Coloured teachers, which were approved by the Treasury with effect from 1st April, 1967, under reference B2(10)-14, dated 26th April, 1967, it appears that the appropriation of R25,658,000 will be exceeded by R1,342,000. It will, however, be possible to defray part of the expected excess from savings under other sub-heads of the Vote, and consequently only R1,164,700 is being requested in these Additional Estimates.

As regards the request of the hon. member that I should now draw a comparison between Whites and non-Whites, I do not think that this is the occasion to do so. I shall now proceed to Sub-head U where there was an increase of R186,300 in respect of lower, secondary and high schools and the training of teachers. Quite a number of items are responsible for this. I shall just mention these items and furnish the amount for which each one was responsible. If there are any of these items in regard to which the hon. members would like to have more details, and they should ask me to furnish them, I would do so gladly. The items are the following: Equipment, material and furniture—a decrease of R88,400; provisions—an increase of R9,000; fuel, lighting power, water, cleaning, sanitary and fire-fighting services—an increase of R69,000; rentals and assessment rates—an increase of R195,000; examination expenses— an increase of R3,200; vacation courses and teachers’ classes—a decrease of R2,500; and gardens and grounds—an increase of R1,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 45,—Bantu Administration and Development, R130,000:

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Can the hon. the Minister give us further details in regard to Item E, i.e. the ex gratia payment to T. G. Sauer and J. C. Kotzé? Was the amount of R3,719 paid to these two jointly?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

This is compensation for the losses which these two officers of the Department suffered on the border of Angola as a result of the destruction of their personal possessions by terrorists. The official quarters which these officials were occupying, were burnt down during the night of 26th/27th September, 1966, and their possessions were destroyed. These possessions were not insured. Nor was it possible for the officers to remove any of their possessions from the quarter. Their lives were in danger. The State Attorney is of the opinion that there was no negligence, either on the part of the State or on the part of the officials, and although the State is not responsible for the losses suffered by these officials according to law, the view is nevertheless being held that the payment of this compensation by way of grace is justified. The compensation which is being paid to the two officers is R3,080 to the one and R368 to the other. It was therefore not a joint payment to the two. I may just mention that this amount has already been paid out.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Why was there such a major increase, i.e. of R126,281, in salaries, wages and allowances under Item A? Was it as a result of the allowances which are now being paid to the Transkei?

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member may not suggest reasons.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

I should prefer not to go into the question of salaries in the Transkei. You will definitely rule me out of order. As far as the hon. member’s question is concerned, it appears from an analysis of the position at this stage that on the original appropriation of R9,650,000 there has been a shortfall of R330,000. This shortfall can be attributed to the following factors: The adjustment of salaries of officers as a result of promotions for achievements; the regarding of posts; the adjustment of the salaries of temporary employees upon production by them of testimonials bearing witness to previous experience and educational qualifications; the creation of a considerable number of new posts—amongst others for the newly established division of data processing and the new agricultural school at Cwaka; the payment of overtime remuneration to officers in charge of the change-over to computer services; the conversion of certain departmental records; and an intensified campaign for the collection of Bantu taxes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 47,—Justice, R478,461:

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

There is one healthy item under this vote about which I should like to have further particulars. I refer to item J—barristers’ fees and expenses— where there has been an increase of R125,000. This is an extraordinary increase on the original estimate. Is this due to an increase in instances where counsel had to appear pro deo or is it due to counsel having been employed to prosecute …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member may not suggest any reasons.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

In the circumstances, I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate why this increase is such a large one.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member for Durban (North) himself derived some benefit from this increase! In any case, the position is that the Department did not have the services of a sufficient number of qualified officials at their disposal, nor were they able to obtain them. Consequently the Department was obliged to make use of the services of advocates outside the service and as the hon. member knows, the fees of these advocates are very high. The hon. member will realize that it is impossible to predict how many cases are going to come up during the course of the year, and that it is consequently impossible to make precise provision in advance for the payment of outside help.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Can the hon. the Minister give us any further information in regard to the ex gratia payment to the Swart-land Implemente Maatskappy (Eiendoms) Be-perk, under item E?

*The MINISTER:

In May, 1965, this company sold a Mercedes Benz motor car to a certain J. J. Muller. This person wrote out a cheque for the amount, but the cheque was dishonoured. Subsequently he went to Windhoek where he bought himself an airways ticket, as well as a number of travellers’ cheques. Eventually he appeared in court on a charge of fraud. The cheque, the airways ticket and travellers’ cheques, served as court exhibits. When the court case was finalized the amounts were discounted and paid into the deposit account of the magistrate. There they remained for more than three months, without being claimed. After three months such amounts pass to the State. That is what happened here. But this company then instituted legal proceedings against the Department for repayment. After negotiations, and after the State Attorney had been consulted in regard to the matter, it was decided that since the Department did not really save any claim to the money it should, with Treasury approval, be paid over to the company. Parliamentary approval is necessary for that because the amount totalled more than R1,000.

*Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Can the hon. the Minister indicate whether the increase of R2,000 in respect of item G—allowances to jurors—is attributable to a larger number of jury trials?

*The MINISTER:

That is what must be deduced from this, yes.

*Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Can the hon. the Minister at the same time explain the increase of R10,000 in item C—postal, telegraph and telephone services? A similar increase occurs in practically every Vote.

*The MINISTER:

It is mainly as a result of increased postal tariffs, which came into effect on 1st January, 1967.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Under Sub-head L, can the hon. the Minister indicate why this increase is necessary, having regard to the understanding that one has that the Lubbe organization is responsible for all mechanical recordings of court procedure? Why is it necessary to spend more money to buy mechanical recording machines when this organization, one understands, does all the Department’s mechanical recording?

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

I should like to know why the increase under Sub-head M is so small, only R20,000. It seems to relate to fees paid by the State Attorney to other attorneys. Why does it appear to be so small in relation to the amount paid to barristers?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

In regard to casual interpreting and reporting, it is of course the case that although there is a contract it depends upon the number of offices where that contract is in operation, and if there are additional offices where the contract has to be carried out, then the rental is increased. But a large percentage of these costs are attributable to the casual interpreters who are needed, particularly for the convenience of immigrants. We find that there are many immigrants who are not conversant with either of the two official languages, and when they appear before the court we are obliged to find an interpreter who can interpret into their own language. There is no fixed tariff, and if one does not pay what these people ask, they do not make their services available. That is the reason for the increase under this item.

In regard to the legal expenses incurred by the State Attorney for attorneys in comparison with advocates, the lower amount is not attributable to the fact that attorneys charge so much less for their work. The only explanation for that is that far fewer law suits originated with the State Attorney. Of course the State Attorney acts on behalf of all the State Departments.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 48,—Prisons, R1,300,000:

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

I should like to know the reason for the considerable increase under Sub-head F, Supplies and Services. Is it due to the fact that there are more prisoners?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The hon. member has furnished the reply. There were a considerably greater number, approximately 7,000 over the year. That entails additional rations and medical care, etc.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 50,—Mines, R2,860,800:

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

There is an ex gratia remission to De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. of R2,400. May I have that explained please?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

It refers to a diamond valued at R2,400 which was returned to De Beers.

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

I would like to have details in regard to the items under Sub-head G, Payment to the Compensation Fund in terms of Section 129 (1) to meet liabilities payable from the C-account.

The CHAIRMAN:

I should like hon. members, if they want to put questions to the Minister, to put them all at once.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

With respect, Sir, these are separate items.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Section 129 (1) of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act provides that if the liabilities which are payable from the C-account (the account of the State) have not been extinguished after the moneys in that account, including the interest earned on investments of such moneys, have been expended, the Minister of Mines shall from time to time, out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose, pay to the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Commissioner such amounts as are required to meet the liabilities which are payable from the said account. When the Act came into operation on 1st October, 1962, an amount of R44,518,201 was transferred to the C-account in terms of sections 110 and 112. Since the coming into operation of the Act the monthly expenditure has never been less than R420,000, and payments from the C-account are at the moment made at a rate of plus-minus R5 million per annum. The expenditure from the C-account annually exceeds its income from interest on investments. In terms of section 62 (1) (b) the General Council for Pneumoconiosis Compensation shall invest with the Public Debt Commissioners any moneys in the C-account which are available for investment. In order to cover current expenditure from this account it was therefore necessary for the Public Debt Commissioners to sell some of the securities in the account from time to time. Owing to the sale of the investments the interest on these also decreased gradually. The assets of the C-account consist mainly of long-term securities. The Public Debt Commissioners are also finding it increasingly difficult to find buyers for those securities that will result in the minimum loss to the C-account. At 30th September, 1967, the C-account was overdrawn to the extent of R1,646,929 at the Public Debt Commissioners with no prospect of finding buyers for investments to save the situation. As a last resort it was decided to exchange short and medium-term Escom securities for long-term securities at prices obtained from the Public Debt Commissioners by the Secretary and regarded as reasonable by him. The relevant securities of the C-account amounted to a nominal value of R4,034,553. The newly acquired Escom securities were again taken over by the A and Trust Accounts at the price of issue. The C-account, however, nevertheless suffered real losses totalling R359,629. Consequently the question arose whether to continue selling securities at considerable losses in order to be able to honour liabilities from the C-account and, in doing so, considerably to increase the ultimate liability of the State in respect of this account, or whether it would not be more profitable to the State to pay an annual amount into that account at this stage already, so that profitable long-term investments may be retained. Over and against that, however, the stage had been reached where the forced selling of securities would necessarily increase the ultimate liabilities of the State considerably. The Treasury decided that provision be made in the Additional Estimates for the current financial year for making an amount of R3 million available to the Fund, as now appears in the Additional Estimates.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister would elucidate the position further with regard to this diamond that is being returned to De Beers?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

This diamond was used as an exhibit in a criminal case against one J. J. C. von Wielligh. After the case the diamond was declared forfeit to the State and after considering all the available evidence the conclusion was arrived at that there was no uncertainty whatsoever about the proper ownership of the diamond and consequently it was decided that with parliamentary approval, the diamond should be returned to its proper owner, De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Sir. the hon. the Deputy Minister says that this diamond was used as a trap.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

No, it formed an exhibit in a criminal case.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member may not discuss for what purpose it was used.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Sir. this is a new item. This diamond was used as an exhibit. Was it obtained from De Beers to be used as a trap or was it a diamond which in fact had been stolen?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I do not have that information, but I imagine that the diamond might have been stolen, and after the case it was returned to its proper owner.

Vote put and agreed to.

Expenditure from Loan Account:

Loan Vote A,—Miscellaneous Loans and Services, R15,550,000.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

Will the hon. the Minister please explain the item “Advances to building societies, R15,900,000”. This is a new item; there is no original estimate for it. The hon. the Minister reported the other day that he intended to make R8¼ million available to the building societies. Provision is being made here for an amount of R15,900,000. RR3,850,000 is to be met from savings on other sub-heads, leaving an amount of R12,050,000 to be voted. Can the hon. the Minister give us some information as to the reason for this item?

*The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Chairman, you will recall that I announced in the House some time ago that one of the methods by means of which the Government intended to render financial assistance to the building societies was to return to the building societies that amount which the State guaranteed with the building societies in respect of loans to public servants and provincial officials in terms of the 100 per cent loan scheme. At the time we took this decision, we did not yet have particulars of the precise amount involved. The first amount of R8¼ million was purely a guess, because it was impossible in such a short space of time to collect all the numerous accounts and to calculate all the payments which had been made in order to arrive at a final amount. Now that we have obtained all the figures through the various channels at our disposal, we find that the amount is R15.9 million; that is in respect of both public servants and provincial officials. As the hon. member will notice, a large portion of this R15.9 million is being met out of savings. The additional amount being made available is therefore R12,050,000.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Your estimate was a poor one.

