Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill, Parliament is requested to vote additional funds for the services of the Republic for the financial year ending 31 March 1975. In the Appropriation Act of 1974 a total amount of R5 538 574 000 was voted. A further R142 591 897 is now requested namely R89 569 891 on Revenue Account, R49 009 356 on Loan Account and R4 012 650 on the South West Africa Account. The additional amount represents an increase of approximately 2,5% on the amount voted in the Appropriation Act of 1974.

Percentage-wise the increase is not excessive and can, in the main, be attributed to the general rise in costs. I may also point out that total savings, at this stage estimated to be in the vicinity of R70 million, are reflected on the votes of some departments. The total expenditure for 1974-’75 will, therefore, not increase by the additional amount now requested.

Detailed explanations of the additional amounts required will, as is usual, be furnished by the Ministers concerned. At this stage it would be appropriate to limit myself to a few general remarks and explanations regarding the increases shown under the various accounts.

South West Africa Account

The individual Votes of the South West Africa Account, with the exception of that of Bantu Administration and Development, do not require comment. The amount of R1,9 million required by Bantu Administration and Development is in respect of health services within the native areas, and increased payments to the governments of the Native Areas.

Loan Account

As far as the Loan Account is concerned, R14,5 million is required on Loan Vote A, Miscellaneous Loans and Services. Of this amount R10 million will be transferred to the Railway and Harbour Fund to defray increased costs of capital works already approved by this House. An additional R4 million is required by the Local Loans Fund.

On Loan Vote B, Public Works, R14 million is required mainly in respect of additions, alterations and improvement of Defence bases. Mainly as a result of the increased wages payable to labourers and the rise in the prices of equipment and rations, the Department of Forestry requires an additional R1 million. The R18 million required on Vote Bantu Administration and Development is in respect of an increased grant-in-aid to the South African Bantu Trust Fund.

*Revenue Account

The most important factor which has given rise to the additional amount requested on Revenue Account is the salary increases which have been granted to public servants and officials in the service of various statutory boards, universities, schools and institutions which receive a subsidy from the State. When the Appropriation Act of 1974 was introduced, the full particulars of these increases were not yet known, with the result that the provision for salaries, wages, etc., now has to be supplemented. The additional amount required for this, which includes the subsidies to universities and other bodies, is approximately R15,l million. The increased salaries and the increased pension contributions these entailed have made it necessary for the State’s contribution to the various pension funds to be increased, and for this purpose an amount of R5,8 million is required under the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote.

As in the case of other bodies, the salary increases have also had a consequential effect on the salary provision for the staff of the provinces, including educational staff, and this is the main reason for the amount of almost R25 million which will be payable to the provinces as an additional subsidy.

The general rise in the prices of food and other supplies has meant that departments which have to purchase a considerable amount of rations and supplies have to request more funds as well. Accordingly, additional amounts in respect of these items of expenditure are requested by the Departments of Defence (R7 million), Health: Hospitals and Institutions (R1 million) and Prisons (R2,l million).

Other important factors which have caused additional provision to be requested on Revenue Account are, inter alia, the monetary agreements with the Governments of Lesotho and Swaziland (R5 million on the Treasury Vote); the pension and salary increases in Bantu areas, for which R1,7 million has been included under the Bantu Administration and Development Vote; the loss on operation of Railway non-White passenger services to and from non-White townships (R0,58 million) and the increased costs involved in the construction and maintenance of national roads in and around the Transkei (R1,1 million) under the Transport Vote; and the rise in the prices of steel and other building requirements, as well as an increase in municipal rates, which have forced the Department of Public Works to ask, inter alia, for an additional R3,9 million. An amount of R1.2 million has been included under the Mining Vote for the State’s contribution to the pension increases under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act. The Department of Health requests an additional amount of R1,4 million for medical poor relief, particularly in respect of family planning services. The final Vote on Revenue Account to which I should like to refer is that of Industries. Under this Vote an additional R4,5 million is included as a contribution to the National Supplies Procurement Fund, and R1 250 million for financial assistance to the local film industry.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the House that the additional expenditure for which funds are being requested is essential and in the national interest.

Mr. Speaker, in this Additional Appropriation Bill we are being asked to approve additional expenditure amounting to 2% of the expenditure already approved on Revenue Account; of additional expenditure of 4% of that already approved on Loan Account, and of additional expenditure of 4,7% of that already approved for South West Africa. Sir, put like that, it does not sound a very great deal of additional expenditure, but when you look at it in absolute terms you find that it amounts to R142 million, which is a very big sum of money. We on this side of the House in previous debates during this session, and particularly in the Part Appropriation debate, have stressed the fact that if the Government is going to be successful in its fight against inflation, then one of the things that it has got to do is carefully to prune and control Government expenditure. Unless this happens, it will not be successful in containing inflation. For that reason, Sir, while we will support this Bill at Second Reading, the items in it, which will be dealt with in the Committee Stage, will be gone through by us with a fine toothcomb, and we will query any items which we regard as being extravagant.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is the practice not to discuss matters of policy and principle in discussing Additional Estimates unless a new item is contained in the Estimates. Sir, there is one new matter here and that is the item in Vote 5, Subhead H, “Amounts payable to the Governments of Lesotho and Swaziland in terms of Monetary Agreements”. The hon. the Minister will, I hope deal with this in greater detail in the Committee Stage. The concept which lies behind monetary agreements in Southern Africa, is, I believe, an important one, not only because these particular States, Lesotho and Swaziland, have always been particularly close to us and have formed monetary units with us in the past, but because this type of activity is one which should be extended beyond these two territories and beyond the third territory to which this has normally applied.

Sir, what is significant is that Lesotho and Swaziland are mentioned as being parties to these monetary agreements, but Botswana is not mentioned under this Subhead. I think it is significant that that is so, and I think we require some explanation as to what the present relationship is between the Republic and Botswana, what developments are due to take place and what the situation is in respect of the future monetary relationship between the Republic and Botswana, particularly in view of Press reports which have appeared in respect of currency situations, the position with regard to exchange control and matters of that sort. Sir, with respect to the hon. the Minister, I believe that there are many of us in the House who would like to hear something more with regard to this particular matter which, after all, is a new item in the Estimates. I feel therefore that the principle should be discussed at Second Reading. Perhaps when one has heard from the hon. the Minister, one will be able to deal with the principle in greater detail thereafter. But, Sir, there are some other matters which I believe require attention in order to deal with the principle of increased expenditure and with the question as to whether that increased expenditure is justified.

Sir, some of these items are akin to this matter which is more of an international nature. In Loan Vote A, at page 36 of the Estimates, we have a reference to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the increased subscription which is payable by us. Under Vote 13, Subhead H, provision is also made for an increase of R277 000 to the United Nations. Then we also have an increased amount in respect of “Assistance to and co-operation with foreign countries” under Subhead G of that Vote. Sir, all these specific items relate to the relationship between the Republic and outside countries and outside agencies. These are matters which I think are of particular importance at this moment of time. Let us take the United Nations, for example. South Africa finds itself, to put it conservatively, in a precarious position in the United Nations at the present moment, and yet we are being asked to vote an additional amount of R277 000 without any explanation at this stage from the hon. the Minister as to why that amount should be expended.

Are you against it?

If I may reply to that interjection, I am certainly against expending money on membership of any organization unless I know that I am going to be a part of it and that I am going to be a member of it.

What about the Bantustans? [Interjections.]

I think our future in the United Nations is of some consequence, like the money that the hon. member for Simonstown took from me and has kept in the United Party, as he correctly says … [Interjections.]

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

Sir, may I ask, on a point of order, if there is any insinuation contained in what the hon. gentleman has just said?

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville may proceed.

If I may reply to that, Sir, I want to say that if the United Party will give back to me the money that I have given to it …

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

He does not know what the Bill is about.

Sir, may I go on with the important matters which are before us, not the hon. member for Simonstown …

But you raised it.

I believe, Sir, that we are entitled to know, despite the noise that goes on around here, why there should be this increased expenditure in respect of the United Nations, and we are entitled to know it at this moment of time. Then, Sir, we come to the item “Assistance to and co-operation with foreign countries”. This is under Vote 13 which, I again believe, is a tremendously important matter to South Africa. But what is significant is that the increased amount is in the present circumstances in fact extremely small, and I would imagine that with what has transpired at the present moment in regard to development and relationships between South Africa and other States, we would have made an effort in this regard to render greater assistance to other States.

Then there is another matter of this nature which one would like to raise. It appears to me again to be a matter of principle, and that is on page 46.

You are great on principles. [Interjections.]

Sir, on page 46, when we come to Loan Vote P, there is again a new matter whereof the principle should be debated, i.e. that there are to be loans to two private companies. Sir, these are private companies. I do not know who they are or what they are, but the principle of loans being granted to private companies is one that seems to require more than just an explanation, because I think we are entitled to know what in fact is the principle which lies behind the State giving assistance to two private companies in this context.

These are the matters which at this stage I would like to raise.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia has referred to the need to look critically at Government expenditure. It is a point he also raised in the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill and I tried to answer him then by saying that the Government was just as concerned to check on every item and to scrutinize every item of expenditure as anybody else could be. Here we have the items which comprise the Additional Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year which is about to end at the end of this month, and the hon. member will clearly have an opportunity to raise individual items, as he himself mentioned. So I think I ought to leave this particular matter there. I would merely like to refer again to what I said in my short speech a moment ago, that when you take the savings off the total the amount does not seem to be excessive at all—something over R70 million—and in these days of really exceptional cost escalation the hon. member might possibly agree with me.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to what is a tripartite currency agreement, the agreement in regard to the monetary union between South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. He referred to the fact that Botswana was not included. Now, the South African Government negotiated with these three ex-High Commission Territories, as they used to be called, in order to formalize the monetary union agreement which had existed on a less formal basis since 1910. When these negotiations were well on the way Botswana told us that she no longer wished to remain a member of the rand currency area and the monetary union. That had nothing to do with us; that was entirely Botswana’s suggestion, in fact its decision, and so we continued to negotiate with Lesotho and with Swaziland and we came to an agreement last year with those two countries. Perhaps I may just as well mention it now that the agreement relates to compensation—that is one of the main points of it—which these two countries sought from South Africa for the fact that South African rand notes and coins are used in Lesotho and in Swaziland. It was argued that there were financial advantages accruing to South Africa as a result. This is nothing new. It is similar to the sort of thing we have had in other parts of the world. There was this negotiation and it was brought to a satisfactory conclusion last year. Under this South Africa agreed to pay compensation according to a formula, compensation for the fact that notes and coins minted and issued from South Africa were being used in those countries who argued that South Africa had certain advantages accruing as a result. This is the essence of that agreement although there are a few other details. As far as that is concerned, I might mention to the hon. member that Swaziland also informed South Africa that as from September last year they would issue their own notes and coins. As a result, Swaziland asked that the rand notes and coins which would then become redundant in Swaziland, as her own currency circulated there, should be withdrawn, but that Swaziland should receive some compensation for the fact that that money would now be invested in South Africa—in other words with the Reserve Bank. The South African notes and coins would come back and be, as it were, invested with the Reserve Bank and it was agreed that a certain interest would be paid to Swaziland quarterly on that investment. This, again, is something which is in accordance with the usual practice.

That is really the substance of the two agreements. I would like to come back to Botswana’s decision to withdraw from the monetary union in which she had been engaged with us since 1910. This was entirely her own decision. Apparently she now wants to go completely on her own and have her own currency and her own monetary management in all respects. We are negotiating with Botswana on the details of that decision, and I have no doubt that this matter will be disposed of in due course to the satisfaction of both parties. That is, in a few words, the situation as far as that is concerned.

I would now like to refer to Vote A. The amount for which we seek approval there is to enable South Africa to take up additional shares in the World Bank, in the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development. These shares became available earlier, in fact in 1970, but we did not regard it as particularly necessary to take the shares up at that time. We would now in fact like to avail ourselves of the shares available to us and as a result we are asking for this money to be voted. It is in fact 1/10th of the value of the shares as determined—we require to put down l/10th of the purchase price. At this juncture we believe that it is important that we increase our share of the stock of the World Bank.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? What is the reason for the change of policy between first deciding not to take up the shares and then deciding to take it up? What is the significance of this change in policy?

Things get more competitive in many walks of life and, indeed, also in the International Monetary Fund as the hon. member knows. We no longer have our seat with Australia. This being so we must obviously think of ways and means of handling this situation. This is one way of strengthening our position in those two world bodies. I do not want to go into too much detail. But that is in fact what lies behind the decision now to regard this as a practical matter.

With regard to the hon. member for Yeoville’s reference to other Votes I would like to say that I am sure that my hon. colleague will handle the matter as far as Vote 13, Foreign Affairs, is concerned. As far as Vote B, Public Works—if I have heard the hon. member correctly—is concerned I would like to say that, in terms of the usual practice, I also leave that specific issue to my colleague concerned with this matter.

*I do not think there is anything further I want to raise at this stage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Revenue Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister”:

Mr. Chairman, in respect of subhead D—Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications—an additional amount of R30 000 has to be voted which is more than double the original estimate. Can the hon. the Prime Minister please explain why this is so?

Mr. Chairman, the increase of R30 000 is still in respect of the anticipated costs associated with the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations and its reports. I might tell hon. members that all the reports have already been tabled.

†The exceptions are the report on the University Christian Movement, which at the moment is being translated and printed, and the report on the Christian Institute, which is likewise at the moment being translated and printed. They will be laid upon the Table as soon as that has been disposed of.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 5.—“Treasury”, Revenue Vote No. 7.—“Provincial Administrations”, Revenue Vote No. 8.—“South African Mint”, Revenue Vote No. 10.— “Customs and Excise”, Revenue Vote No. 11.—“Audit”, Loan Vote A.—“Miscellaneous Loans and Services” and S.W.A. Vote No. 3.—“Customs and Excise”:

In respect of Vote No. 5—Treasury, R5 014 000—under subhead H. i.e. amounts payable to the Governments of Lesotho and Swaziland in terms of monetary agreements, R5 million is to be voted. Do these agreements also cover the exchange control position? Are the amounts determined on the basis of a formula dependent upon the currency in circulation or are these arbitrary amounts which are determined here?

Mr. Chairman, they are determined on the basis of the currency valuation as agreed on. Can the hon. member just repeat his first question?

I asked whether the agreements concluded between the Republic and Lesotho and Swaziland also covered exchange control provisions. In other words, do they fall into the rand exchange control area as well as into the pure currency area?

Yes, if the hon. member is interested he might like to see the agreement some time. I have no objection to that.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of Vote No. 7—Provincial administrations, R24 884 000—I notice that subsidies have been paid to the four provinces in terms of section 6 of Act 38 of 1945. Can the hon. the Minister give us the reasons for these subsidies?

Mr. Chairman, the reason for the increases is substantially, of course, salary and wage increases. As the hon. member knows there is a formula which governs the amount of the subsidy every province gets. There is also a provision for cost escalations and this also accounts for a certain part of the additional expenditure. Certainly the bigger part of the amount now asked for is due to higher salaries and wages from July 1974.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister give us more details about the increase of R55 400 in respect of Vote 8—South African Mint, subhead F “Stores, materials, plant and equipment”?

Mr. Chairman, first of all in respect of stores and materials there is an increase of R33 000. That is due to the late delivery of spares required for a rolling mill by an overseas supplier. This accounts for nearly R8 000. The increased consumption of stores and materials as a result of increased production requirements resulted in a very substantial increase because of the demand for coins. Another contributing factor was increased prices of these materials. In respect of plant and equipment there is an increase of R22 400, which is again due to the late delivery of equipment for which provisions were made in the estimates of two previous years. This amounts to R8 700. There were also higher tender prices for equipment than were estimated at the time. This accounts for R18 000. Then there were also lower tender prices in respect of others that were budgeted for, and the net increase under that item “plant and equipment” is then R22 400. I think that is the gist of that particular item.

This has been attributed to a larger demand by the public for coins. I corresponded with the hon. the Minister’s department and with him before he was transferred to this particular department and he knows about the shortage of half cent coins that exists in the country and has existed for some months. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied with this extra amount that is now being voted to him, i.e. R55 400. Is he satisfied that the Mint is now going to be able to meet the demand of the people of South Africa for coins? I mention specifically the half cent piece. The hon. the Minister knows that we in this country are subject to price control on certain items. He knows that many of those items are controlled at prices which involve the payment of half cent pieces or the giving of such coins as change. He knows also, however, that the Mint has been unable to supply …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the reason for the increase.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking the hon. the Minister if this is the reason for the increase. He is asking this House for R55 400.

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

Mr. Chairman, with respect, in his reply the hon. the Minister indicated that the reason for this increase was to meet the increased demand by the public for coins.

That is part of it.

That is part of it, I agree. It is that particular section I am dealing with. Before we agree to give the Minister this amount we must know whether this will, in fact, put him in a position to meet the demand of the public of South Africa for the coins. The half cent coin might be a small coin, but it is a most important coin when it comes to carrying on business in this country. One only has to ask Mr. Raymond Ackerman or any of the supermarket owners and one will be told that this is a most important coin. This is especially so when the hon. the Minister’s department imposes price control which means that Mr. Ackerman can be prosecuted for failing to give a half cent piece in change.

Order! I have given my ruling.

May I hear from the hon. the Minister what his reply is?

Mr. Chairman, I think the answer is quite clearly that the South African Mint has gone into this matter very thoroughly and has taken steps to overcome this particular problem which the hon. member has raised. I am very satisfied that this matter is being properly dealt with.

Are more half cent pieces being minted?

I just want to refer the hon. member to the sort of increase in the figures pertaining to coinage. They might interest him. The total sales of circulation coins increased from R2 141 300 in 1972-’73 to R6 408 760 in 1973-’74.

That is inflation.

That may be so. The figure was R4 769 824 for the nine months up to December 1974. I just want to show the extent of the increase of the work falling to the Mint. The increase is enormous and is, in fact, the reason for some of these higher costs.

How many of them were half cent coins?

The answer to the hon. member is therefore in the affirmative. The matter is certainly under full control.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to Vote 11, “Audit”, sub-head D, “Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications”. Could the hon. the Minister advise us why it has been necessary to more than double the original estimate for printing, stationery, advertisements and publications?

The reasons for the increase of R63 000 in respect of printing, stationery, advertisements and publications are as follows: Firstly, there was an underestimate of the cost of printing the Controller and Auditor-General’s reports on the accounts of the Government of the Republic. This accounted for R6 000 of this amount. This happened because it was difficult to foresee the full extent of the cost escalation. Secondly, provision is now made for the cost of printing the annual reports on the accounts of several homeland Governments which were not included in the original Estimates, and that accounts for R21 000. Then provision is made for the expected rise in printing costs as the result of increased salaries, etc. That accounts for an amount of R35 000. Then there is an increase due to the higher cost of stationery which accounts for R500. These factors account for the biggest part of the increase of R63 000.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to Vote No. 8, “South African Mint”, subhead F, “Stores, Materials, Plant and Equipment.” I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to an earlier debate in which reference was made to the minting of a lower-valued gold coin than the Kruger rand. It was overlooked that the Mint does produce both R1 and R2 gold coins in a proof condition. The question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is whether the equipment or the plant which is referred to in this subhead is going to be used in order to produce these smaller gold coins, not just in a proof condition as they are at the moment, but in an uncirculated condition so that they may be more readily available to the public.