*The MINISTER:

No, it was not an estimate; it was a guess. We had taken the decision on the morning of the same day on which I made the announcement in this House. There was no time to go into the details. We made a guess on the basis of the particulars at our disposal at that moment. It was not even an estimate. [Interjections.] I said that we were dealing with an uncertain factor here and that we would obtain the correct figure later. We took the decision in principle, and the principle was that that amount—whatever it might be—which had been guaranteed to the building societies by the State would be repaid.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

I take it that this amount of R15.9 million must obviously be the difference between the amount which the building societies would lend in the normal course of events—in other words, probably 75 per cent loans—and the 90 per cent loans which State and Provincial employees are entitled to because they are given that facility. In other words, would it be reasonable for me to assume that this amount of R15.9 million makes up the 15 per cent difference between the amount which the building societies give and the amount which the State says State and Provincial employees may have by way of loans? I want to give the hon. the Minister my reason for asking this question. If I am correct in my assumption, is the State not having it both ways? They have drained off contributions from the building societies on the one hand by enticing investment moneys away, and now they are using available building society funds to finance the housing programme for their own employees. If that is correct, then I think the amount which is being voted here is in tact a puny amount when one takes into consideration the amount of R8½ million which the State is now going to lend to the building societies in addition to this amount. [Interjections.] I think we are talking about two different amounts. I take it that the R8½ million which the hon. the Minister referred to the other day is additional to this amount; I sincerely hope it is. If it is included, I think this amount is an absolutely puny amount because I have the assurance that one branch of one national building society in one town can distribute the amount which has been granted to the building societies within the space of two months. My point is not that this sum is too big. My point is that I think the State is trying to get it both ways. It has drained off the funds, which are normally contributed to the building societies, by way of RSA loans. I understand that it has induced people to take money away from the building societies with a view to investing it in RSA bonds; it has therefore depleted the funds of the building societies, and on the other hand the building societies, in replacement not only for what has been drained off but in replacement for the amount with which they have financed homes for State employees, are getting a miserable R15.9 million. I would like an explanation from the hon. the Minister so that we can all understand exactly what the position is.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The hon. member is perfectly correct in saying that this amount of R15.9 million is a small amount in relation to the requirements of the building societies; I said previously in this House and also in the Other Place that the idea never was that the State should finance the building societies in the ordinary way. It is not the task of the State.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

But the idea was that you should not take investment money away from them either.

The MINISTER:

I also said here and in the Other Place that we felt that we were justified in repaying this amount because it was a calculable amount, an amount that could be defined, that is to say, the amount that we have guaranteed to the building societies. But the hon. member must not overlook the fact that this is not the only method we are using to help the building societies. This is only part of the measures which we are applying. The most important method is the granting of the right to building societies to issue tax-free shares.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

But this is new.

The MINISTER:

This is completely new. The building societies can issue tax-free shares at 6½ per cent. I can tell the hon. member that the building societies are highly satisfied. The terms and conditions that we are negotiating with the building societies for these particular shares are very favourable. In fact, they are much more favourable than those applying to RSA bonds. We are confident that the building societies will be able to collect large amounts through this channel.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

I want to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions regarding this R15 million odd. Compared with the original guess, is that a correct estimate? I am not making a point about that. I want to know from the Minister whether this amount is the guarantee for State and provincial employees who are going to get 100 per cent housing loans. I am not talking about 90 per cent loans. As I understand the position, the building society grants a 100 per cent loan and the State guarantees R15 million, being the difference between two figures, representing approximately 10 per cent, or will the building society carry 25 per cent of the loan? The whole object of this, as I understand it, is to allow the State to grant its employees 100 per cent loans, and not 90 per cent as suggested. I think this matter should be clarified. The Minister has answered part of the hon. member for Umlazi’s question. He has not answered the other part, namely whether the amount is for 100 per cent loans or 90 per cent loans. As I understand the position, this amount of nearly R16 million will be made available for the 100 per cent loans.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Chairman, there are two types of loans involving the building societies. In the one case there is the State-aided loan in which the Department of Community Development is concerned. In loans of that type we have a 10 per cent deposit by the builder or owner, a 30 per cent loan by the State, and a 60 per cent loan by the building society concerned. We are still negotiating with the building societies in regard to this matter with a view to having this type of housing advanced. The other scheme is that for Government and provincial employees, namely the 100 per cent one. In transactions of this nature there is a 30 per cent guarantee by the State and a 70 per cent loan by the building society. The latter type is the one referred to here.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Chairman, I still think the hon. the Minister has not answered a certain section of the question put to him by the hon. member for Umlazi. Does this amount of nearly R16 million represent the 30 per cent which the hon. the Minister has just referred to, or does it represent 100 per cent of the loans outstanding to the building societies by Government officials and other state-assisted employees? That is one question I should like to put to the Minister. The other one is this. Can the Minister tell us when this money will be available to the building societies?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

In reply to the first question, Mr. Chairman, the amount mentioned here only applies to that part which the Government has guaranteed, not to the whole 100 per cent. The negotiations which are taking place now are based on the understanding that the money will be supplied before the end of March. We shall have to obtain from the building societies statements of the amounts due to them. They must in fact present us with a bill as soon as possible to show what the Government has to pay to them.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote B,—Public Works, R1,250:

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what may be called a sample question. On page 27 we find, under sub-head 17, an item under the heading Heidelberg, Transvaal, which reads as follows: “(a) Taking over of former College of Education” and “(b) Minor alterations and improvements” in regard to the same buildings. I ask this question in order to save the Minister some time and effort. These buildings have been taken over for R2,010,000. The excess to be met from savings on other sub-heads is almost R2 million, and the amount which we are now asked to vote is but R50. This type of thing can be seen from all the various subheads here, and I ask this question now to avoid me having to ask it over and over again. My question is this: Can the hon. the Minister tell us, in the first place, what negotiations took place for the taking over of this establishment, and also where the savings come from. This is really what I am interested in, because I see huge savings under Public Works.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to us a few things in regard to the first item on page 26, namely the purchase and renovation of a residence for the Chargé d’Affaires at Limbe. Limbe is some eight miles from Blantyre and some considerable distance from the new capital which is going to be built at Lilongwe. Why was this house purchased, and if it has been purchased, what are the prospects of it being sold at a realistic figure when the new capital of Lilongwe is completed? On page 27 under item (22) I see an amount of R560,000 as being accommodation for diplomatic representatives in Pretoria. What diplomatic representatives are going to live there? This is a new item because it does not appear on last year’s Estimates, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give us a full explanation regarding this accommodation and what he has in mind.

Dr. A. RADFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions on the last item appearing on page 26, which refers to the purchase and conversion of and additions to a former Government Miners’ Training School at Springs to serve as a school for epileptics. What area will this school serve, what age groups will be catered for, and will it be bilingual? Also, on page 27 there is an item which refers to the Military Bio-medical Institute at Littelton. Rather a large sum is to be spent here, and it concerns human lives. I want to know whether this institute will be under the control of the air force or whether it will be placed under the Department of Health.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Chairman, the first question asked by the hon. member for Umlazi has, as the hon. member himself put it, a bearing on all the items or, at least, on most of them, and therefore the reply to his question is applicable to all the items. The first column indicates the total cost. The second column indicates the estimate of expenditure for the financial year 1967-’68. The third column contains the amounts met from savings. The sum of money in the last column is merely a nominal amount to place the item on the Estimates and to bring it to the notice of this House. This is the compilation of the items to which the hon. member referred. The hon. member also inquired about the savings. The savings originate from a variety of sources. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of Finance does perhaps have this information available.

I have also been asked about the buildings in Springs.

†This item falls under the Department of Education, Arts and Science, i.e. the purchase and conversions of and additions to former Government Miners’ Training School to serve as a school for epileptics. Because of military requirements it was essential that the buildings which were used by the Alexanderfontein school for epileptics at Kimberley be vacated not later than January of 1968. The only alternative arrangements which could be made to accommodate the school was to purchase the former Government Miners’ Training School at Springs and to make certain additions and conversions thereto. The cost of the scheme is R1 50,000 and is made up as follows. (a) purchase price, improvements: R15,000, and the site: R10,000; (b) additions and conversions: R120,000; and (c) transfer fees and contingencies: R5,000. That is a total of R150,000. The Department of Community Development will contribute an amount of R7,500 towards the purchase price in respect of housing. Regarding the purchase price, it should be pointed out that the Government Miners’ Training School was originally erected from funds of which the Government contributed two-thirds, and consequently only one-third of the value of the buildings will be paid out to the Mining Company. As provision is not made for this service in the Appropriation Act now in force, the acting State President issued a special warrant and it is therefore necessary to vote the service in these Estimates.

The hon. member also asked about the military bio-medical institute, a building for human centrifuge and physiological laboratory at Littleton. The Department of Defence has an urgent need for buildings to accommodate a human centrifuge and physiological laboratory. The apparatus, which has already been purchased, is intended for the testing of airforce pilots in flight at very great heights at supersonic speeds with a view to preventing the loss of life and the loss of expensive modern aircraft through accidents which can be attributed to the medical unfitness of pilots. It is therefore essential that the proposed facilities be provided as soon as possible. Apart from what I have already said, the contract for the supply of the equipment stipulates that the suppliers shall install the equipment in the building to be provided by the purchaser. The relevant contract contains a penalty clause which comes into operation if the building is not completed by June, 1968. Special steps were, therefore, taken to expedite the planning of the service and it was, consequently, possible to invite tenders in October, 1967. Provision is not made for the service in the Appropriation Act now in force and in view of the circumstances the Acting State President issued a special warrant. The service must therefore be voted in these Estimates.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to Subhead (22) in connection with the accommodation for diplomatic representatives. I assume that this refers to the establishment of a diplomatic suburb in Pretoria. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would tell us how far the Government’s responsibility would extent in this regard; in other words, to what extent will the Government have a share in this development? For instance, I should like to know whether the money which is being spent now, as is shown by this estimate, is recoverable.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

To what Subhead is the hon. member referring?

*Mr. J. D. DU. P. BASSON:

I am referring to Subhead (22)—Pretoria: Accommodation for diplomatic representatives. Am I right in saying that it refers to the establishment of a diplomatic suburb?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Yes.

*Mr. J. D. DU. P. BASSON:

I just want to know whether the hon. the Minister in question can tell us whether he knows how far the Government’s responsibility in respect of this scheme will extend. Will the expenditure be recoverable? In other words, will the sites be sold? I also want to know what certainty the hon. the Minister has that there will at all be sufficient interest to make a success of this, and whether he feels confident that it will not develop into a suburb which may, for instance, be inhabited by one colour group only, because this may do us more harm than good later on.

*The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS:

Mr. Chairman, as regards the hon. member’s question in connection with the purchase of property and the renovation of the residence for the charge d’affaires in Limbe, I want to say that I did not view that property personally. My information is, however, that it is situate in a very good suburb of the capital Blantyre. According to my information it is closer to the city centre than Rondebosch, for instance, is to the city centre of Cape Town. It is a good neighbourhood and the seat of government is still in that city. When they move to another capital, i.e. Lilongwe, we shall not be losing on the transaction. The purchase of this property was really a bargain. We acquired this property very cheaply, and it ought not to be difficult to dispose of it. For the information of the committee I may perhaps just mention that the Government has acquired another valuable property in Malawi by way of a gift. A person who is living in South Africa at the moment, made the Government a gift of a valuable property. He and his wife, a Mr. and Mrs. Ansel, came to South Africa as immigrants and made the South African Government a gift of a large property in Malawi. Unfortunately it is not situated very conveniently. I think that the hon. member will be interested to know that it is for the very reason that it is situated a little too far away from the city centre, in contrast to the property we purchased, that our chargé d’affaires is living at present in the property we purchased. It was purchased before the other property was given to us. If the property that was given to us were situated quite conveniently, we would of course have sold this property again. I should like to extend to the two new South Africans, who came here as immigrants, our very cordial thanks for the fine gesture they made towards South Africa by making the Government a gift of that property.

A question was asked in regard to the proposed diplomatic suburb in Pretoria. The Government will, of course, be responsible for all the financial expenditure in regard to the purchase and development of this suburb. My personal opinion is that this is a good investment. It will also be a good investment in the future. I am fairly well acquainted with land values in that part of Pretoria. It is situated in a very good and popular part of the administrative capital. If it were to become apparent later that the whole area will not be required for this purpose, the State will be able to dispose of it with ease and with profit, but I do not think that it will be necessary. I may point out to the hon. member that it is not the intention to develop the whole area immediately. This was also apparent from the reply I gave to a question that had been put to me in this regard some time ago. The area will be developed from the north-western corner. The hon. member asked whether there was a possibility that this development might not be successful. I myself hope and trust that it will in fact succeed. The occupation of this diplomatic suburb is, of course, quite voluntary. We are not in a position or able to, nor do we intend to force anybody to live there. It is situated in an attractive part of Pretoria. The conditions in terms of which the land will be made available, and which are still to be approved by the Government, ought to be attractive. There are already indications that various governments are interested in this proposition. I do not think that there are any grounds to fear that it will be limited to diplomats of some particular race group or other. The intention is not that diplomatic representatives of certain countries only may live there. It will be available to diplomats from all countries of the world.

*Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST:

Mr. Chairman, I refer to Subhead (22)—Cape Town: Extension of banquet facilities at the Castle. I should like to know why these facilities are necessary. We hope that the Castle is not going to become a five-star hotel now!

*The MINISTER OF DEFENCE:

Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, Government House in Cape Town is being restored at the moment. Consequently the State has no venue in Cape Town where it may hold official functions and banquets. It was felt that the Castle would be an ideal venue, for the future as well, where we may hold State functions of this nature. Amongst other things air-conditioning has been installed in such a way that it does not affect the character of the Castle in any way. That is what this additional amount is intended for.

*Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST:

It is not intended for exclusive use by the Department of Defence?

*The MINISTER:

No. It will also be used for State functions.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he can give us some details of the takeover of the buildings at Heidelberg. But I want to couple another question with that. On page 26, under Sub-head 12, Coloured Affairs, there appears an item for a training centre for Coloured cadets. I see that it is estimated to spend R700,000 on that, of which only R50 is estimated to be spent during 1967-’68. We know, Sir, that this House passed legislation to enrol these Coloured cadets for training, and I have read in the papers during last week that these people are now reporting at Police stations, as they are required to do under the Act which this Parliament passed. Here, once again, we see something trailing far behind the time when it is required. If we are going to call these people up, surely it is up to us to provide the facilities necessary for the training of these cadets. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, whether the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs replies or whether the hon. the Deputy Minister deals with it, I do not mind, but I would like to know first of all when this place is going to be ready. Of course, if it is going to take the time which this sub-head makes it appear, then I would also like to know what facilities are being provided in the meantime for these cadets that are being called up. Under what conditions are they going to live and be trained? If the facilities are not going to be provided, are they going to be trained at all? This brings me to the obvious question: Should they be called up if the facilities are not available? These I think are questions that we want answered in this debate.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to give the hon. member the following information in regard to Sub-head 18, Heidelberg (Tvl.).

As a result of the inadequacy of suitable training facilities for the Defence Force, the Cabinet decided that the College of Education in Heidelberg must be taken over for this purpose from the provincial administration. After negotiations it was agreed that an amount of R2 million will be paid as compensation to the provincial administration, of which R1,980,000 must be provided on Loan Vote B, whilst R20,000, which is in respect of housing, will be paid by the Department of Community Development. Apart from the purchase price, approximately R30,000 is required for essential renovations. Because funds are not provided for this service in the Appropriation Act, the necessary funds must be voted in these estimates.

*Mr. Chairman, all I want to say with reference to the item Faure under Coloured Affairs, is that the amount of R50 which is indicated there is for the very purpose of enabling the Department to proceed with the work immediately. It is now being placed on the Estimates for the first time, for the very purpose of preventing a delay from taking place.

As far as the other aspects are concerned, I do not think that it is my task to elaborate on them fully. I think that it is very likely that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs will furnish you, Sir, with all the particulars you would like to have in this regard.

*The MINISTER OF COLOURED AFFAIRS:

Mr. Chairman, in regard to these training centres for the cadets, it is the intention that the registration of the cadets will take three months. Subsequent to that the exemptions must be granted. As I said at the time during the Second Reading debate, we expect approximately 90,000 to be registered. But, as you know, Sir, these centres can only take 1,000 once they have been completed. The intention is that it will start with 250. There is therefore a prospect of a long process of exemption and sifting. This centre is expected to be completed either at the end of this year or early next year. Therefore there will not be a gap in between in which it will be impossible to do anything. This process of registration, exemption and sifting will continue until the building has been completed.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

I wanted the hon. the Minister to be good enough just to enlarge a bit more on the type of buildings that are likely to be put there with this money that is being voted. He has mentioned that he hoped they will be finished and available by the end of this year or by the beginning of next year. Is it the intention that they will be permanent structures, or will they be prefabricated structures? I mention it because of the climatic conditions in that area. It varies considerably through the year. I want to know what types of structures are contemplated.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal once again with the reply of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to my question with regard to Limbe. He said this was eight or nine miles from Blantyre. As the Minister knows, the present capital of Malawi is in Zomba, which is some 30 or 40 miles away from Blantyre. Limbe is the rail head and about eight miles from Blantyre. Lilongwe, the new capital, is another 60 or 70 miles in the other direction. As soon as Lilongwe becomes the new capital, the new chargé d’affaires will have to go to Lilongwe. Now, in any case, for ordinary executive matters he has to go to Zomba, which is eight miles further than Blantyre. It seems to me here is an amount which need not be so urgently expended. It is an item which requires further investigation. I have been there several times, and so I speak with some knowledge of the district and of the housing conditions, both in Blantyre and in Limbe. By rail Limbe is still some eight miles away from Blantyre. Blantyre, as the Minister knows, is the commercial centre, just as Johannesburg is the commercial centre of the Transvaal, and we go for administrative matters to Pretoria. In the same way Zomba is the Pretoria of Malawi.

*The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS:

Apparently the hon. member knows that region better than I do; I do not know it at all. But, as I have already said, my information is that the purchase of this property was a bargain.

†It is situated in a suburb of Blantyre, since the Department of External Affairs of Malawi and the Government are at the moment in Blantyre. Our chargé d’affaires already occupies the building. He is quite happy there. The arrangement is functioning very satisfactorily. If and when the capital is moved to another city, I and my department are convinced that it will be possible for us to dispose of this property which we got at a bargain price. Then we will, of course, move to the new capital with the government and the various departments.

*The MINISTER OF COLOURED AFFAIRS:

In reply to the hon. member for Green Point, who wanted to know about the kind of building that is to be erected, I want to say the following: It will be a pre-constructed building, but not the pre-fabricated type of building. It is a pre-constructed building which will be built from bricks. It will be similar to the buildings of the Coloured Corps at Eerste River. The hon. member has probably been there already. Therefore he will know that it is a very good type of building. There is nothing wrong with it.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Mr. Chairman, under Education, Arts and Science, there appears an ex gratia payment to H. J. Coetzee of Pietersburg. I would very much like to know, from whichever Minister is going to deal with it, what that is for.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

I put the Vote.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Transkei has asked a question about an ex gratia payment, in respect of which some explanation must be given. It appears under Education, Arts and Science. Is the responsible Minister not going to reply?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The construction of two hostels, which formed part of the scheme, was entrusted to Mr. H. J. Coetzee. The contract provided for the fitting of 125 sq. yards of situflex on the outside of the buildings. In his bill of quantities the contractor laid down a tariff of 60 cents per sq. yard. Subsequently the Department of Public Works decided to fit 1,930 sq. yards of this material on the inside of these buildings as well, and, in terms of the provisions of the contract, to entrust this work to the contractor at scheduled tariffs by way of an amended instruction. At that stage the contractor raised no objections to it and carried out the additional work as requested. When the final account was submitted to the contractor for signature, he pointed out that the price of 60 cents per sq. yard was wrong and submitted invoices which showed that he had purchased the material at R1.74 per yard. The Department conceded that the price of 60 cents per sq. yard was too low and, after negotiations with the contractor, agreed to R1.60 per sq. yard, which was the price charged for similar material in terms of another contract in Pietersburg. By rights this contractor could of course not lay any claim to additional compensation. In fact, the State Attorney confirmed it that way. However, the Department was of the opinion that it would have been unreasonable and unfair if the contractor’s losses were to be increased by the additional work that was entrusted to him. Accordingly it was recommended that an ex gratia payment of R1,930 should be made to him.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

That is, only in respect of the material he fitted on the inside?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

I want to refer to an item under (22)—General. The item I want to refer to is the modernization of the S.A. Mint. This is a new item for which the estimated cost will be R2,175,000, of which we are now asked to vote R50 in order to get the scheme going. But if one looks at the footnote, one sees that the amount of R2,175,000 is an approximate estimate “in the absence of full particulars”. Well, I do not know in what way the Mint is going to be modernized. I take it it is for new buildings, but no particulars are given here at all. But, Sir, I do not like the way in which such a huge proposition is being embarked upon. As it is, nobody knows whether this job is going to cost R2,175,000 or R5 million. If nobody knows what it is going to cost in the end, why not then wait and put this on the main estimates? Why is this item included in the additional estimates while we are asked to vote R50 without having any clue whatsoever of what it is going to cost in the long run? If the guess at this stage is that the modernization is going to cost R2,175,000 then my guess is that in the end the work will cost at least twice as much. You cannot modernize the Mint for that amount with costs as they are to-day, and with all the things which the directors of the Mint and all interested persons are going to think of and include in the modernization of the building whilst it is in progress. So, I want to record my personal objection to bringing work like this forward in this way, i.e. by means of the additional estimates. What it amounts to is that we are being asked here to give approval to the commencement of the modernization of the Mint—a vast undertaking and neither I nor the hon. the Minister know what it entails. So, as I have already said, we may here be embarking on an expenditure which in the end may be twice as much, or even ten times as much. Or can the hon. the Minister tell me what relationship this provisional figure has to the final figure?

What I have said about this item, may also be said of the project in regard to the Agre-kon building in Pretoria, a new item at an estimated total cost of R1,540,000. This item can be criticized in similar vein. Why have we now to vote in principle for the construction of this building? I bet the hon. the Minister that these two items together in the end will cost at least three times as much as the amount indicated here. This is not the way things should be done and, consequently, I want to record my personal objection. In this I am very serious. Of course, I do not mind voting money for these things if they are necessary, but at the same time I should like to know what they are going to cost in the end. Also, I should like to know what amount of work is going to be done this year and when the work according to a reasonable estimate will be finished.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

The hon. member for Umlazi has, I think, expressed the views of everybody on this side of the House. The footnote to this item says that the amount of R2,175,000 is an “approximate estimate in absence of full particulars”. Can the Minister tell us who has made this “approximate” estimate? Does he have this approximate estimate in front of him and, if so, will he give us details thereof? We should like to know so that we may be able to see what works are comprised under the expression “modernization”. What does “modernization” mean in this context? Does he have a list of items in front of him comprising this process? I hope the hon. the Minister does have the particulars of what is contemplated by “modernization” of the S.A. Mint. We have only a month or so to go to the main estimates. In the circumstances, what is the urgency to get this work going now? Why the hurry? You see, we have to be on our guard that this method of dealing with these major services is not resorted to by the department concerned in an endeavour to try to get its vote through before the main estimates come along for proper consideration. The additional estimates do not constitute a backdoor means of getting a major service approved by Parliament. These estimates offer an opportunity of dealing with matters of immediate importance, of grave necessity—which should be demonstrated. So, I hope whoever of the Ministers are going to deal with it will demonstrate to us the urgency of this work, will tell us who made the estimate and on what it is based so that we may be able to judge for ourselves whether this is the kind of item which should be permitted in the additional estimates.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I cannot understand why hon. members are so upset about this small amount. The hon. member for Umlazi himself said that he did not mind voting for something if it was urgent, and essential. That is all it is. Now the hon. member for South Coast says that if it is urgent and essential, we should wait and we should place it on the Main Estimates. It is urgent, and I should like to furnish hon. members with the particulars in that regard. Owing to the obsolete equipment of the S.A. Mint and certain shortcomings they have there, it is not possible to keep up with the demands made on production at present and to cope with an increase in production. Consequently it is essential for the building to be modernized as soon as practicable in order to enable the Mint to acquire and install new equipment and to remedy the position. The proposed alteration programme will disrupt the activities of the Mint considerably, and that is why it is essential that the work should be commenced as soon as possible and that it should be completed without delay. Accordingly planning was expedited to such an extent that it was already possible in February to ask for tenders for the demolition work. With a view to the S.A. Mint’s urgent need for more effective accommodation, and since provision for this service was not effected in the Appropriation Act, it is essential to make provision for this service in these Estimates so as to enable the Department to proceed with it. This is the major aim, namely to proceed with this service immediately, as we know that it will cause disruption in the Mint. The fact of the matter is that, in the light of the circumstances as they are defined here, there was no opportunity for working out the full particulars and making a final estimate of the cost here. But the estimate of the cost that was made here, was nevertheless made by technical people who are most certainly in a better position to make an estimate of the cost than is the case with any of us who are sitting here.

*Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

But you had already asked for tenders in February.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes, but not for the construction; I said for the demolition of the building. The whole Mint is being rebuilt and modernized. This amount does not include the machinery and the apparatus. The fact of the matter is that this is an urgent case, and in view of the fact that immediate action has to be taken, it has simply been impossible to submit a final amount to Parliament. I think we can content ourselves with this, namely that the estimate that was made here, was made by people who are at least in a position to make a proper estimate.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

I do not regard the Deputy Minister’s reply as satisfactory. I do not think he has made out a case for our passing this item of R50 at this stage. It appears to us from an examination of the various items before us that some of these items could have remained over until the Main Budget proposals were before the House. It appears to us that various Departments have used this opportunity to get these items on the Additional Estimates so that the principle is established. Our objection is that even at this stage the Deputy Minister is not correct when he says that the experts of the Department have worked out the Estimates. The experts of the Department have not worked out the Estimates. It says quite clearly at the foot of page 27 that it is an approximate estimate in the absence of full particulars. I suggest that no professional man will sign a certificate in the absence of full particulars. The professional engineers of the Department say: This is a guess; do not tie us to this figure, because it is a very rough estimate. Just the other day the Minister of Finance in good faith gave us a figure. This afternoon he came to us and said: The other day I had no time at my disposal and I quite honestly could not give the House an accurate figure, but my estimate was R8½ million. But later on when the full facts came before me I gave the House a better estimate, which was not a guess, of R15 million. I submit that we are in this position now. that there are no full particulars. It is a very approximate estimate, and we know what the position to-day is with approximate estimates. The figures can be far out. But our difficulty is that if we do not make the protest now, when the figure has doubled later on, and we try to criticize it then, we will be stopped in terms of the rules of debate from dealing with it fully. We will then be told that the principle has been established and that we had our chance but did not take it. Sir, we are taking our chance now and we are raising our objection now. It is quite clear that the urgency has not been established, and even if it has been established, the final figures are not available. Departments must not come to this House and think that as a matter of course, by putting R50 on the Estimates, they can get their Votes through. We propose to put our objection on record by moving the following amendment—

To reduce the amount by R30 from the item “(22)—General: Pretoria: Modernization of S.A. Mint”, R50.

The purpose of moving to reduce the amount by R30 is to indicate that we are not objecting in principle to the modernization of the Mint. [Interjections.] The Deputy Minister of Bantu Development cannot have it both ways, and that is just what this Minister is trying to do. He is trying to get a Vote through with an approximate estimate, in the same way that he tries to get a Vote through with full particulars. The purpose of reducing it to R30 is to show that we are not against the principle of the modernization of the Mint. [Interjections.] If we were against the principle of modernizing the Mint. I would have moved that the whole item be deleted, but because we do not have the full particulars this is our way of demonstrating that we are against this method of coming with Estimates. We are not against the modernization of the Mint, but we are against the Minister trying to slip through an item at this stage without giving full particulars and without giving the House full details of what he wants. The Minister has a responsibility to this House. [Interjection.] I suggest that that Deputy Minister of Agriculture should moderate his language and act as a prospective Minister. [Interjections.]

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Now I do not understand hon. members opposite at all. The hon. member for Umlazi pleaded that if they did not raise any objections, if they simply allowed the amount to go through as it stands here, it would mean that next year during the debate on the Main Estimates they would be told that they could not argue about the principle because it would have been accepted already. But now the hon. member for Pinetown says that it is not the principle they are arguing about. But the hon. member for Umlazi says that he must discuss the principle now; otherwise he cannot do so later.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

I said I objected to the method of doing this.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Fine. I know that they are objecting to the method applied here, because they will not have the opportunity of opposing this matter in principle at a later stage. That is why they are objecting to the method now, because they will not be able to discuss the principle later. Surely, then it is to the principle of effecting improvements to the Mint that they are objecting. But whether it is the principle of effecting improvements to the Mint, or the details or the method, it is all the same to me. As far as we are concerned, the fact of the matter is that we have work here that has to be done urgently.

*Mr. H. M. TIMONEY:

For R50.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

It is for the very reason that we want to commence immediately. When we come to the Main Estimates, which are to be introduced soon and in which provision is made for the following year for services for which part provision has already been made by way of the Part Appropriation, the hon. member will see that provision is made there for the actual funds. I do not take it amiss of hon. members if they do not like the method, but it is a method that has to be applied from time to time. This is one of the cases where this method has to be applied. We say explicitly that it is an estimated amount.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister give me a figure within R½ million of what the final cost will be?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

My information is that this work—I am not going to guarantee that it may not cost more—need not cost much, and that it is not expected to cost more than this estimated amount for which provision is now being made in the Estimates.

The fact of the matter is that we must go on with this work, and it has been placed on these Estimates so that it may not be delayed.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

How can the hon. the Deputy Minister say that it is not expected to cost more than the amount on the Estimates? Is that not exactly why we are debating this matter at all? We want to know what it is going to cost. Let me remind the hon. member that the function of every hon. member in this House is to decide whether this House will vote money to the Government for this purpose. You know, Sir, we are not like “sheep” that pass in the night. [Laughter.] One would like to know how much it is going to cost, and what it is in respect of. But here is a Deputy Minister, who ought to know much better, telling us that it is not expected to cost more than the estimate. This is a remarkable statement when one considers what is at the bottom of the page, which is that this is an approximate estimate in the absence of full particulars. What we would like to know is what particulars does the Deputy Minister have on which he bases his assertion that it is not expected to cost any more. I think that is a fair question. [Interjections.] Very well, the Deputy Minister says it is a fair question. Then I think it is also fair to ask the other part of that question, namely what particulars does he not have upon which he can base that statement? So, if this is so urgent and we have to begin immediately, then before the time of the next Estimates, in approximately a month’s time, he now urgently has to spend R50. What can he spend that R50 on between now and a month later? I hope the Deputy Minister will now get up and answer what he concedes is a fair question.

Mr. H. M. TIMONEY:

The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us with regard to this sum of R50 that it is the normal practice to make such a provision in the Estimates. We know that this job can never be done for R50, what with the fees payable to quantity surveyors and architects and the cost of labour. It has quite rightly been said that these items will appear next month in the Estimates and what the Government is now doing is to obtain approval for the principle. When the Estimates are presented to us and we raise this matter we will be told:“You agreed to this item in the Additional Estimates; why did you not say something then?” How can R50 cover the cost of the preliminary work on these buildings. I have a feeling that this figure was sucked out of somebody’s thumb. To consult your own architect about the building of a house, costs more than R50. How was this figure arrived at? I think it is an insult to the intelligence of this side of the House to tell us that the cost was estimated at R50 in order to get this item on the Estimates. It is ridiculous.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

In conclusion I just want to say that this amount is calculated by the Department according to certain standards—the surface area, the cubic content, etc. This is the only information according to which an estimate can be made at this stage. That is my reply to the hon. member for Durban (North). Secondly, he asked me what information I did not have at my disposal. Sir, if I had had all the other information at my disposal, I would most probably have been able to make a final calculation, but I did not have it, and that is why this estimate is based on certain acceptable standards.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us that the only information he had was the information which he gave this Committee and that he has no further information. I submit to him that he now has some more information and I want to give him the opportunity to give the Committee the information he has just received.

Amendment put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. J. W. E. WILEY:

With regard to item (18) I should just like to inquire where this additional accommodation is?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

At Simonstown. This service appeared in the 1964-’65 Estimates, and according to expectations it would have been disposed of in that financial year. Consequently provision was made under the item “Retention money and completion of various services” which appeared on the Estimates for this purpose for the possible payments during the 1965-’66 financial year. Due to late claims by the contractor which could not have been disposed of earlier, a further amount of R13,540 will have to be paid out this financial year and the contractor has indicated that possible further claims will be submitted as soon as his quantity surveyor has made certain calculations. To enable the Department to pay the proven claims and to dispose of possible further claims, this service must be voted in these Estimates.

Mr. J. W. E. WILEY:

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I heard the hon. the Deputy Minister …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that I put the Vote and not a single member rose in his seat.

Mr. J. W. HIGGERTY:

With all due deference, Sir, the hon. member was on his feet before you put the Vote.

The CHAIRMAN:

This item forms part of the Vote and when I put the Vote the hon. member did not rise.

Mr. J. W. E. WILEY:

I did not hear the hon. the Minister say where the additional accommodation was. That was my question.

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I did tell the hon. member.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote E,—Water Affairs, R10,230:

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

I would be grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister if he would deal with the three items which appear on Loan Vote E. Firstly, there is an ex gratia payment to Industrial Machinery Supplies. I should like to know to whom this amount has been paid and for what reason. Then there are loans and subsidies to the Groothoek Irrigation Board and the Oudtshoorn Municipality. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister give us these details? The loans and subsidies to the Groothoek Irrigation Board and the Oudts-hoom Municipality appear to be merely token amounts, opening the vote for some wider grant or assistance thereafter. Could we please have the details with regard to the last two items? We would also like to know the reason for the ex gratia payment for Industrial Machinery Supplies.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS:

The amount of R10,130 is being requested for an ex gratia payment to the firm Industrial Machinery Supplies in connection with the supply of fish belly flaps for the Vaalharts diversion weir. It is a special kind of flap through which water can pass easily when it exceeds a certain level. The relevant contract was placed with the firm Industrial Machinery Supplies on 13th August, 1963, with the firm Austral Iron Works as sub-contractors, at a cost of R186,310. The last fish belly flap was delivered on the site on 29th October, 1965, after a period of manufacturing difficulties having been experienced in the workshops of Messrs. Austral Iron Works. It will be seen from available reports that the workshop personnel of Messrs. Austral Iron Works failed in the initial manufacturing stage to exercise the degree of care necessary to ensure a sound and properly finished product, despite the fact that certain essential procedures had been prescribed in the manufacturing drawings. I may just tell the hon. member that this is the first time that we have built these items in South Africa. If the necessary precautionary measures had been taken, some of the problems subsequently experienced might possibly have been eliminated. A task of this nature had not been assigned to local manufacturers previously, but in order to promote local industries it was decided to have the work done in the Republic according to an overseas design. In a letter to the State Tender Board dated 4th May, 1966, Messrs. Industrial Machinery Supplies on behalf of Messrs. Austral Iron Works made representations for compensation for the heavy losses suffered in carrying out the contract, mainly as a result of additional time spent on the work on account of difficulties experienced. This work was new to them. Messrs. Austral Iron Works maintain that their expenses exceeded, the contract price by R86,934. By making use of a points system based on an estimated time and material basis, the Department estimated the value of the additional work that had to be done as a result of the difficult technique used at R10,130. The contract had been allocated according to the ordinary system of calling for competitive tenders, and no extra remuneration would under normal circumstances have been recommended. However, as a result of the extraordinary difficulties experienced in the manufacturing of the items, difficulties that were not anticipated when tenders were called for, the matter was referred to the State Tender Board for a decision as to whether relief was to be granted. The State Tender Board recommended that an ex gratia payment of R10,130 be made to Messrs. Industrial Machinery Supplies, subject to approval by the Treasury.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

This was really an experimental installation.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS:

Well, we had to do it in South Africa. Neither this firm nor the Department knew what they were letting themselves in for.

*In terms of reference No. B.10/3 of 3rd July, 1967, the Treasury granted approval for the payment to be made, subject to prior Parliamentary authority being obtained. Does that satisfy the hon. member?

*Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Yes.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The hon. member also wanted to know why provision is being made for loans and subsidies of R50 each to be granted to the Groothoek Irrigation Board and the Oudtshoorn Municipality. As a result of the drought experienced in both places, the situation has arisen that the irrigation board and the municipality concerned have to set to work immediately in the hope of supplying additional water towards the end of the year. For this reason the two items have been included in the Additional Estimates—in actual fact just to afford them an opportunity of commencing the work. Provision for this work will of course be made in the Estimates; it has also been approved by the Cabinet. But it was felt that it would be unfair in such a time of crisis to keep the irrigation board and the municipality waiting for a few months before they could commence with the work. We do not want the reproach to be levelled against us that we kept them waiting unnecessarily. We do not know whether it will rain before the end of the year, but if it does, one would like to see that the necessary construction works are ready. This is the reason why provision is being made for these two amounts.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote G,—Mines, R250,000:

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell me which mines are going to enjoy this loan of R250,000.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

In terms of reference F.5/388, dated 19th December, 1967, the Minister of Finance approved that State loans up to an amount of 15 per cent of their income be granted to two marginal mines in order to enable them to meet operating losses. The background to this matter is as follows: The agreements entered into between the State and the two mines provide for loans not exceeding 10 per cent of the income of the mines for the purpose of meeting operating losses. Notwithstanding steps taken to reduce operating costs, it was clear that production losses were gradually increasing and that the said assistance of 10 per cent would not be sufficient to keep the mines going. The matter was discussed thoroughly between the Government Mining Engineer and representatives of the mines concerned, and although it was realized that the life expectancy and production figures were merely tentative estimates which might eventually prove to be erroneous, the Government Mining Engineer was nevertheless satisfied, and he also recommended that it would be in the interests of the State for the assistance limit to be increased to 15 per cent in these two cases.