Mr. Chairman, if it becomes necessary, it could be done. When the hon. member for Von Brandis raised the question that a lower-valued gold coin should be minted, I pointed out that this was something that was under review. Just as in the case of certain other proposals, no firm decision as such has yet been taken. Therefore that matter is very much undecided at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister has misunderstood me. For many, many years we have been producing small R1 and R2 gold coins in the Mint. It is not necessary to make a decision to produce it. It has been produced for many years. The only question is whether they will now be producing coins not only in a proof condition—such coins have been available for a long time—but in an uncirculated condition so as to make them cheaper and more readily available. That is the point I wanted to make.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member to give me an opportunity to check on that matter. I shall answer him a little later, if possible, in the Third Reading debate.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 12 and Loan Vote O. —“Defence”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give the House an explanation of the increase in respect of rations, clothing, clothing allowances, etc., under Vote No. 12, subhead F, which amounts to an additional R7 050 000. We would also like the hon. the Minister to give us further details on the additional amount of R1 million which is being voted for Standard Stock Capital under Loan Vote O.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the additional amount of R7 050 000 under Vote No. 12 is concerned, the position is that this amount is required in the first place as a result of new contracts which had to be concluded during the year at higher prices than the previous contracts. Secondly, the increase in food prices, especially those of meat and bread, brought about an increase in expenditure during the past year. The increase of personnel on border duty, where the price of rations is considerably higher than in the Republic, brought about a further increase. An increase in laundry expenses as a result of the higher cost of detergents, labour and transport brought about a further increase in the amount to be voted. As far as the R1 million under Loan Vote O is concerned, I want to ask whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that the central medical and veterinary stores do not provide for the needs of the Defence Force alone, but also for clinics and health centres under the control of other Government departments. The value of stocks supplied, increased from R6,15 million in 1972 to R7,55 million in 1973-’74. That represents an increase of 23% over the past three years. Expectations are that this will be considerably higher again this year. This turnover will increase even more in the coming year as a result of a request which has been received from the Secretary for Health, and that is whether the store will also undertake the supply of medicines to the Bophuthatswana Government with effect from 1 April 1975. That will bring about that five additional general hospitals, as well as the normal health services in the homelands, will have to be provided with supplies. To be able to provide those supplies, an extra amount is required so that the necessary reserves may be built up.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister how much of the amount under Vote No. 12 is attributable to inflation and how much is attributable to expansion. If the hon. the Minister does not have the figures, could he possibly estimate what percentage is attributable to the one and to the other?

I would prefer not to make an estimate, but I can tell the hon. member that the cost of a daily ration, for example increased from 85 cents in January 1974 to R1,13 at the moment. However, I am prepared to obtain the necessary information for the hon. member.

Is the increase from 85 cents to R1,13 attributable to the same rations being more expensive at the moment, or is more being given in actual fact? In other words, is the full additional amount attributable to higher costs or has the quality of the rations been improved?

It is partially attributable to an increase of personnel on the border where costs are of course higher from the nature of the case. In fact, I think it is chiefly attributable to that.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 13.—“Foreign Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to sub-heads D to H, but I should like to begin at H. Under H—United Nations—an additional amount of R277 000 is requested for the costs pertaining to our membership of the U.N. The hon. the Minister intimated some time ago that the Government was reconsidering our membership of this body. The hon. the Minister knows what our standpoint is in this regard, viz., that we are completely opposed to our membership being terminated. We regard it as a national right that we retain our membership. I should like to enquire from the hon. the Minister whether the additional amount which is being asked for here is an indication of the Government having made up its mind about the situation and whether he can give us the assurance that our membership will not be terminated.

Under sub-head G—Assistance to and Co-operation with Foreign Countries—an additional amount of R20 000 is being requested. This is not a very large amount. The hon. the Minister knows that in principle we are very much in favour of South Africa rendering assistance to foreign countries that need it and ask for it. He also knows that we realize that there are certain countries which, when they accept assistance from South Africa, prefer that this is not blazed abroad. We understand that there are countries which would experience a degree of embarrassment if something of this sort were to be announced publicly. For that reason I say to the hon. the Minister that we should like to have particulars about this R20 000, but if it affects countries which would be embarrassed if the particulars were given, we are quite satisfied if no report is made about this.

I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will give an explanation of sub-head F, of the special departmental services which are involved in this and for which an additional amount of R56 000 is being requested. Item E—Miscellaneous Expenses—seems a large amount to us, R72 000, and I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us particulars about that as well. Under sub-head D—Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications —we should like to know if there is anything worth knowing about as regards the supplementary amount of R37 000 for that item.

Order! Before the hon. the Minister replies, I just want to refer to subhead H, to the amount for the U.N. I cannot allow a discussion on the principle. The hon. the Minister may indicate the reason for the increase, but I am not going to allow a discussion on the principle.

Mr. Chairman, the Government has not yet taken a final decision on our future membership of the U.N., but in the meantime it is necessary to make the necessary financial provision. The amount of R277 000 which appears here, is made up of an amount of R105 000 as a contribution to the budget of 1974 while the balance, an amount of R172 000, is an additional contribution to UNICEF, that is the United Nations’ emergency aid fund for children. That additional contribution has been made voluntarily by the Government and it pertains to the assistance we have rendered to children in drought-stricken areas in Africa. As far as the amount of R105 000 is concerned, it is an estimated amount for the cost of our share in the maintenance of the U.N.’s peace force in the Middle East for six months. We have already contributed an amount of R100 800. This is the additional amount. I hope that I have answered the hon. member’s question in this regard.

As far as subhead G is concerned, the position is that the assistance which is rendered from time to time, consists, inter alia, of the seconding of South. African staff to certain Governments. We have found that as a result of the increase of salaries in particular countries, we had a deficit amounting to R20 000. The amount of R20 000 is required to make up that deficit. Unfortunately I do not have the particulars of the specific countries in which there is a small deficit of this kind, but if necessary, I can obtain them and give them to the hon. member at a later stage. At this stage I cannot say whether it is in the public interest to make these public or not, because I do not know which countries are involved. If the hon. member insists on having them, I shall try to obtain the particulars.

The R56 000 for special departmental services is made up as follows: R25 000 for a social insurance scheme; R30 000 for contributions and payments in terms of the Diplomatic Privileges Act; and R1 000 for Christmas presents. The increase of R25 000 is attributable to additions to the salaries of locally recruited staff, which are attributable to inflation in the countries in which the staff have to be recruited.

†As regards the second part “payment of taxes, rents, duties, fees, etc., on behalf of other Governments and their diplomatic representatives”, in terms of the standard international diplomatic practice this department pays on a reciprocal basis the rates and taxes on the properties owned in the Republic by foreign governments—the hon. member is aware of this—and used by them for official purposes. Certain licences are also involved here. The increase of R30 000 is based on the actual expenditure in the previous financial year.

*The additional R1 000 for Christmas presents is attributable to the fact that we have opened new missions as well as to the rising cost of living in foreign countries. As far as subhead E—Miscellaneous Expenses—is concerned, the additional amount is made up as follows:

†Office equipment. R40 000: uniforms and petty expenses, R1 000; incidental expenses in connection with transfers, R7 000; training, R5 000; allowances to officers for clothing. R4 000; recoverable and other payments in respect of the hire of residences abroad, R15 000. The increase can be attributed to the following: The opening of four new missions, the rising maintenance costs in foreign countries and the installation of certain basic security equipment. This matter was discussed with the Treasury, and it was decided that provision for these items be made under this subhead as the department does not wish to draw particular attention to the matter.

*The increase of R37 000 under subhead D is chiefly due to the rising costs in the countries in which, we have diplomatic representation, the opening of four new missions in foreign countries as well as the extension of activities in certain of our missions as far as printing, stationery, advertisements and publications are concerned.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 15, Loan Vote N and S.W.A. Vote No. 5.—“Bantu Administration and Development”:

Under Loan Vote N. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will tell us where this additional R18 million is to be spent.

The R18 million are contributions to the Bantu Investment Corporation and the Xhosa Development Corporation. I shall give the hon. member the particulars as far as is possible. With the take-over of the Zebediela Estates, the Bantu Investment Corporation must have working capital. An amount of R1 005 000 is being provided for the running of the estate in the course of this financial year. Then there is a further amount of R2 million which is required for the continuation in the south of Natal of essential Bantu transport services which experienced many problems at one stage and which had to be placed on a sound financial footing by the Bantu Investment Corporation. An amount of R2 million was very urgently required for this.

The Ladysmith bus service?

No, it is not for Ladysmith. The hon. member lost his way at Ladysmith; we are on the South Coast at the moment. So these give us a total of R3 005 000.