As there is some uncertainty as regards the date on which the increased assistance will come into operation, no payments have been made as yet.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote I,—Commerce and Industries, R8,853,000.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, I should like some particulars regarding this item “Loans to Shipbuilding Industry” because we know certain subsidies are going to be paid to the industry. I should like to know, amongst other things, whether the amount of anticipated subsidies is included in this new amount, or what in fact the loan aspect means here. I do not know how it is going to be given and on what basis.

I also want to know to which companies the subsidies will be paid and for what particular purposes. For example, I want to know whether it is going to be made on the basis of developing the facilities they have for shipbuilding. Will the subsidies be made by way of materials or any other basis: This term “Loans to Shipbuilding Industry” is very vague and indefinite, and the amount involved is quite large. We are all very interested in the shipbuilding industry at the moment, and I ask the hon. the Minister to give the fullest possible reply, please.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to item No. 5 on page 30 which reads as follows—“Purchase of Shares of South African Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation, Ltd.” Under this item there is a revised estimate of R15 million. Under this item we also see an amount saved on other sub-heads. I have looked at the “other sub-heads” of last year’s Estimates and I cannot see how the savings could have been made. Surely they could not have been from the Procurements Fund! I want to assist the hon. the Minister in this matter, if I can, and I want to refer to last year’s items. There was a loan to the I.D.C. and that money was spent on industries in the border areas; there was an item connected with South West Africa, and also the aircraft industries. It cannot have been any of those. This R15 million is a new item and I want to know how it is going to be spent. It is for the purchase of shares. I think it would be much better if the Government were to lend money to Iscor at a reasonable rate of interest because when the Government purchases shares it seems to me it does not get a fair return on the shares.

Looking at last year’s balance sheet of Iscor, I think the share that the Government gets is much too low. Year after year we have invested money in Iscor. It is a great undertaking, it is a very big and rich company, and I think at the very least the Government should get a return on the money invested. There is only one shareholder—I am leaving out accumulated preferentials, which concern only a handful of people; I am speaking of the holders of A and B shares—and that is the Government. We, the Members of Parliament hold the proxies of the shareholders. We represent the taxpayers who are the shareholders in this company. We are not getting a return on the money. After all these years, and considering the money that has been given to and spent on Iscor, I think the taxpayer should get something back through the Government so that his taxation can be reduced a bit. It is not a good investment from the Government’s point of view, and also not from the taxpayer’s point of view. I am not criticizing the development of Iscor because that does not arise. I am speaking of it now as an investment.

Let us look at last year’s figures. The surplus was R13,900.000. Of that there went to first reserve or replacements a sum of R7½ million, to general reserve R2 million, and the dividend on the A and B shares only amounted to R3,800,000. That is not a dividend on the capital invested in Iscor. All the capital invested in Iscor is the taxpayer’s money. It is a Government-owned enterprise and therefore we should have a return. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain the two items to us, namely, first of all, what return are we going to get from this investment of R15 million, and secondly, how is the excess of R6,146,000 to be met?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some more details regarding item 4 on page 30, namely “Loans to Shipbuilding Industry”. I ask this question for a particular reason. I want to know whether this amount, is limited to shipbuilding activities only, because the particular company I have in mind has interested itself outside the shipbuilding industry and is in fact competing with other engineering firms. I want to know whether the sum mentioned in this item is intended for work connected with the shipbuilding industry only.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by referring to item 4—“Loans to Shipbuilding Industry”— and I should like to furnish the following information. Here in my hand I have a document containing lengthy arguments and a full explanation in regard to this matter. The hon. member for Umlazi asked me to deal with this matter in detail, but I doubt whether I should deal with it in as much detail as this document does. Consequently I shall refer to those aspects which I deem essential only, and if the hon. gentleman so desires, this matter may be reasoned out in more detail, because this is an item which is open to reasoning.

As regards the amount to be voted, it may be mentioned that in terms of the loan scheme approved by the Government, Government guarantees may be given in justified cases for the repayment of the capital and interest on loans negotiated by shipbuilding yards so as to make credit available to approved purchasers. I want to emphasize that the object is to make credit available to approved purchasers. This is done provided (1) that the credit made available will not exceed 80 per cent of the cash price; (2) that the credit is limited to a maximum term of ten years; and (3) that it is paid off systematically over that term. In such cases the interest on the loans concerned is subsidized by the State to the extent that the purchaser pays interest at a rate which is 2 per cent less than the current rates of interest. On the other hand the Government itself may grant loans to approved purchasers in justified cases and depending on the circumstances. In such cases the rate of interest is fixed at 5½ per cent, but as the Treasury expects at least 6¾ per cent on loan funds, sanction has been obtained for refunding the difference in interest of 1¼ per cent to the Treasury from amounts voted on the Revenue Vote of the Department of Industries. During the past year contracts were signed for the building of two coasters—I am now dealing with the particulars for which the hon. member for Umlazi asked—and one fishing trawler. The Government granted loans for this and the first two instalments of R271,848 each in respect of the two coasters and R73,600 in respect of the fishing trawler now have to be paid. This makes a total of R617,296.

I want to emphasize that it is being found essential to assist the shipbuilding industry. I think hon. members agree that this industry should be assisted. Therefore these special efforts are being made. I do not think the question of the hon. member for Port Natal is relevant. This amount for which provision is being made is for the building and purchasing of ships only. It does not relate to shipbuilding yards.

The hon. member for Umlazi put a further question to me. With his leave, I should not like to reply to that. It deals with the companies. These are private companies and, if he were to insist on a reply, I should probably have to supply one. I should prefer not to give him those particulars. I hope this is how he will accept it.

The hon. member for Kensington put a question to me in connection with item 5. I should like to give him the following particulars. The real amount envisaged for the purchase of shares of Iscor during the present financial year is R15 million. However, we are asking for an amount of R8,853,250 only to be voted, because the balance of R6,146,750 can be met from savings or amounts voted to the I.D.C. in respect of S.W.A.W.E.K. and border areas development. I think this positively is the reply to one of the questions put by the hon. member, namely, “Where do the savings come from?” They are at the I.D.C. As far as the savings are concerned, these are at S.W.A.W.E.K., in connection with which he also read from the previous estimates, and in respect of border areas development. According to law Iscor’s authorized share capital consists of 500,000 A shares of R2 each and 27 million B shares of R2 each. All the A shares were taken up by the State President as well as 24,680,364 B shares while 219,636 B shares had been converted into 7½ per cent accumulative preferential shares and awarded to private individuals. This is that smaller amount to which the hon. member referred.

Therefore there still remains 2,100,000 B shares which may be issued without amending the Iscor Act. According to Iscor’s balance sheet of 30th June, 1967, its reserves amounted to R306 million. When this is taken into consideration as well as other inherent beneficial factors regarding Iscor, the estimated value of each share of R2 is approximately R15. Consequently it is being envisaged to take up one million of these shares this year at a premium of R13 per share; a total therefore of R15 million. This is the explanation, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

In dealing with the second item, if that is the value of Iscor, what return is the Government getting on the money, on the investment? That is my point. I did not realize my case was so strong. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister has really clinched what I said. Here we have this very valuable asset, producing huge profits from a large capital, and the country is getting nothing for it. The taxpayer is now being asked for more money on Loan Account. Buy more shares! I think we deserve a bit of interest on what we have already invested.

I come to the first item now. I cannot see how we can make up that difference, that excess to be met from savings on other subheads of R6,146,000. And the hon. the Deputy Minister says that is from the money that was voted for border industries. Is that right?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

That is right.

Mr. P. A. MOORE:

What are we doing now, robbing border industries to pay Iscor? I thought it was the policy of the Government to push border industries. Mr. Chairman, what are we coming to? Here the I.D.C. has money voted by the Government for the I.D.C. Now we are told that the Government has to save money that is already voted for the I.D.C. They are taking it back, I suppose. The Government is the only shareholder in the I.D.C. as well, and it is voting that money for Iscor!

Mr. Chairman, I want to be brief. The time has arrived when these utility public corporations must be investigated, and they must be investigated, as I have said over and over again, by a committee of this House. After all, the hon. the Minister of Transport is sitting there, and next week he is going to appear before this House, before Parliament, and lay on the Table his accounts for the year, and be examined and criticized for several days. Right throughout the Session we have a special select committee before whom the Minister of Transport, his Deputy Minister and their staff appear to explain what they have done during the year. But we get no report from these utility corporations, and there are now about 20 of them in the country. This is a glaring case. I think the time has arrived, Sir, when we have to tackle this situation in the interest of Parliament. My hon. friends on the other side are in the same position. There is no accountability to Parliament by these corporations, and the time has arrived when we will demand this accountability.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his reply and for the trouble he went to, but there is one aspect of this matter about which I am not quite sure. These loans are for the financing of the purchasers of ships, not the builders. This appears as loans to the shipbuilding industry. In fact, it would appear to me from the reply that these loans are not to the shipbuilding industry as such, these are loans for the people who wish to buy ships and use them, which I think is a different matter. It is the shipping industry and not the shipbuilding industry. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: To whom is this money actually lent? Because, if I go to a garage and buy a motor car, and I borrow money to buy that motor car, the money is lent to me and not to the garage, and I am in fact responsible for it. It would appear here, that although the money has been lent to finance somebody who wants to buy a ship and have it built in these yards, the money in fact is being given to the shipyard, and the various interest rates have been balanced off with the shipbuilding company concerned. I do not want to know the company; I know who built these ships. It is being balanced off with the shipbuilding company. If I am correct, surely this is a most peculiar way of doing business and of financing the sale of ships. Surely one finances the purchaser. One wants to help the person who is buying the ship, because he has not got the money to pay for it. [Interjection.] You are not financing the shipbuilding industry as such. It happens to help them to get orders, perhaps, because they have the money available. So it helps them indirectly. But I think this is a little misleading. I want to know who, in the case of this amount, is actually going to be responsible for its repayment? The person who has the goods or the person who supplied them? Because to me this seems a most peculiar set up.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Speaker, I first want to reply to the last question. I thought I had made it very clear to the hon. member. There are two methods of doing this. Firstly the Government guarantees a portion of a loan for the purchase of ships. The other method is to make a loan available to the purchaser, which is in fact being done here. This is one of the two methods. It is true that the sub-head reads, “Loans to Shipbuilding Industry”. I do think, however, that the hon. member should interpret the description “shipbuilding industry” in its wider sense, because what is actually being envisaged here is to assist in the matter of coping with financing so as to provide credit facilities in order to promote the shipbuilding industry. If this were not to be done, there would be no buyers to promote the shipbuilding industry in South Africa, particularly in view of the very strong competition with which the shipbuilding industry in South Africa has to contend from other shipbuilding industries in the world. These are the two methods of financing. I do not know whether the hon. member is of the opinion that one or both of these methods may not be good. The Government may, on the one hand, give guarantees when loans are negotiated elsewhere, or the Government itself may grant the purchaser a loan, as we are in fact doing in this case.

I do not know whether the hon. member for Kensington expects us to have further discussions on the matter raised by him.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Yes.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The hon. member said that the Government was receiving nothing from this mighty organization. But the hon. member himself said that this mighty organization had become financially strong while it in fact had one shareholder only. From the nature of the case, we cannot look at dividends only. Over and above the dividends, the reserves have been built up to R306 million, as I have just said. We, as the population of South Africa, have become R306 million richer. It is on the grounds of this very consideration that it has been decided that a premium of R13 has to be paid on those shares. That is because the shareholder is now getting an interest in the business which is so much greater than what the interest was at the time of the first issue of shares. I agree with the hon. member that this is an alternative method of providing a loan to Iscor. I want to say at this stage that the financing of Iscor will be taken into consideration in due course. This is an alternative method of granting a loan. I do think, however, that the hon. member will agree with me that this is a permanent investment. In terms of that it is really more appropriate to take up shares rather than to grant a loan. Over and above the amounts which have to be placed on reserve from time to time, we at least receive a dividend of 6½ per cent. All things being taken into consideration, I think that we should extend this fine undertaking of Iscor in this way, because the hon. member now agrees with me that this really is a better method.