Then there is the further amount of R2 million which the Bantu Investment Corporation required because of the particular interest of industrialists during the past year in the establishment of industries and in economic development in general in the homelands. That brings the amount which was urgently required for the Bantu Investment Corporation to R5 005 000. Then the Xhosa Development Corporation required an amount of R12 959 000 which is made up as follows: In the first place, an amount of R2 million as a result of the large degree of interest in and the extension of industrial settlement in the Bantu areas, in the Ciskei and the Transkei. There are large undertakings in the field of agriculture which are now being launched in co-operation with the homeland governments. Then there is an exceptional industrial interest at Butterworth, new industries which must be established and which were up in the air in the past. There was no certainty and it was not possible to budget for this, but in the past year progress was made and certainty was obtained and it became necessary to obtain R2 million for this purpose in order that there would be no unnecessary delay in this regard. I just want to mention that it has been estimated that employment opportunities will be created at Butterworth for about 1600 workers by the end of the current financial year. Then the corporation has also succeeded in establishing a number of small industries in Sada and Dimbaza for the development of Umtata as a growth point. This could not be delayed any longer. Infrastructural facilities had to be provided in the selected industrial areas, and for this the amount of R1 million was required. Therefore the projects I have mentioned give us an amount of R5 million. Then I want to mention an amount of R7 995 000 which is required for the take-over of bus services in the Eastern Cape. Firstly I want to mention the take-over of the Border Passenger Transport with its affiliates for that amount. I just want to say that as a result of the problems which arose in connection with the transport of Bantu from Mdantsane to East London, it has now become necessary, although there were negotiatons earlier, for the XDC to take over this undertaking for the transport of the Blacks to their places of employment. I want to give hon. members the particulars of this amount of R7 995 000 and how it has been calculated. In the first place there is the cost of taking over immovable property in White areas and the depot with fittings and fixtures—R1 million; the other depot at Watsonia with all fittings and fixtures—R350 000; the King William’s Town depot with equipment and 14 buses— R249 000; a vacant site of approximately seven acres at Berlin for a future bus depot —R55 000; and two residences for Whites at King William’s Town—R40 000. The other assets are 209 buses with an average age of four years, and in good condition —at R16 000 each. Then we have goodwill calculated at three times the adjusted profit of R673 000. That is according to the formula laid down by the adjustment committee. The hon. member is aware of that formula. That is over R2 million. Then there is miscellaneous equipment, vehicles, trailers, breakdown trucks, furniture, etc., at R188 000; the value of spare parts which were taken over—R250 000, and working capital to continue the service—R500 000. The sum total of the items I have mentioned, comes to R7 995 000. I want to tell hon. members that I have a multitude of particulars which obviously cannot be given here, such as the numbers of the buses and the engine numbers, the frameworks and the number of seats, especially for the information of the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. members who are interested, are very welcome to have the particulars. I also have in my possession the memorandum of agreement entered into by the board of directors of the Xhosa Development Corporation, if hon. members are interested. I trust that this reply is to the satisfaction of hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Deputy Minister is very keen on giving me bus numbers. I am not interested in that, I want to know something about the R5 million which he mentioned in regard to the Bantu Investment Corporation. I would like him to tell us how that money is being spent. I think an amount of R5 million is involved as well as another R2,5 million. For instance, does the organization still subsidize the export of curios to America? I would like to know how it is investing its money.

Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that the hon. the Deputy Minister should be worried about giving details about bus purchases after the experience we have had of some of the bus purchases he has made. He has missed the whole essence …

He has missed the bus.

Yes, he has missed the bus. He has given us figures, but what we want to know is what assurance he can give this House that we are not going to have a repetition of over-valued buses, of inflated payments to the seller, of the paying of taxpayers’ money for national transport certificates, in other words the same things which led to the Supreme Court emphasizing that there was a gross lack of control in purchases of bus services such as that at Newcastle. When we are asked to vote R7,5 million we want an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that these things are not going to happen again. We want to know who valued the buses, what transportation certificates were taken over and whether money was paid for them. We also want to know whether the buses which have been bought and which the hon. the Deputy Minister states are two years old are going to be found to be worth no more than scrap, such as the case of the other bus company when they had been on the road for a short time.

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

Mr. Chairman, I will narrow it down. We want to know what profit is likely to be made out of this expenditure of R7,5 million. Is this going to show a profit, is this going to be money which is invested in what is to be run as a commercial undertaking, or is it going to be a bottomless pit, as so many of the undertakings of the Bantu Investment Corporation appear to be? I think that is the important aspect and not the bus number or how many spares there are. We are interested in the economic aspects of valuation and profitability, and we want an assurance that there have been proper examinations of the assets and a proper control exercised in regard to these purchases this time. Finally, I would like to know why it is that for the second time we have requests for money running into millions— in this case R7,5 million—in the Additional Estimates. Why must this come up on the Additional Estimates instead of being properly planned in the normal budget of the department?

Mr. Chairman, as far as the first question, that of the hon. member for Griqualand East, is concerned, I want to give him the assurance that money will not be made available for the exporting of Bantu art, etc. I think that is what he was referring to. I said very clearly in my explanation what the amount of R5 million was required for. In the first place it is required as working capital for Zebediela Estates—I am forced to repeat what I have said already—secondly, for the transport services in the south of Natal, and, thirdly, for new industrial projects within the homelands during the past year. Although this had been investigated before, there was no certainty, and it was not possible to budget for this. In the course of the year interest grew, and it was possible to finalize these matters. Therefore the funds were required urgently and the Bantu Investment Corporation had to obtain the share capital. These are the three matters which are involved.

As far as the hon. member for Durban Point’s problems are concerned, I have told him that the profits of the company were R673 000 for the past year. I have already mentioned that.

When does the financial year close?

Mr. Chairman, surely I cannot put this kind of detail at the disposal of hon. members. Most companies’ financial years may close on 30 June while those of others may close on 28 February. It may also be 31 December. After all, it depends on the particular company. That is the type of detail which hon. members can get from the documents in front of me, but I do feel that I should not be asked for such details now. However, this amount is the one for the past financial year, the last one which could be closed and for which financial statements could be made available. In these valuations, auditors from outside were involved so as to render assistance at these negotiations. Here I have details covering many pages made available by the board of directors in connection with, the investigations which were carried out. I just want to say in general that the people did not want to sell this bus service for less than R9,3 million. After protracted negotiations, investigations and valuations, certain of the assets were taken over for the amount of R7 995 000 and an agreement was entered into in this regard. I just want to emphasize that sometimes it takes years to reach finality in this type of negotiation, and before there is a reasonable indication of finality, something of this kind is not budgeted for. Therefore this is not an indication that we set about it in a helter-skelter way. However, one reaches a stage where one reaches an agreement with the people who want to sell or who have an interest in the matter, and financial arrangements must then be made as soon as possible. I think hon. members must accept that this is the position. The hon. member asked that I give him the assurance that the business will be run on a sound basis. Normally this is the case, but it is impossible for me to give wild assurances here. All that I can tell the hon. member, is that the Corporation is doing its best and employing the best possible expert knowledge to run this bus service as well as possible. In all fairness I think that I cannot be expected to go any further with this matter. The hon. member also asked who valued the buses, etc. That was done with the assistance of private auditors, and I hope this reply is sufficient for the hon. member. We can extract further particulars from the documents in front of me, but obviously there are so many finer details that it is impossible for me to give them off the cuff or to have them at hand at once.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he can give us the details of the R1 million which was spent in respect of Zebediela. We could not get the information before and I would like to know why this R1 million is required.

Mr. Chairman, I have said that it is in respect of running costs. I cannot give the hon. member the exact details. One item, however, is the salaries and wages of the management and the Black labourers, of whom there are 1 200. In addition there are the rations and hospital services in respect of these people. Another item is pest control in respect of the half a million trees. Then there is the matter of fertilizing the trees, as well as keeping them clean, watering them, and so forth. There is a multitude of electric motors as well, which use a great deal of power. Another contributory factor as regards this additional amount, is the packing season. Zebediela Estates export more than 2 million cartons of citrus fruit per annum. Provision has to be made for the purchase of packing materials, such as cartons and paper. In addition, there is the expense in connection with the wax with which the oranges are treated, as well as the chemicals in which they are washed. All these items have been calculated on the basis of earlier expenditure to amount to R1 005 000 for the past year. This is what provision has to be made for.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply, Zebediela has been run at a loss of R1 million in the short period we have had it. He has mentioned expenses such as wages, pest control, water leading, packing material for export, etc. Surely the Government bought a growing concern, or so they said. Does it not pay for itself? Are we going to be asked every year to give an extra R1 million to pay for the running expenses of Zebediela?

Mr. Chairman, Zebediela Estates will be taken over at a certain date. As from that date it has to be run until the crop can be gathered and marketed. The running expenses include marketing and packing costs and similar items, i.e. before they will be able to make money. One does not make money before one starts producing. The running expenses of the undertaking have to be covered first. It is estimated, on the basis of last year’s crop, that the value of this year’s crop will be approximately R5 million. To be able to ripen that R5 million’s worth of fruit, to be able to market it, to be able to rail it, etc., requires R1 million for this year. If we were to come forward next year and say that we had not received R5 million but only R4 million or R3 million or less, we could advance the arguments used by the hon. member. However, he cannot expect this, whole task to be undertaken without any money as from the date of the take-over of the business. Running expenses are required for gathering the crop.

Was provision not made for that in the purchase price?

But we bought immovable property. According to law the S.A. Bantu Trust may not include amounts required for running expenses. What we asked Parliament for was the actual costs, the costs of the immovable property and effects on the estate. I trust it is clear to the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister perhaps tell us what they paid for Zebediela Estates?

Order! That is a question I cannot allow. It is not relevant under this Vote.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he requires R1 million for interim running expenses. What he has omitted to tell us is whether this is now being given to whichever Bantu authority is running Zebediela Estates today or to Zebediela Estates if it is being run as a separate company and not under the control of a particular Bantu authority. He has not yet told us which Bantu authority is going to run these estates. Is this R1 million to the Zebediela account on Loan Account or is it a part of a grant? I believe that this is important and that we should know, before we grant that R1 million, whether this money is being lent to Zebediela Estates and whether it will be repaid out of the profits the hon. the Deputy Minister claims he is going to make from the export of the citrus fruit? Or are we being asked this afternoon to make a further grant to Zebediela Estates, one which will be written off?

Mr. Chairman, I have already made the position very clear here. The share capital is for the Bantu Investment Corporation and not for a homeland government. I repeat: Share capital is for the Bantu Investment Corporation and not for a Bantu homeland. The Bantu Investment Corporation is running that estate. In our agreement with Zebediela Estates it was made known last year that an amount of R8 million was to be paid for the immovable property. We could not pay out that amount before we had received transfer. Only then does the State pay out. In the meantime that estate had to be run. Consequently Zebediela Estate had to keep account of their running expenses as from 1 October last year. That was our agreement, that they would reticulously keep account and furnish proof of their actual running expenses. As soon as the Bantu Investment Corporation takes over, after we have received transfer and have paid the amount, the Corporation will have to cover those expenses. They form part of the production costs of the orange crop that has to be produced. This is how the amount is made up. The amount that will have to be paid back to Zebediela Estates—there is interest to be added since we could not pay immediately—all those matters have been provided for in an agreement containing a multitude of detail.

Now we have confusion worse confounded. The hon. the Deputy Minister first tells us that this is running expenses for Zebediela and now he talks about transfers and taking over of property. He also confuses it further … [Interjections.] Wait a minute. He confuses the issue by referring to share capital at the Bantu Investment Corporation. What exactly is this R1 million for? Is it for share capital for the Bantu Investment Corporation? If that is correct, that it is share capital for the BIC why is it not shown in these estimates as such? Why is it hidden in a globular amount of R18 million under “Grant-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust Fund”? Why is it not specified? If it is not that, we want to know whether it is in fact to assist to allow the transfer to take place, whether it is in the nature of capital expenditure or whether it is in the nature of running expenses. He still has not answered my question. Is this amount to be on Loan Account or is it a capital amount? Is it to be repaid to the coffers of the hon. the Minister of Finance or is it to remain in the coffers of Zebediela Estates or those of the BIC?

Mr. Chairman, I think each time that I have replied to the question, but I am constantly underestimating …

Over-estimating.

… the hon. members on the opposite side. I shall again try to explain. The money the BIC receives from the S.A. Bantu Trust, it receives in the form of their share capital being increased by that amount. That is why I have stated clearly here that it is share capital. They apply that money to the running of Zebediela Estate. Nothing is paid out to other people, except the amounts I have mentioned. The transfer is relevant simply because we were unable, when we had to take over on 1 October, to do so because the transfer involved a multitude of deeds of transfer. Our agreement read that we were to take over on 1 October, but we were not able to do so. Then we, together with the BIC, had to make arrangements with these people. The S.A. Bantu Trust buys the land and therefore the capital expenditure is theirs. The running expenses as from 1 October to 31 March have to be included in the calculations. That is why we are providing this amount for the BIC. Part of it will have to be paid to the previous owners since they have paid part of the running expenses for this year. The other amount they will spend directly as they themselves take over the running of the estate in January. I trust this matter is clear now.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply, I should like to ask him a few questions in regard to the Border passenger bus service. I think he mentioned that the vehicles, i.e. the buses themselves, have been valued by auditors. I should just like him to either explain that or correct it because I always understood that movables like that should be valued by appraisers or valuators and not by auditors.

The second point is whether this is the total purchase price of this bus service. In other words, has this amount of money which has been allocated as a grant-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust been allocated towards the purchase of the entire concern as a going concern. If that is so, will this bus service be run in White areas of the Republic and in homeland areas? Where will it operate, and is there any likelihood that there will be a repayment from any source whatsoever of the money that is being used for the payment for this bus service?

Mr. Chairman, in connection with the first question of the hon. member, I just want to say that I have said that the assistance of auditors was obtained in connection with the valuation. The auditors had to bring along experts to ensure that the correct valuation was obtained. Therefore, a panel of persons was used to value those buses and assets of the company. The hon. member asked whether all the assets of this company had been taken over. Certain assets, of which I have a long list, were taken over. Therefore, I do not believe that these include all the assets of the company. Where the Xhosa Development Corporation felt that certain things had no value for them, these items were not taken over by them.

The hon. member also asked whether it included transport interests in the White area. The answer to that is “yes”. I mentioned this in the explanation I furnished. The idea is that the Xhosa Development Corporation should purchase again that portion of the interests in the White area. Unfortunately the one portion in the Bantu area could not be purchased separately. Consequently, the entire undertaking was purchased, and now the Xhosa Development Corporation has to try and dispose, at the best possible price, of that portion in which it is not interested.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the auditors he mentioned are the auditors of the bus company. If not, what auditors were they? Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister if the department of his colleague, the Minister of Transport, was consulted with regard to the value of the service and the value of the buses?

Mr. Chairman, I accept that the Xhosa Development Corporation made use of the Department of Transport. However, I am not able to say so with certainty, but I shall investigate the matter and let the hon. member know.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us a break-down of the R1,4 million to be voted under Sub-head O—Payments to the Governments of the Bantu Areas?

Mr. Chairman, R1200 000 of this amount goes to the Ciskei, and R200 000 goes to the Venda Government. I shall first deal with the Ciskei, for which the larger amount is required. It refers to increases in the salaries of teachers. When the Estimates were compiled, provision was made for salary increases in the case of the homeland governments. It would seem as if inadequate provision was made in the case of the Ciskei, and therefore an additional amount of approximately R600 000 has been asked for in the current financial year. In addition, there are social pensions of more than R700 000 for which too little was budgeted. There is a basis on which estimates are compiled for social pensions, and it is evident that it was inadequate in this case. An additional amount of R200 000 is to be paid to the Venda Government. This amount is for the most part attributable to an under-estimate of the increased salaries of teachers. There are also a multitude of other costs which were under-estimated. There are, for example, increased costs in respect of building projects, fuel, motor transport, and the general increase in supplies for hostels. These are all items falling under the additional amount of R200 000.

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Deputy Minister please explain to me the accounting principle involved in regarding subhead 1—Grant-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust Fund—as an item which falls under Loan Vote N, while subhead N, which also deals with grants-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust Fund, forms part of Vote 15. Why is the latter regarded as a Revenue Vote when it is also a grant-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust Fund? Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us what accounting principle is involved which made him decide to put the one under the Revenue Vote and the other under the Loan Vote?

Mr. Chairman, the point which the hon. member is putting is not quite clear to me. I shall furnish details in connection with subhead N—Grants-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust funds, R250 000. After that the hon. member may elaborate further on the point he wants to make. Firstly, this is in connection with services rendered by the S.A. Bantu Trust in the Eastern Caprivi. Urgent representations were received for the combating of Kariba weed between Botswana and the Eastern Caprivi, for which provision had to be made in the meantime. The weed has proliferated and an amount of R50 000 is required. An amount was also required by the BIC for the increase in the share capital in respect of certain projects for the provision of meat and vegetables in the Eastern Caprivi. The cost involved in this has reached a very high level, and it was decided that the BIC should, as far as possible, try to provide meat, milk and fresh vegetables and fruit for this area. It seems to me as if the hon. member wanted to put the point that, under the South West Africa Account, an amount …

Order! I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister understands the question. The question was why one grant-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust appears on the ordinary account while the other appears on the Loan Account.

Mr. Chairman, may I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister in this way? I want to know what accounting principle he uses when he decides that one of these grants-in-aid fall under a Loan Vote and the other under a Revenue Vote. What principle applies in this connection? I may say, after the explanation we had from the hon. the Deputy Minister, that it is clear to me, and I am sure for the House as a whole, that the same type of expenditure appears under both these Votes.

I do not know what more the hon. member wants. I think … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I still have not received an answer to my question. I want to know what the accounting principle is.

The principle involved in this is that certain items constitute operating costs and others capital expenditure.

Mr. Chairman, the details furnished to us by the hon. the Deputy Minister makes it quite clear that operating costs are really involved in both cases. He cannot put it to us in this way. There has to be some other principle he has to explain to us, because this is certainly not the principle. He should tell us what the principle is or he should tell us that there is no principle involved in this.

Mr. Chairman, I think there has to be a principle involved. [Interjections.] Certain accounting practices are applicable in the department and also as far as the Treasury is concerned. Certain amounts are made available in a certain way. As far as the reason for the principle is concerned, I could possibly ascertain what it is and let the hon. member know.

Order! The discussion of that aspect is not in order now, because it is a question of a principle and does not concern the reasons for the increase.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot give us an answer in this regard I think we should put the question to the hon. the Minister of Finance. He is responsible for this Budget and he is asking this House to approve the full sum. We are entitled to ask for details from Ministers or their Deputies.

Order!

May I discuss a point of order, Sir?

The hon. member may proceed.

The question is one of budgeting and not what the money is going to be spent on. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already given us details in this regard. This is not a matter of principle …

Order! We are not dealing with that aspect at the moment. We are only dealing with the reasons for the increase in the amounts.

I am referring here, Sir, not to the principle in the Second Reading sense. I want to know from the hon. the Minister of Finance why he increases certain things from revenue and certain other things from loan. It is valid for the hon. the Minister of Finance …

Order! I think the hon. member for Durban Point is being quite irrelevant now.

Mr. Chairman, may I come back to Vote No. 15 and the grant-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust? I want to compare this also with Loan Vote N which also includes a grant-in-aid to the S.A. Bantu Trust. The comment which I want to make through you, Sir, to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Deputy Minister is that as far as this item is concerned, if it is wrongly on Loan Account as a grant-in-aid, then we cannot vote for it; if it is rightly there, then we can vote for it. Similarly, if it is wrongly on Vote 15, then we cannot vote for it, with respect, Sir, if the principle here is what should be voted on Loan Account and what should be voted on Revenue Account, then that principle should be dealt with now so that we can vote, otherwise we are not in a position to vote.

Order! The hon. member has made his point, and I am satisfied that we are not dealing with that here.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 17 and S.W.A. Vote No. 7.—“Transport”:

Sir, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us further details in connection with Item J, “Contributions, grants-in-aid and subsidies,” R34 000, and also in connection with the item “Loss on operation of Railway non-White passenger services to and from non-White townships,” R580 000; and in particular I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconcile it with the reduction in the subsidies to the Railways. He as the Minister of Railways received less money, but here we notice that he is receiving an increase. How does he reconcile subheads J and L, because the Bantu have to pay more for the services as a result of the reduction of the subsidy to the Railways? On the railways the Bantu have to pay more for their tickets because Transport is giving less money to the Railways. Now we get to Transport, and we find that we are giving more money to Railways.