*Mr. P. A. MOORE:

But it is 6½ per cent on the original value of the shares. I would not consult you as my broker.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the financing of shipbuilding and ship-purchasing to make my point of view quite clear. I wholeheartedly agree that the Government must help the shipbuilding industry, because every other country in the world which undertakes shipbuilding is helped by its Government to finance the sale or purchase of its ships. I agree wholeheartedly that something of this nature must be done. But I want to make my point of view in this regard quite clear. When the Government lends money, it uses public funds and we must watch those funds. I want to ensure that that money is lent against some security. That security must be the ship because that is the only security that exists in cases such as these. I want to confirm that I do not want to see the present method changed so that the loan is given to the company who builds the ship. I say this for a specific reason. At the moment the hon. Deputy Minister may only be dealing with one or two shipbuilding companies. Only small amounts in regard to coasters or fishing vessels may be involved. If, however, the shipbuilding industry develops to the stage to which it appears it will develop in the not too distant future, then the Government is going to have to advance fantastic sums of money to finance the sale of those ships. In other words, it will have to finance the purchaser from whichever country he may be. At the moment we are, generally speaking, only financing local purchases by the fishing industry and so on. In the future we are not going to be involved in amounts of R617,000 but more likely in amounts of R617,000,000. I want to be sure that when that time comes we have not set a pattern for financing the shipbuilding industry which will be unsatisfactory and which will in any way endanger public funds. I want to make this point quite clear.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is in favour of developing the shipbuilding industry. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that this is not the only method according to which assistance is being rendered in connection with the development of the shipbuilding industry. There are other methods which are being employed to develop the shipbuilding industry. If we were not to do so, it would mean that we would not be able to develop the shipbuilding industry in South Africa against the competition of the rest of the world. I think the arguments advanced by the hon. member are quite constructive ones. A very constructive debate has been conducted as to what methods are best. But I think the only problem which the hon. member has, is that the method which we are now employing does not appear satisfactory to him. He says that we should rather assist the industry as such, because if we assist the buyers, we shall have to continue assisting buyers until the amounts involved will eventually be so large that we shall no longer be able to exercise control over the matter. I think the only reply to this is that here we are dealing with an industry which is in its initial stage. It goes without saying that when any industry of this kind is in its initial stage—and particularly when there is such tremendous competition in the world—it has more and bigger problems than it subsequently will have after it has got into its stride and is able to operate on a larger scale, because then it will be able to compete better with other industries of this kind. I do not think we need envisage at this stage that we shall necessarily have to continue this method in future. However, there is probably an element of truth in what the hon. member said, but I think that we should rather leave this to the future. The fact of the matter is that the Government is trying to assist this industry in different ways. This method is one of the methods which are being employed to set the industry going, because otherwise this will not happen.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote K,—Community Development, R250.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to sub-head 4 and the first three items which appear under it. Those items are related to the discussion which we have already had under Loan Vote B. They are the training centre for Coloured cadets at Faure, the purchase of dwellings in Springs and the purchase of dwellings in Heidelberg, Transvaal, as a result of the take-over of the training college there. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain how these purchases are divided between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Community Development.

There is another matter which needs clarification. I notice that an amount of R160,000 is involved in regard to the provision of quarters and mess for the training centre for the Coloured cadets. This appears as a Revised Estimate. The note at the bottom of the page indicates that the special warrant of the State President was issued for and amount of R560,000. The other items are identical to those authorized. One wonders therefore where the error is or whether the Minister is covering himself for a 300 per cent error in estimate. The Revised Estimate is for R160,000 while the State President issued a special warrant for R560,000. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain why there is such a large difference between these two figures.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I can give the hon. member the details. I think the problems he has may possibly be solved if I give him the details I have at my disposal. These are, of course matters falling under the hon. the Minister of Community Development, who is engaged in the Other Place at the moment. Under sub-head 4—Official Quarters—I furnish the following details. A number of projects for which no provision had been made in the Estimates became a matter of great urgency in the course of the year. Since the progress in respect of certain projects for which provision had been made did not come up to expectations and it became clear that the funds which had been provided would not be spent, it was possible to offset the savings which would result against the cost of the unforeseen projects. In order to enable the Secretary for Community Development to continue with the projects concerned, a State President’s special warrant for a nominal amount of R50 was obtained for each of the relevant projects pending parliamentary approval. These projects are as indicated in the Additional Estimates and the circumstances connected with them are as follows. I am now going to give you the various projects. I start with Coloured Affairs—the training centre for Coloured cadets at Faure. Legislation for the establishment of the Coloured Cadet Corps was passed during the 1967 parliamentary session. Provision for this service could therefore not have been made at an earlier stage. The establishment of the training centre, however, is a matter of great urgency in order to carry out the accepted policy. I come now to the item under Education, Arts and Science, namely “Springs: Purchase of dwellings”. Since the property in which the school for epilectics at Diskobolus. Kimberley, was accommodated was urgently required by the Department of Defence for Security reasons, alternative accommodation had to be found for the school. The Government’s Miners’ Training School at Springs, in respect of which the State has already contributed two-thirds of the cost of erection, was acceptable to the Department of Education, Arts and Science. The buildings on the site included, inter alia, a number of dwellings which are required for official quarters, but since no provision was made for this service in the Estimates for the financial year, covering parliamentary approval is being sought for the State President’s warrant issued for that purpose. As regards the item “Defence: Kimberley”, I want to furnish the following information. As in the case of the premises of the school for epileptics, the industrial school complex was required urgently for defence purposes. Some of the buildings had to be converted into single and married quarters and covering parliamentary approval is now being sought for the State President’s warrant issued for that purpose. We now come to the item “Heidelberg, Transvaal”. The teachers college at this centre was closed down and the Cabinet approved that the premises be taken over by the Department of Defence for the purpose of establishing the army gymnasium there. Because of the transfer of the college staff, some 38 private dwellings became available for purchase; 31 of those dwellings, together with two other dwellings which belonged to the Provincial Administration, were purchased as official quarters for the gymnasium staff. In this case, too, covering parliamentary approval is merely being sought for the State President’s warrant which was issued. The hon. member asked how these purchases were divided. Obviously the Department of Community Development only deals with the provision of dwellings and accommodation.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

It is unfortunate that the hon. the Minister is not here himself to deal with this matter, because the explanation which has been given and which the hon. the Deputy Minister was good enough to read to us, certainly does not explain why we must have a sum of money provided under one vote, namely Public Works, and then find that the Minister of Community Development is doing this particular job under a separate vote of the Department of Community Development. It seems to me a matter of some difficulty in that one is having piecemeal voting to establish for instance the same training centre. It has been done by way of a vote under Public Works while we now also have it under a vote of the Department of Community Development. We have the same matter as regards Heidelberg where a considerable sum of money is involved. Under Loan Vote B we find a sum of money set aside while a further R400,000 is added on from Loan Vote K for the same project. One wonders as to what exactly the reason is. It is therefore unfortunate that the hon. the Minister is not here. There is also the other question which is important. We are now being asked to approve of these figures. What is the estimated cost for these quarters and the mess at Faure? Is it R160,000 or is it R560,000 in respect of which a State President’s warrant has been issued as indicated in the note at the bottom of the page. Which is the figure? As I have said, I appreciate the position of the hon. the Deputy Minister in having to rely on the information that was placed before him and that he may have some difficulty in explaining the points raised. But it does seem that there is some overlapping in respect of which we are entitled to an explanation.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Chairman, reference is made in the footnote to the total cost, namely R560,000. This relates to the item “Faure: Training Centre for Coloured Cadets”, to which the hon. member referred. The amount of R160,000 which appears in the second column is the estimate of expenditure in respect of this financial year, and the balance of R400,000 will be used later.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

If we are being asked to deal with a revised estimate, then the hon. the Deputy Minister wants us to accept that we are dealing with a revised estimate of expenditure for this year when there is no estimate before the House as to what the total costs would be. The hon. the Deputy Minister spent a long time this afternoon explaining to us the amount of R2,175,000 for an item under Loan Vote B being the estimate of the cost as reflected in the estimates. Are we now adopting under this vote an entirely new procedure namely that while embarking upon an item of capital expenditure, the end of the road is not disclosed to us and one has to look at the note at the bottom of the page to see what the final position is. It is an extraordinary position that the State President has approved to issue a special Warrant for an amount far in excess of what this House is authorizing the expenditure to be. Now other instances have come to my notice where a warrant has been applied for for a figure which does not appear in the estimates that are placed before the House. It is unfortunate, as I have said, that the hon. the Minister concerned is not here to explain why this does happen.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

The House only authorizes the amounts which appear in the last column. But with the integration of these two votes the details and the total cost are indicated at the bottom of the page for the information of hon. members.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote L,—“Transport, R151,000”.

Mr. H. M. TIMONEY:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Deputy Minister give us some information in regard to the construction of an airport at Katima Mulilo?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Mr. Chairman, the airport at Katima Mulilo was built by the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal for the Department of Transport. The provision is in respect of late claims submitted by the Roads Department of the Transvaal Provincial Administration for repairs in respect of equipment used in connection with the building of the airport.

Capt. W. J. B. SMITH:

Item 2 (c) refers to runways and associated facilities at Usakos, South West Africa. Is this a new layout? And why was there such a terrific under-estimation? The original estimate was R20,000, and the revised one is R84,600, which is over four times, the original estimate.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

The hon. member is wrong. The estimate of R20,000 was only in respect of retention money. Initially the construction of the runways and taxying tracks was expected to be completed in January, 1967, and provision was made in 1967-’68 for the payment of retention moneys up to an amount of R20,000. The building programme was delayed, however, because difficulties were experienced in obtaining suitable gravel, and consequently the work was only completed in June, 1967. The expenditure incurred during 1967-’68 amounted to R84,504; of this amount R20,000 was initially provided in respect of retention moneys and was available, but the balance of R64,504 will have to be voted. In order to cover the expenditure until such time as Parliamentary approval could be granted, Special Warrant No. 12 of 1967-’68 for an amount of R65,500 was obtained from the State President. Provision for the payment of the retention money has now been made for 1968-’69. The total cost of the construction of the runways and related facilities at the airport, including the retention money of R20,000, amounts to R988,967.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N,—“Bantu Administration and Development, R2,750,000”.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

This is a globular sum. It is simply stated that it is for the development of the Bantu areas. I should like to ask the Minister to give us details of this globular sum.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

In the district of Bosbok-rand there is a forest reserve, namely released area No. 33, which is to be taken over by the Trust. It has been decided through negotiation that the land should be transferred to the Trust. The area comprises 26,425.5 morgen. Since this is State-owned land, no payment will be made for the land in terms of Act No. 18 of 1936, the Bantu Trust and Land Act, but seeing that we are dealing here with a transaction which is related to the development of the Bantu areas, it is deemed necessary for the transfer of the forest reserves and improvements to be brought into account in the financial statements of the S.A. Bantu Trust. The payment of compensation to the Department of Forestry will be made on the accepted basis of costs incurred in respect of development and maintenance, less income received. In actual fact these are merely book entries.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

On a point of explanation, Sir, is the whole of this amount of R2.75 million in respect of this Bosbokrand scheme?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote Q,—“Bantu Education, R50”.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

The only reference here is to a Zulu training school at Amanzimtoti. Would the Deputy Minister kindly indicate the precise location and purpose of this school? This seems to be a new Vote and I do not know whether it is related to the Adams Mission School. But wherever it may be, what is the purpose of this so-called training school, and what is anticipated to be the final cost of this service?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

This is an existing training school and I think the hon. member for South Coast will be better informed than I about the actual location of the school, seeing that it is in his constituency. I merely know it as the Amanzimtoti Zulu Training School. This is the information that has been furnished to me. But it is not a new school under construction, because it is a school where the condition of the electric wiring is such that it cannot carry the present voltage, and as a result interruptions are being experienced. What is more, it has happened on occasion that live wires were found on the ground, which can have very serious consequences. The reticulation network was examined by an engineer of the Durban Municipality and the Department was informed that if major repairs—not construction work, but repairs—were not carried out, the power supply would be cut off. According to a report of the Chief Superintendent of Works, Electrical, it will not be economical merely to effect repairs, and he recommends that the network and underground distribution be replaced. As a result of an alteration to the building plans in respect of the Durban Umlazi Park Training and Technical High School, it will be possible to effect a saving of R23,000, and consequently no additional funds will be required.