Sir, I shall deal first with subhead J. Subhead J provides for a total amount of R207 000, of which R173 000 is covered by savings, with the result that only R34 000 is being requested additionally. But I am now dealing with the full amount of R207 000, that is, the two taken together. These two together have three legs. One part is in connection with the subsidy which was paid to the municipality of Newcastle in terms of an agreement with the Treasury for the acquisition of land for a suitable airport. In the Estimates there was a nominal provision of R100. From the nature of the case it was not possible at that stage to determine what the costs connected with the acquisition of land would be or what the subsidy would be, and eventually, with Treasury approval, provision was made for R190 000 for the acquisition of the airfield; this is money that is being paid to the municipality of Newcastle by means of a subsidy. The second leg of this additional expenditure is an increased contribution for South Africa’s membership of the World Meteorological Organization. The annual contribution for South Africa has been increased by R16 100. The present contribution, including the increase, is R42 550. The third leg of this expenditure is a very small amount, but I have to mention it as well; the third leg is R1 000, for which additional provision is being made in connection with Antarctic research. In actual fact this is only to provide for salary adjustments. These three legs together amount to R207 000.

The second is under subhead L. There we are requesting an increase of R580 000. The total appropriation was R20 220 000. What is now being requested brings it to R20 800 000. Sir, in actual fact the Department of Transport is only the channel through which this amount goes to the Railways. Now I am not speaking as Minister of Railways; I am speaking as the responsible Minister of Transport. Transport is not really concerned in this. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member will remember that the tariffs applicable to with Railway transport were increased last year, and in the process the passenger service tariffs were also increased. The main reason for this increase is that at the time of last year’s increase there was practically no increase for the third-class passenger services.

Was there no increase in the tariffs of third-class passenger services?

No, for all practical purposes there was no increase, not in the third-class passenger tariffs. We increased the first-class tariffs. The hon. member’s memory seems to be rather short. We said in this House that the third-class tariffs were not being increased, and this additional amount is required mainly as a result of that. It was determined after negotiations between the Railways and the Treasury and Transport actually has very little to do with it.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but the hon. the Minister cannot get away with this. He says that the third-class passenger fares were not increased.

Hardly.

“Hardly”. All he did was to reduce the subsidy by 10% and put up the fares by 12%, and they were “hardly” increased at all. He did not increase it in the sense of tariff increases; he excluded them, and then promptly cut the subsidy down so that the Bantu in fact had to pay on all the township lines an increase of up to 12% and more. He did not increase the tariffs in his annual tariff increase, which applies to first- and second- class, but he did it through the back door by reducing the subsidy. He will remember that we had a long debate about it in this House because we objected to the reduction of the subsidy. On the one hand third-class fares were not increased on normal lines, but where there were third-class fares to resettlement areas, they were increased. That is the distinction. He did not increase fares on normal South African railway lines, but wherever those lines served a resettlement area, which was affected by the subsidies, those fares were increased, and we objected to that increase because those persons are resettled not of their own free will but as part of Government policy. This subsidy is there to compensate to some extent for the fact that they are moved out into the bundu, 15 to 20 miles from their work, and they have to use the train services. Those are the increases I am referring to, increases due not to increased tariffs but to the subsidy, the very subsidy we are now being asked to vote more money for. What I am trying to reconcile is that the Minister said there were no increases, that the fares went up because there was less subsidy, and now we are being asked to vote more subsidy. Now these three things cannot all be true. Either the tariffs were increased, or they were not increased and the subsidy withdrawn, but then why are we being asked to vote more money? That is what I want to have reconciled.

I do not think the hon. member understands this correctly. We are referring here to the resettlement services. In the tariffs for third-class passengers in respect of the resettlement services there has not been an increase in proportion to that of the other third-class tariffs. As a result there is a bigger gap and a bigger shortage with regard to the third-class passengers as far as resettlement services are concerned, and therefore it is necessary for us to spend this new additional amount.

Votes agreed to.

Loan Vote F.—“Forestry”:

I would like the hon. the Acting Minister to explain subhead No. 2 referring to the utilization of State sawmills and timber preservation plants, i.e. whether this is in fact an extension to existing State sawmills or whether new sawmills or creosoting plants are to be built, and if so, where are they to be built?

These pertain to the increase in wages and contributions in respect of Bantu labour payable to the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and the rise in the price of major equipment. These are the main reasons for the increase.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us what part of the R300 000 is concerned with new plant and equipment purchases and where it is to be put?

Twenty-five per cent of the amount is accounted for by increased wages. Does the hon. member want that to be cut down? I do not have the cut-down figures here, only the total. I do not have the analysis here, but I can get it and I will send it to the hon. member. I am only the Deputy Minister to the Minister of Forestry.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 20.—“Information”:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister explain to us why the quite substantial additional amount of R311 000 is being requested?

This amount is to be spent on publicity. The amount is being requested because of the rising costs in the printing industry and especially the rising cost of paper. Another factor is unfavourable exchange rates in respect of the handling of funds.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 23.—“Government Printing Works”:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell us the reason for the tremendous increase of 40% as stated under subhead F—Stores, printing paper and material?

Mr. Chairman, the answer is the same as in the previous case, except that here we have to do with an increase in the demand for printing as well. The prices of paper and other printing requirements increased excessively during 1974 and together with the considerable salary and wage increases that were granted on 1 June, printing costs have increased immensely. This is the reason for this additional amount.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but the Minister confuses me. Under subhead A there is an increase of R76 000 for salaries, wages and allowances. I asked him about the increase of R1 100 000 under subhead F—Stores, printing paper and materials. I can accept that the cost of printing paper, material and the other stores required by the Government Printer has increased, but I cannot, however, believe that they had increased by 40%. I think the hon. the Minister bore me out when in his reply he referred to the further increase in wages. He said in his reply that part of the increase was on account of the increase of wages. Do they have wages under two accounts in the Government printing works? I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us exactly for what this R1 100 000 has been used.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is very quick to try and score a point. Here, however, he did not succeed. The fact is that the increase of R40 000 is for the printing of cheque forms that had to be kept in stock from February 1974 to provide Government departments with Treasury vouchers on demand. An increase of R660 000 is required for printing paper and material as a result of the increase in the prices of these commodities. An increase of R290 000 is necessitated by a further increase in the prices of materials, while R10 000 is required for the printing of supplies of cheque forms. That amounts to a total increase of R1 100 000.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 24 and Loan Vote M.—“National Education”:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister give us more information in regard to subhead M —Financial Assistance to Universities and Bursaries for University Education—in respect of which the increase amounts to R4 554 000?

Mr. Chairman, the biggest amount in this regard is in respect of salary adjustments. We are dealing here with professional persons. Salary adjustments amounted to R3,173 million. Because interest rates had been raised, interest and capital redemption on loans amounted to R1 million. Non-pensionable allowances amounted to R138 000, while housing loans amounted to R268 000.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of subhead H—Miscellaneous Contributions, Grants-in-Aid, Subsides and Bursaries—I notice that the increase in the grants-in-aid to the National Monuments Council amounts to R35 000. Could the hon. the Minister give us more particulars in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will recall that there was a major forest fire on Table Mountain in February last year. The Table Mountain conservation area is a national monument. The combating of the soil erosion which followed on this fire is the joint responsibility of the National Monuments Council, the provincial administration and the Cape Town City Council. The liability of the National Monuments Council in this regard amounts to between R33 000 and R35 000, which must accordingly be made available.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of Loan Vote M, under subhead I —Loans to educational institutions—I notice that a nominal amount of R50 is to be voted for the acquisition of the Vineyard Hotel for the College for Advanced Technical Education. Can the hon. the Minister tell us how far the matter has proceeded, if the price has been settled, the possible date of the take-over, etc.?

Mr. Chairman, the Treasury has approved the acquisition of that property and the necessary amount will be provided in the second revised Estimates. In order to obtain Parliamentary approval for this, provision is now being made for this nominal amount only.

Is this matter purely one of exploratory negotiation at this stage? How far has the matter proceeded?

Mr. Chairman, considerable progress has already been made with this matter. The only thing that is still being negotiated at the moment is the final amount. The provision is being made in terms of the negotiations up to now.

Mr. Chairman, having regard to the historical nature of the building, is the intention that it should be preserved in the development that is going to take place? A portion of the building has been modernized, but a great deal of it is of historical value.

Mr. Chairman, the building is of course to be used as an educational institution, and I assume that the National Monuments Council will take cognizance of this. I do not know whether this has already been done, but I assume that it will be done.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of Vote 24, subhead M, I listened very carefully to the hon. the Minister’s reply, but I did not hear any reference to the amount allocated especially for bursaries. Is the Minister in a position to provide the details in regard to the financial assistance in respect of bursaries for university education?

Mr. Chairman, the details are the following: This provision is only concerned with national stipends. In terms of the common statute of the universities, a certain number of national stipends are granted to universities every year. The students to whom these are granted are chosen by the universities themselves through the Committee of University Principals. It is striking that the full amount which is granted is not used for this purpose every year. That is what happened here. There is in fact a saving of R8 000 here in respect of bursaries which were not awarded. Would the hon. member like to have more details?

Mr. Chairman, under sub-head H—Africa Institute—there is an increase of R18 000. We are not opposed to this, but I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could give us the particulars.

Mr. Chairman, the additional amount is in respect of salary increases which coincided with the general salary increases.

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions. The first one relates to subhead N. How much of that increased expenditure of R426 000 is in respect of Colleges for Advanced Technical Education in the Transvaal?

Increase?

Yes, how much of the increase. Secondly, under subhead M—Financial assistance to universities and bursaries for university education—how much of that is in respect of universities that are situated in the Transvaal? Thirdly, in respect of subhead K, how is the amount of R61 000 made up here?

Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, the first question was: What was the increase in respect of colleges for Advanced Technical Education?

In the Transvaal.

In the Transvaal. I do not have particulars in respect of individual colleges before me. My figures are the joint figures, so I cannot say what the amount for the Transvaal is. We know that we have the three biggest Colleges for Advanced Technical Education in the Transvaal. The biggest amount here, R258 000, is in respect of salary adjustments, and R19 600 is in respect of the non-pensionable allowance. There has been a considerable increase in the expenditure on part-time teachers because more of them were employed at a higher salary. The total amount is R97 000. Unfortunately I am unable to give the figures for the Transvaal colleges. Then there is the increase in respect of the holiday savings bonus, which amounts to R3 300, and there are housing loans amounting to R53 000, which actually resulted from the increased interest rates.

Mr. Chairman, there were two further questions. Can the hon. the Minister give the information in respect of universities which are situated in the Transvaal? I assume not. The Minister does not have the break-up. The third question concerned the break-up of the figure of R61 000 in respect of subhead K —Grants-in-aid to the National Cultural Council.

Mr. Chairman, I shall first deal with subhead K, the grants-in-aid to the various institutions. Firstly there are salary adjustments for the Regional Councils for the Performing arts. These amounted to R46 000. R15 000 is in respect of the current expenditure on the new theatre complex of the Transvaal Provincial Administration. In terms of an agreement with the Treasury the current expenditure is to be borne equally by the Province and my department. It is estimated that this will involve an amount of R60 000 a year. At the moment, however, we require only R15 000. I do not know whether the hon member still wants a reply to the question on the universities.

No, that falls away.

Very well, it falls away.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply on subhead K and the grant in respect of the theatre which is being built together with the Transvaal Provincial Administration, I should like to know whether any conditions were attached by him in respect of the use of that theatre by all races or whether it is for Whites only.

Order! The hon. the Minister need not reply to that question. It is quite irrelevant.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 25 and S.W.A. Vote No. 13.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the increase on this Vote when he made his Second Reading speech, but I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would give us a breakdown of the additional amount of R5 816 000 which has to be voted in respect of contributions to pension and provident funds under subhead K. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us a breakdown of the figures so as to indicate which pension funds and which provident funds will receive the additional contributions.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I do not have the figures at my disposal. I am therefore unable to give the hon. member a breakdown of the amounts which will be contributed to the different pension and provident funds.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 26.—“Planning and the Environment”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to motivate this increase of more than R½ million.

Mr. Chairman, the amount to be voted under subhead G consists of two parts. The major portion of R555 400 is required for the increase in the salaries of public servants, as well as the increase in the salaries and wages of the C.S.I.R. staff. The original estimate was that there would be an increase of 10%, and this was calculated on the grounds of a guideline laid down by the Treasury. After the increases had been made applicable, it was found that that estimate was too low and that an additional amount of R555 400 was required over and above the estimate. In addition, there was a small amount of R2 400, which is required for research grants to universities.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 28, Loan Vote B and S.W.A. Vote No. 15.—“Public Works”:

Mr. Chairman, I have three questions which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. I shall be happy if he can give us information on these questions.

*The first question I want to put to the hon. the Minister relates to subhead G— “Financial assistance to various municipalities” where an additional amount of R300 000 is being asked for. Are all the municipalities involved here, or only one municipality? The increase under subhead K—“General Maintenance Services”; represents an increase of 50% more than the amount originally estimated. Does the additional amount which must be voted, relate to extensions or is this only the cost involved in maintenance services?

Then I also wish to refer to Loan Vote B. I want to refer to the amount that is being requested for Mitchell’s Plain. An amount of R50 is being requested for this purpose. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us what is involved here. Could he perhaps tell us how many schools are involved and how many children will be accommodated in these schools? When would these schools be ready for use?

Mr. Chairman, in connection with subhead G, I can supply the following details: Firstly, there were increased claims submitted by municipalities as a result of a concession made by the Minister of Finance to the effect that municipalities be assisted with regard to the rising cost of Government buildings as opposed to other buildings; secondly, there were increased municipal assessment rates and fluctuations in the various exchange rates and world-wide increased costs in the maintenance of cemeteries; finally there was an increase of R6 000 in the subsidy in respect of the restaurant in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building in Cape Town. This was approved by the Cabinet.

Is that all in respect of the item for which an additional amount of R300 000 is to be voted?

I am dealing with the whole of subhead G, for which a total of R319 700 is required.

Order! Will the hon. the Minister please speak a little more loudly so that I can also hear him.

I shall try, Sir.

As regards the query in connection with sub-head K—General Maintenance Services—the position appears to be that the increase is due firstly to the occupation of more Government buildings and secondly, an under-estimate in the price of fuel. In the third place, the increase is due to the cleaning of additional office accommodation occupied by Government departments as well as an increase in the price of caretakers’ requisites. Finally, there is the urgent modernization of fire protection installations in Government buildings.

I now want to deal with the question in regard to Mitchell’s Plain. The development of Mitchell’s Plain has been advanced with the result that certain of the proposed schools for the area must now be provided earlier than was expected. The erection of 14 primary schools and five high schools will have to be undertaken urgently so that they will be ready for use when the Coloureds move into the houses that will be completed in 1975 and 1976.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has just told us that part of the expenditure under subhead K is for the urgent reorganization of fire services. We have heard of one fire in a Government building, namely that of the Department of the Interior. Could the hon. the Minister now lift the curtain and tell us whether it was found that all Government buildings had unsatisfactory fire protection and had to be reorganized and not just the one building in which there was a fire? I think we should be given some more information on this matter.

I do not think that all Government buildings are involved: I think the situation in Government buildings generally is being reviewed and that steps will be taken where it is regarded as being necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. the Minister of Defence is not here, so I shall leave the question of the new military hospital over for the moment. Under Loan Vote B, subhead (19). “General: Building services”, there is a new service which, consequently we are entitled to discuss here. I refer to the installation of television antenna systems in Government buildings. I think we are entitled to know, firstly, whether “Government buildings” includes ministerial houses and, secondly, what sort of television antenna systems are going to be installed. This is going to be a very expensive process for the ordinary man in the street, as far as we are aware. Consequently, I feel we are entitled to know whether Ministers of State are going to be saved from having to pay for this expensive process by the services provided at the State’s expense?

Did the hon. member say “Loan Vote B”?

Yes, Loan Vote B on page 38. What Government buildings are contemplated under this amount of R50? What Government buildings are intended to be equipped for television and which ones are going to have black and white. Will Bantu administration have coloured television? What television will be installed in ministerial houses? What size of screens will they have? Are they going to be luxury 26" screens or will they be the smaller more moderate screens? I would like to have a little bit more information from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I am not in the position to give the hon. gentleman all the information that he wants, but I will let him have what I have got.

*As far as the installation of television antenna at official residences is concerned, the responsibility of the Department, as approved by the Treasury and myself, is repeated below for the sake of convenience.

No television receivers will be supplied by the department, except in special cases, for example in the diplomatic guest house in Pretoria or where a Minister requires it in his official capacity. Any department requiring television reception for its own departmental purposes, will have to supply it out of its own funds. In official residences occupied by very important people, for example the residences of the State President and Ministers, the department will arrange for the supply and installation, out of State funds, of antenna systems with one or more, but not exceeding three, antenna coupling sockets. Where an occupant requires more than three connecting sockets, the additional sockets will be installed at his own expense. The antenna system will be of the type suitable for television and radio reception. In the case of official residences permanently occupied by officials or persons other than the above-mentioned persons, the occupants will arrange, at their own expense and subject to the department’s conditions and prior approval, for the installation of antenna systems, except where the installation of communal antenna systems is compulsory, or the obvious thing to do within the limits of the relevant arrangements, for example in single quarters, blocks of flats, or in a group residence on a single plot and will therefore be installed by the department at State expense. Where official residences are occupied periodically such as those in Acacia Park, the department will arrange for the installation of antenna systems at State expense. Where possible or relevant, this will be done on a communal basis with a socket or sockets in every house or flat.

The type of antenna systems installed by the department will, except in the case of the official residences of very important people, be for television reception only, unless special circumstances exist which also require the provision of AM and FM radio reception for official purposes. This is the information I am able to furnish at this stage.

Would the hon. the Minister advise us, under Loan Vote D. subhead 13—National Education— which property has been purchased in Constantia as an institute for girls and for what purpose it is going to be used?

Mr. Chairman, this explanation, I am afraid, is also a rather lengthy one. The existing institute for girls at Durbanville is antiquated and no longer meets the requirements. It is also not possible to adapt the buildings economically to cater for modern needs. The replacement of the institute was accorded a high priority by the Department of National Education on new major works. Intensive efforts to obtain a suitable alternative site proved fruitless. The transfer of the institute to Rustenburg was even considered, but owing to practical difficulties the proposal was abandoned. An existing building complex in Constantia Road, Cape Town, was offered for sale to the State last year. With the necessary conversions and additions the premises will meet the requirements of the Department of National Education. The property known as Notre Dame Convent consists of an administration block, a junior school division, a senior school division, a nursery division, a school hall, a swimming bath complex and tennis courts. The site is 11,30 ha in extent, with tarred driveways along its flower-beds and trees. The property is well kept and properly fenced. The buildings are a type of Cape Dutch style and are in good and neat condition. The property was offered for sale at R750 000, but it was ultimately obtained by my department for the price of R560 000.

A good buy.

Yes. It will be necessary to undertake certain conversions and additions estimated to cost R260 000 to render the premises totally suitable for use as an institute for girls. The total financial commitment here will be R821 000 that is, the purchase price, the estimated cost of conversion and additions (R260 000) and valuation fees, etc. (R1 000). Sir, I think that more or less covers the hon. member’s question.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has not indicated in his reply to the question how many girls this property will accommodate. He said that this property was to replace the one at Durbanville. According to my information, the institute for girls at Durbanville usually accommodated 30 to 40 girls. This seems to be a small number of persons to be accommodated in a property which is now going to cost R821 000. I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate how many persons it will be possible to accommodate in this property.

The requirements were stated by the Department of Education and not by my department. As I have indicated in my reply, this property that we have bought here will suit the requirements of the Department of National Education. That is all the information I have.