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

I want to try to find out which school this is. The hon. the Deputy Minister has now started another train of thought because he cannot tell us which school this is. We know the Adams Mission College, which trains teachers and the like, but if he says that this school interfers with the service from the Durban Municipality then I would say abviously it is not Adams Mission College, but possibly a school somewhere in the region of Isipingo. He says the pipe is going through there. If there is a pipe, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that pipe is going to supply African Explosives at Umbogintwini, which happens to fall within the area of Amanzimtoti. There must obviously be a school there to cater for the children of the employees, because there is a big staff and it is a big area, and all that area is populated by Natives. It is at the southern end of Umlazi. I want to know which school this is because I think it is quite important.

While I am up I want to refer to the manner of presenting these items. The hon. member for South Coast asked what the final cost would be. At the bottom it says that the estimated cost of this service is R62,000. But all of a sudden in these Estimates we have a change in the presentation. If you go back to page 26, you get an estimate of total cost, and the expenditure during the year. But all of a sudden in these latter ones—and I frankly do not understand why—we just get original Estimates and revised Estimates. For what period is that? Is it for the total period? Because if one assumes that, why then put at the bottom that the estimated cost is R62,000? This is confusing. In the previous item, dealing with the funds for national housing, they put in what they estimated it would take in the beginning, and that was obviously the estimate for the year. Now suddenly we have estimated total costs at the bottom of the column, and no original estimate. Why did they not put the R62,000 there, and why can we not be told how much money is going to be spent during the course of this financial year? I take it R15,050 will be spent. But first of all I want to know which school this is and where it is, and what it is going to be. What is it going to teach the Zulus? We know what a Zulu is and we know that you want to train Zulus, but what do you want to train them as?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

The hon. member asks what amount is going to be spent in the course of this year. This I already indicated when I gave the first explanation, i.e. that the amount of R15,000 was going to be spent in this year. And here the hon. member has the estimated cost of R62,000 before him, and I told him about the saving that was going to be effected and how the saving was going to be effected. I must admit that I have not yet visited this school, but according to my information it is a training school at Amanzimtoti. I would expect the hon. member to know where it is.

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

It may just be a matter of nomenclature, but what is a Zulu training school? I have never heard of one before. What happens in a Zulu training school, and under what statute was it erected? We have heard of Zulu schools and there are Zulu university colleges, but as far as I am aware there are no university technical colleges. What is a Zulu training college? The Deputy Minister does not know where it is, except that it is somewhere in Amanzimtoti, and he cannot say what sort of school it is. What do they train Zulus for there?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

Let me now tell the hon. member for Durban (North) that Amanzimtoti is a place in Durban South. He wants to know what a Zulu training school is. It is a place where one trains Zulu teachers, just as one would train Xhosas in a Xhosa training school, and Whites, both Afrikaans-and English-speaking, in a White training school. I do not know whether I can give the hon. member any more information.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

In this first reply the Deputy Minister gave the name of the school, which I did not catch. Is it the Amanzimtoti Training School? If he could give us the name of that college, perhaps we would understand the position better.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

I spoke so loudly that the hon. member must have heard me say it is the Amanzimtoti Zulu Training School.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

I would like to try to bring the matter back to a better basis. We are trying to find out for what school the money is being voted.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Amanzimtoti.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

But there is no Zulu training school at Amanzimtoti. You may have a Zulu training school somewhere along the river called the Amanzimtoti—that is not its name, but that is how it is pronounced—but there is no Zulu training school at Amanzimtoti. So it probably means that the school is somewhere in the valley of the Amanzimtata River, and it is a Zulu training school. If that is in fact the official name of that school, it is a very bad name, and I never heard of its being attached to any school. Is this the school which used to be called Adams Mission? That is all I am trying to find out. If it is that school, then we understand. I think it is asking too much of us to ask us to vote money, R62,000, for a school when the Deputy Minister does not even know its location, never mind what the money is to be spent for. I tell him that there is no such school.

An HON. MEMBER:

Amanzimtoti is the name of the school.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

No, that is not the name of the school, and it does not claim here that the name of the school is Amanzimtoti. It claims that the name of this school is “Zulu Training School”. Amanzimtoti was merely put in to indicate the locality, nothing more or less. Amanzimtoti is the name of a big town and there is no Zulu training school there. If this school has a previous history we want to know what it was previously known as and where it is located.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

I can give the hon. member the assurance that it is the school referred to by him. It is the Adams Mission School.

Mr. A. HOPEWELL:

I do not know why the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development was so hesitant and so awkward in giving us the answer. Either he was trifling with the committee or he did not know. Actually there was a school originally known as Adams Mission, and when the school was taken over by the Government Adams Mission objected to that name being used. The tradition of the Adams Mission over many years was such that they did not support the Government’s policy and they made a special request that the school should not be named “Adams Mission School”. The Government then decided in due course to rename this school which for ever 100 years had been known as Adams Mission School, and because the American Board Mission refused to allow the name of Adams Mission to be used, the Government re-named the school “Amanzimtoti Training School”. The Government bought the school from the Adams Trust. I was a member of the board that did the negotiating. This school has now been named Adams Training School but it is a training school for teachers and it is not situated at Amanzimtoti; it is situated at Um-bumbulu.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

We have the extraordinary phenomenon here that one hon. member on that side says that such a school does not exist and that another hon. member comes forward with an explanation as to why the school is now called “Amanzimtoti Training School” and not by its previous name. But, Mr. Chairman, I have not come here to argue about the name of the school and whether objections have been made by the previous missionary society. As a matter of fact, I have come here to ask the committee for money to repair the electric wiring, which is in a dangerous state.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimate of the Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Accounts [R.P. 2-68], reported without amendment.

Estimate adopted.

The Minister of Finance brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimate adopted by the House.

ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION BILL

Bill read a First, Second and Third Time.

SOUTH AFRICAN INDIAN COUNCIL BILL

Report Stage taken without debate.

(Third Reading)

The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.
Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Sir, we now come to the Third Reading of this Bill. With this Bill now before us, waiting to be passed into law, I think we should review the position as set out in this Bill with the background as it has been explained to us here by the hon. the Minister. Sir, as we indicated during the earlier stages of this Bill, we on this side of the House are prepared to support it. We are prepared to vote for the Third Reading, but that is not to say that we accept it as a suitable measure to give to the Indian people the facilities, in regard to the council, which have been set out in speeches from the Government side in the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage. We simply accept that this Bill is giving the Indian people something which possibly they have not got at the present time. They have an advisory council at the moment and they will have a statutory council when this Bill is passed into law. Apart from that, there is no difference. I think the hon. the Minister should accept that this Bill represents a very small step forward, but small as it is, it is a step forward and that is why we give it our approval. We had contemplated putting the case that there was no substance in this measure; that this was an empty gesture so far as the Indian people were concerned; that it was an empty gesture which could not have our support; that we did not feel that Parliament should deal with trifling matters of this kind such as is contemplated in this Bill; that this was not a matter to take up the time and attention of Parliament and that we should have rejected it. However, on second thoughts and after further consideration we felt that we should go with the Government in regard to this small step forward.

Sir, we recently had the report of the commission of inquiry into improper political interference. That report dealt not only with the Coloured vote; it dealt specifically with the question of the Indians and of the council which was then proposed. This legislation has now come after that report has been Tabled and after we have had a chance to study it. The evidence that was given by Indians before that commission in respect of this proposed council, with which this Bill deals, is evidence which is germane to the consideration of this Bill. Sir, the Indians who appeared as witnesses before the commission stated categorically that they did not come willingly of their own volition. They were not coerced, but they were invited to come and give evidence. They say that they were selected as individuals by the officials of the Department. Although, like all other sections of the community—Coloureds, Whites and Indians—they had been invited to come and make their representations and give evidence before the commission, they in fact did not do so and had no intention of doing so. They gave their reasons, which I do not want to traverse row. But they were asked and invited as individuals to come and give evidence and they came as individuals, with the result that so far as the evidence dealing with this c ouncil is concerned, the Indian witnesses said that they were speaking for themselves, with one exception. There was a group of Indians from the Transvaal who submitted a short memorandum. But there was a witness, an attorney, from Durban, called Poovalingam, who is well-known to me, a very able legal practitioner as far as I know, who explained his position before the commission as an individual. Sir, we have not been able to get a consensus of opinion from amongst the Indian people, but this man in dealing with the question of this proposed council, was asked the following question at page 257—

If the Indian Advisory Council is built up, do you think that can act as a contact between the Government and the Indian community as far as their grievances and difficulties are concerned? Would that offer sufficient contact?

His answer was—

No. You see, developments took an unfortunate turn. The S.A. Indian Council is an appointed body. Some of its members are people who are active in the life of the community and as such have the confidence of that community. But, and I am sorry to say this, many of them are just nonentities —that is, people who play no part in the life of the community.

Sir, hon. members may find it extremely enlightening to read the evidence of this particular witness. I would like to quote a little further from page 260 where this question is put to him—

Is the reason for that the fact that members of this council are nominated by the Government and not elected by the people themselves?

His reply was—

That is one of the reasons. A second reason is that the council has purely advisory functions. Apart from that it has no power at all.

That is our feeling on this side of the House. As far as I know this witness had not seen this Bill. He was dealing with proposals that were put to him by members of the commission but he forecast most accurately just how far the Bill would go. The present council has advisory functions. There is an advisory council at the moment, appointed by the Minister. It is now to become a statutory council and it is still to have only advisory functions. It has no power. The hon. the Minister said that in due course he would use the advice of the council for the purpose of finding out what the next step was to be; he was to use the advice of the statutory council now to be appointed. For whatever the reason may be, he does not want to take the advice of the purely appointed advisory council that he has at the present time; he wants a statutory council to advise him. Sir, the debate that we had the other day in this House is going throughout the length and breadth of the four corners of the Republic of South Africa because Government speakers in this House in that debate told the non-Europeans of a particular class, “We had our tongue in our cheeks when we were making promises to you in our official capacities in the past; we were not telling you the complete truth and nothing but the truth”. Sir, I ask hon. Ministers on that side of the House: What is going to be the value placed by the Indians on assurances that they are likely to get in respect of their future as a result of the passing of this Bill?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

You are giving a very biased view of the matter.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Sir, it may be a sore point. It is a sore point with me as a white man, never mind what it may be to people of another colour. It is a very sore point with me because I believe that the white Government of South Africa, long before the time of Union, was based in all four provinces on the belief that you must not break your word to a non-White. When the official word of the Government is given to the non-Whites then, cost what it may, the word of the white man must be maintained. During the debate a few days ago in this House I heard for the first time in my life the hon. the Minister stand up and say, “We were making those assurances, but that was not the position.”

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! I do not think that has anything to do with the third reading of this Bill.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

With due respect, Sir, it has this to do with it: Assurances are being given by that side now during this debate. This Bill now before us gives effect to what has been promised to the Indians. But I ask: What reliance can they place on that? That is my point. What reliance can they place on it? We on this side view this little measure with misgivings. This tiny little apparent step forward, where does it lead to? During the second-reading debate I asked the Minister this very question. I wanted to know from him where will this road end? He said we would have to wait and see; we would have to wait and find out later on. He was not prepared to say where it would go. We had this other debate. That debate did not concern Coloured people only. It turned out that way, but it concerned Indian affairs as much as it concerned Coloured affairs. The commission was appointed to deal with both matters. It so happened that the debate dealt mainly with Coloured affairs, but in so far as the principles of this Bill before us are concerned, they were dealt with by the commission dealing with the question of improper political interference. It dealt with Indian affairs as much as with Coloured affairs, Bearing in mind all I have said, I again ask the hon. the Minister: Where does this lead us? Where does it take the Indian people? How far does it go? Are we taking this tiny step forward with no indication at all from the Government as to where it is going concerning Indian affairs? Is this step a beginning and an end in itself, and we will go no further? If so, we are wasting our time and breath here. Again I say that we on this side of the House are prepared to support this Bill as being but a tiny step forward, in the belief that it will lead to something better. I hope the Minister will have the courage to get up and tell us what his plans are and where this measure is leading us to. I ask this question, knowing that we are all subject to the failure of human beings, that we are limited by human endeavour, and the fact that we cannot always achieve what we aim at. Will the Minister tell us what he is aiming at? What future and what destiny does he see regarding these people who have been entrusted to his care? What is to happen to them under his control as Minister? He is in control of their destiny.

*Dr. J. C. OTTO:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast acted here as a champion for the Indian community. I said during my second-reading speech that the hon. the Opposition in actual fact wanted to compel the Government to move faster than the Indians themselves wanted to move. [Interjections.] The existing Indian Council is satisfied with what is being done, and this has been confirmed again and again in the newspapers. If that hon. member who has so much to say would read the newspapers, he would see that the existing Indian Council has said repeatedly that they approve of the steps being taken by the Government. In this connection I want to quote what appeared in The Cape Argus of 22nd February, 1968, under the heading, “Indian Council Accepted”. The first paragraph reads—

The present South African Indian Council has accepted unanimously proposed legislation to set up the statutory council nominated by the Minister of Indian Affairs.

Now I want to put this question to hon. members on the other side. Why do they plead for more than is requested by the existing Indian Council a body which is surely more representative of the Indians than those hon. members? Why are those hon. members at this moment pleading for greater representation or for more rights than the council itself requests? The hon. member spoke about “a small step forward” and “an empty gesture”, and he suggested that Parliament was occupying itself with “trifling matters”. What does he achieve by this?

We on this side are pleased with the support coming from the side of the Indian Council in this matter. Surely this council is more representative of the Indian community than hon. members on the other side, who become so emotional in regard to this matter.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down read a report from The Cape Argus saying that the South African Indian Council supported this Bill now before us.

Dr. J. C. OTTO:

The report said they accepted this measure.

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

Apparently we read different newspapers, because I have a newspaper report before me which reads as follows—

The S.A.I.C., which met in Cape Town this week, decided to submit to the Government a report and recommendations drawn up by a special committee which was instructed to investigate the conversion of the present Advisory Council into an elected statutory body.
HON. MEMBERS:

What paper are you quoting?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

This is The Cape Argus of the 16th February.

An HON. MEMBER:

Which year?

Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER:

I have another report here which shows that we read different newspapers. This report appeared in a Natal newspaper which I believe knows a little more about the Indians than the local newspapers. This report runs entirely contrary to the claims made by the hon. member who just sat down. This report states amongst other things that—

Some Indian leaders hope the Government will change its mind on this aspect … i.e. this particular Bill— … before the second reading or announce the steps it intends taking towards democratic elections.

The hon. member for South Coast drove this very point home two or three minutes ago. These are some of the recommendations made by the S.A.I.C. to the hon. the Minister in connection with this particular Bill, as reported in the said newspaper—

A statutory council to be called the South African Indian Assembly with 30 members —18 elected and 12 nominated. The vote for

all Indian men and women over 21 in Indian Council elections … Representation to be on a provincial basis.

The report goes on to state the number of members for each province. I think this report is the answer to the claims made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

I want to turn to something slightly different. This Bill will establish a nominated Indian Council which will be very much the same body as that which we have been dealing with for the past two or three years. Knowing some of the members of this particular council, and having received certain information, I venture to say that the council has been very frustrated over the past two or three years.

When the Minister replied to the second-reading debate he said that the move towards an elected body would, of course, depend on how soon group areas were finalized, and so on. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity that group areas will never be finalized in the Republic of South Africa. We have through the years had as many as 200 amendments to the original Group Areas Act. If our Indians have to wait for the finalization of group areas before the elected body can materialize, then I want to suggest that there will in fact never be an elected body. As the numbers of the various South African race groups grow, no particular group area will be large enough to contain all the members of the race group now confined to that area. I predict that group areas will continue to change from year to year, the areas will be made bigger or smaller at the whim of the Government, and consequently a finalization of group areas will never be reached. If that is so, and the Minister is waiting for the finalization to take place, then it must follow that the Indian Council will never become an elected body.

The function of this Indian Council will be to give advice to the Minister. This is all very well. But what if the Minister does not take the advice of the council? I am fascinated to know what the Minister’s attitude will be if the Indian Council were to say to him at their next meeting, “We think you should re-institute school feeding in Natal. Last year you took school feeding away from 85,000 children in Natal. We. as the Indian Council, ask the hon. the Minister now to re-introduce school feeding in Natal”. I am very intrigued to know what the Minister’s reaction will be. Will he accept advice from the Indian Council in matters relating to the Group Areas Act? Will he accept their advice if they complain about particular group areas and say, “We do not want them here, we think they should be there”, or in regard to compensation under the Group Areas Act? In other words, the whole essence of this council will depend upon the ear and the attention the Minister in charge of the Department gives to the Indian Council. Will he listen to their difficulties? The essence of this was described, as the hon. member for South Coast said, in the report discussed during the debate on improper interference. I want to quote from the report with the view in mind that I believe the Minister cannot afford to wait for the finalization of group areas before turning this into an elected body, and that he must move in that direction a good deal faster than he intended to do. One of the witnesses in this report said this of the Indian Council:

I am afraid that the Indian Council does not have a great deal of influence in the community. That may not have been the position had that body been an elected body.

This is the crux of the matter. We have started on the road towards the Indian Council; we have made it a statutory body. But it is of no earthly good whatsoever, unless the Minister moves now to make it an elected body, and not when group areas are nearer to finalization. In that same report one of the witnesses had this to say:

The idea of setting up such a council may have a certain attraction for a substantial section of the Indian community, because of the temptations it offers and the feeling of having political power.

He was talking about this particular council which we are now setting up.

If, however, it is shown that that power is not real, frustration will set in and do much more harm than good.

What the witness was saying was that while this particular body stays an appointed body, as we have done by this Bill contrary to the wishes of the Indian community, this council will lack teeth, will become frustrated, will get nowhere and in the long run will probably do us more harm than good. I hope this council becomes an elected body soon. I hope that the Government will have the courage of its convictions to press on on the road it has set itself.

*Mr. P. H. TORLAGE:

Mr. Speaker, at the second reading of this Bill I stood up and said that I had listened with admiration to the speeches of hon. members on the other side, on account of the way in which they had acted here. However, I am amazed and shocked to find this afternoon that the Opposition can turn such a somersault within a few days as it is now doing. And to go even further than this, the hon. member for Port Natal, a light-weight in the United Party, declared with arms held high that group areas will never be finalized in South Africa. What must one do with people of this kind, people who show no interest in the future, and who do not realize that we are acting in a positive way and are going somewhere? In spite of all that is being done, they remain blind and prefer to remain blind. If the Indian Council comes to the Minister—this is in reply to an argument put forward by the hon. member for Port Natal —and requests the reintroduction of free meals at school, they will be brought to reflect on where the free school feeding comes from. The council will be made to realize that money is required for it, and also that the white man will not be able to provide all the facilities for all the non-Whites in South Africa for ever. The council will have to learn and to realize that the time has come for the Indian, like the other population groups, to contribute his fair share towards all these facilities. For this reason there will be very close consultations between the hon. the Minister and the Indian Council, and this will contribute towards their education.

The hon. member for Port Natal also asked whether the Minister would accept the advice of the Indian Council in connection with group areas. Is the hon. member not aware of the existence of a Group Areas Board after all these years? Does the hon. member not know that this Group Areas Board demarcates group areas for all population groups, excepting the Bantu, and makes recommendations in this regard to the Minister? Every population group has the right to appear before the Group Areas Board. The hon. member now wants to make out that this function will be transferred to the Indian Council. However, the Group Areas Board will continue to deal with this aspect in future. [Interjection.] The hon. member also mentioned Isipingo Beach, but here he is making a mistake. At Isipingo the Government proved to the country and particularly to the Indian that he also has a place in the sun as far as the coastline of South Africa is concerned. This was proved by the Government at Isipingo Beach, and the United Party ought not to discuss it. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The hon. member for South Coast this afternoon asked with much ado and great seriousness where the road leads on which the Government has placed the Indian. He wanted to know what the end of this road would be. When the United Party was in power, we knew the end of their road. We knew in 1946 where the United Party was leading South Africa. We knew then what they were going to do with the Indian, but also what they were going to do with white South Africa. Twenty-two years ago the Opposition, when they were still sitting on the Government side, adopted Act No. 28, in terms of which the Indians obtained the right to vote. I maintain to-day that that would have been the end of that road. The Whites and the Indians of South Africa are safe in the hands of this Government, because we are not saying to-day what the end of the road will be, but are systematically taking forward each of the population groups, as is being done with the Indians at present. I want to appeal to hon. members on the other side that when we are discussing matters of colour, we should avoid causing matters to ripen prematurely. This is what the Opposition did in 1946, but this Government will not be guilty of doing the same thing. This Government will move forward step by step. We do not want to go all the way to-day. That is not necessary, Mr. Speaker. But when we proceed on our way into the future step by step, you may be sure of one thing: White South Africa will be safe, and the Indians of South Africa will also have parallel development alongside the white man in South Africa.

The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply at once to the hon. member for South Coast, who put a few questions to me. I think in essence his case amounted to this: This present council, the establishment of which is envisaged by this Bill, is purely an advisory body. It is rue that it is a statutory body, but it differs very little from the existing South African Indian Council. He also wanted to know of what value assurances can be in view of the debates which have taken place in the last few days on the report of the Coloured commission. My case for this bill rests principally on the request of the Indian Council itself.

Mr. D. E. MITCHELL:

Is that the present one?

The MINISTER:

Yes. I think I mentioned in my second-reading speech that my predecessor in 1965, when he was considering the further steps in the evolution of an Indian council, had referred the whole matter to the South African Indian Council for them to go into this whole question of the development of the present South African Indian Council into an elected body. That was their term of reference. They were to consider the conversion of the existing Indian Council into a statutory, elected body. They spent some time on this investigation. Last year they handed in their report to me. I have the report here. Amongst other things they recommended that the present nominated, advisory South African Indian Council be elevated to statutory status, as from the date by which the contemplated Act is assented to by the State President and that they remain in office until the date on which the first elected council is constituted. The State President shall decide upon the date when such a council is to be constituted. In other words, they recommended that the existing council in the meantime be converted into a statutory body, and the question of an elected council will come at some future date. That is what their recommendation was. That is all that I have endeavoured to carry out, and the Bill now under discussion is the result.

Now I think the reason why my predecessor asked for this investigation by the existing South African Indian Council was that the late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, had given ome attention himself to this question of the evolution of this Indian Council. I think I must quote just shortly from a speech which the hon. the Prime Minister made in this House on the 7th April, 1965, when his Vote was under discussion. The whole issue of the Coloureds and Coloured representation, which included Indians, had been raised. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister said, and I am quoting from Hansard (1965, column 4180):

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition further referred to the Coloureds in the Cape Province. In this regard there are two problems, one of which was stated yesterday by the hon. member for Houghton, and which was just touched on in passing by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and with which I shall deal later. The other is the point made here by the Leader of the Opposition that our policy in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians is not quite clear. He quoted something from a report in The Cape Argus in regard to a speech I made; I must of course deny that I put it in the way in which the report put it. I did not see that report in me newspaper, but I must say that where he quoted me as having said that the Indians would be treated just like the Bantu and the Coloureds in their own homelands, it is obvious that I could never have said that because it is not in accordance with my views. I have always consistently spoken of the Bantu reserves, their areas, as their homelands; but in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians I have never spoken otherwise than of their own residential areas.

That was confirmed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs a few days ago.

It is true that as far as the Coloureds are concerned they have certain reserves where only Coloureds live, but it is equally clear, and we have often said so, that those Coloured reserves cannot be homelands. It is not a potential state for the Coloured community, and for the Indians there is nothing of that kind either. When certain persons try to indicate how certain areas, for example, in Northern Natal, should be set aside as an Indian state, we always opposed it and said that was not our policy. What we say in fact is that there should be separate residential areas, separate, clear, urban residential areas, for the Indians and Coloureds, although the existing Coloured reserves may be retained and can be developed. Therefore I never put the problem of the Coloureds and the Indians on an equal footing with that of the Bantu, because I have always admitted that they were two separate problems which require separate solutions. But what I did in fact say in respect of the Indians was that in the same way that we want to develop their own residential areas for the Coloureds, and in the same way that within their own circles we want to make it possible for them to develop their own potential, without a ceiling …

That is the point I want to emphasize. That answers the question I think which the hon. member for South Coast put to me. There is no ceiling. They will develop through these bodies, in this instance the South African Indian Council. I do not think I can take the matter any further than I did in my Second-Reading speech, namely that this is an interim step. I give the assurance, and I think my assurance and the assurance of the Government is worth something, that this is a step in the evolutionary process, and in due course, when we have all the preparatory work finished, I will come back to this House with a Bill to give effect to the proposition that there should be at least in part an elected council.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.