Sir, this is a new item of expenditure and as such we are permitted in terms of the Rules of the House to make some comments on it. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of National Education is not present because this affects his department, and it is his department which should be answering these questions. Now the hon. the Minister of National Education is well aware of my opposition to using this property for this purpose, as a reformatory for girls. I led a deputation to him last year to try to persuade him not to put this property to that use. I should now like to object in the strongest terms in this House to the use of this property as a reformatory for girls.

Why?

In the beautiful Constantia-Tokai valley we already have a huge prison complex at Pollsmoor. We already have two reformatories for boys, and now we are going to be landed with a third reformatory, for girls. [Interjections.] I would suggest, and I hope that this will be passed on to the hon. the Minister of National Education, that this beautiful part of the Peninsula is being overloaded with institutions which have to do with the punishment of crime or the reformation of miscreants. It seems to me that they are treating this part of the world as a heaven for institutions to house the Reform Party. Sir, the property which is now going to be turned into a reformatory, borders on a good residential area. Many of the property owners in this residential area purchased their properties before they knew that this property was going to be used as a reformatory.

Where do you suggest it should go?

I made suggestions to the Minister as to where it should go. These properties are now, just like the properties which were adjacent to Pollsmoor Prison before it went up, going to go down in value. This is some of the best residential land in the Peninsula.

Sir, I do not object to the purchase of this property by the Government. I realize that they got it at a good price, but it is the purpose for which it is going to be used that I object to. There are lots of other uses to which this property could usefully be put. For instance, they could have negotiated with the provincial authorities for the use of this property either as a primary or as a secondary school. This is an expanding area which needs these facilities. The Department of National Education also badly needs new accommodation for the teaching college for kindergarten teachers, which is at present housed at Claremont and is hopelessly inadequate for that purpose. At this late stage I would still appeal to the Government and to the hon. the Minister of National Education to reconsider the purpose for which this property is going to be used.

I am afraid I cannot reply on behalf of the hon. the Minister of National Education. The appeal was directed at him. My department succeeded in obtaining accommodation which suited the Department of National Education. I cannot see what else can be done. This will now be a reformatory for girls. It was a junior school and a senior school with a school hall, etc. The facilities are already there and these are not going to be expanded to such an extent that there will be an entirely new development. It only needs some adjustment to suit the requirements of the department.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 30 and Loan Vote P.—“Mines”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with Loan Vote P, subhead I —Loans to Helam Mining Company, R250 000, and Good Hope Diamonds and Estates, R108 000. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell the Committee what type of mining takes place at Helam Mining Company and what is the loan for in the case of both these mines. Is there any guarantee that the loans will be repaid? How long will it take for the loans to be repaid? Who are the directors of these mines?

Who are the shareholders?

Lastly, is the State going to get any interest on the money which is going to be advanced?

Mr. Chairman, at this point you will allow me to reply to the hon. member for Yeoville, who, in the Second Reading debate, referred to the fact that it was a new principle to grant loans of this nature. I want to point out that it is by no means a new principle, because years ago we voted a loan of R8 million to Randfontein Estate General Mining Company for the development of the so-called “Cook Section”; we also voted a loan of R7,5 million to Unisel, Union Corporation and others for the development of a new gold-mine at Jurgenshof in the Free State; we voted a number of loans to various gold-mines for the pumping out of superfluous water coming from other closed mines and we also advanced loans to a large number of marginal profit mines before the present scheme of assistance to the gold-mines was put in operation a few years ago. I therefore want to state very clearly that a new principle is not at issue here, because it has been the custom for a number of years to grant loans in deserving cases and after thorough investigation.

But these loans are to individuals.

The hon. member for Rosettenville put questions to me in connection with Helam Mining Company and Good Hope Diamond Mines. In the case of Good Hope Diamond Mines, the position was as follows: During the excessive rains in February and March 1974, in spite of very careful preventative measures, certain fissure diamond workings became flooded and production came to a standstill, to the detriment of South Africa, as hon. members will be able to realize. Owing to a lack of capital and high interest rates some of these undertakings found it very difficult to reach full production again. The State was then approached to provide assistance. The Government Mining Engineer then went into the whole matter very carefully and because his finding was that it was in the State’s interest that the diamond producers concerned should reach full production again as soon as possible, the Cabinet decided that loans, which in total were not to exceed R750 000 could be granted to the producers concerned in the financial year 1974-’75. At the time I regarded the matter as being so important that I submitted it to the Cabinet. At the time the Cabinet also decided that the loans could only be granted in respect of actual working losses while the pumping out of water was in progress. The loans have to be repaid over a period of five years. Interest is charged at the prevailing rates for State loans and is payable annually. Only this one company subsequently applied for a loan and an amount of R108 000 was voted for this purpose.

In the case of the Helam mine, where the amount in question is R25 000, this mine was threatened by closure owing to a lack of capital needed for the necessary development work so that the diamond mine could be kept in operation as a paying proposition. This company, which produces a substantial number of diamonds, which is a source of foreign exchange, provides employment to about 30 Whites and 450 non-Whites. It makes an important contribution to the development and the economy of the Swartruggens region. I want to tell hon. members that a number of representations were addressed to me by the hon. member for Marico, the member of Parliament for that region, who pointed out to us that the position there was such that if that mine were to be obliged to close, it would have a very detrimental effect on that community. That hon. member could give the Committee a very interesting discourse on this point. In fact, I think he has already spoken about this matter in this House on one occasion. In these circumstances I personally concerned myself with this matter and issued instructions that a very thorough investigation into this case should again be instituted through the Government Mining Engineer. After I had fully discussed the matter with the former Minister of Finance and had also held discussion with his department, this matter was considered by the Cabinet, too, and it was then decided to grant a loan of R250 000, which would put this company in a position to complete the necessary capital works to remain in operation as a paying proposition. A proper loan agreement was entered into with this mining company. I trust that I have now replied to all the hon. member’s questions.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us who the owners and the directors of these mines are?

Mr. Chairman, the directors of Helam Mining Co. are Morgensterns of Johannesburg, and of Good Hope Diamonds Limited, Roelf Versluis and others.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to Vote No. 30, I should be grateful to the hon. the Minister if he would explain, first, in regard to subhead H—State Alluvial Diggings—why an increase of R637 000 is required, that is about 25% above the amount estimated. This amount is made up of the excess from savings, plus additional expenditure. Second, could the hon. the Minister explain the additional amount of R1 528 000 which has to be voted in respect of subhead L— Atomic Energy? The hon. the Minister of Finance has already explained to us the reasons for the increase under subhead J, so I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would furnish answers only in respect of subheads H and L.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to subhead H, I want to say that the gross additional provision required is R637 000. The estimated total provision was R3 297 000, while the original provision was R2 660 000. Savings available under other subheads which can be used for virement purposes amounted to R405 000, which left us a net additional provision required of R232 000. Savings in respect of assistance to gold mines provided us with the R405 000 for virement purposes. The gross deficit of R637 000 is attributed to a number of factors. Firstly, it is due to abnormal increases in the prices of ail commodities for mining and domestic purposes, in some instances as much as 100%. Secondly, it can be attributed to the expansion of mining operations. Thirdly, it is due to the acquisition of a new X-ray apparatus for medical and security purposes. This was totally unforeseen due to a rezoning of inner and outer areas, a very interesting and good development. Fourthly, CDM terminated the contract for the supply of meat to the State Alluvial Diggings. As the local supply of slaughter stock can provide the needs of the single and married quarters only, meat for the compounds is purchased in Cape Town. For the transport of this meat a refrigerated carrier had to be purchased urgently. No provision existed for this purpose on the Appropriation Account. Due to a delay in the delivery of the meat carrier meat had to be purchased outside contract resulting in increased expenditure. These are the items which caused the increased expenditure of R437 000.

Then, with regard to subhead L—Atomic Energy—there is a figure of R1 528 000. This increase is due firstly to the underestimating of expenditure arising from the new salary structure which came into operation on 1 July 1974. At the time the original estimates were finalized no definite information as to the nature of the new structure was available.

*There is also a certain project, but it is hot in the country’s interest that I should inform the House about that. This project is responsible for part of this R1 528 000. The hon. member is very welcome to get the details from me. I should furnish him with the details with pleasure, and that goes for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well. I trust they will understand that we are dealing with delicate matters here and that it is not in the interests of the country that I should make that information available to the House.

†Thirdly, no provision exists to meet the costs arising from the introduction of compulsory overtime as from 1 October 1974 and enhanced progression as from 1 July 1974. Fourthly, and lastly, there are the escalating operational costs of the IAEA resulting in increased contributions by member States. That is the explanation for the R1 528 000 under this Vote. I hope the hon. member is satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to Loan Vote P. Since this is a new item we can discuss the principle. The difficulty I have with the provision which the hon. the Minister put forward is that it seems now as if a company which is in the export business, and which provides a certain amount of employment, can have money provided by the State in order to keep that industry going. This may apply even if the company is in need of capital and has wealthy shareholders but the shareholders are not prepared to put the money in. This is the principle involved. The hon. the Minister has made it clear that these are two private companies. These companies are not public companies. He has mentioned names, at least one of which is that of a fairly well-known person, a person of very substantial means. Thirdly, the only reasons that have been advanced in respect of the Helam mine is that this is a mine which provides employment and which it would be desirable to have continue in operation for export purposes. In other words, let us assume that I am in the export business and have money to put into my business. If I prefer, however, not to put the money in and I say I am going to close down the business, the Government will come to my assistance and offer to lend the money to my company which I myself am not prepared to put in. This is to my mind a very fundamental business principle in so far as the rest of South Africa is concerned. There are other industries which also have similar problems. Why should the principle then be restricted to diamond mines and why should it be restricted, for example, to a mine in Swartruggens? Why should it not be extended to concerns in other areas?

I also want to ask some further questions. I think the hon. the Minister must tell us what the terms of the loan were in these circumstances. Was there a suretyship by the people that he mentioned guaranteeing the repayment of the loan? In other words, did they put their personal fortunes at stake when they are the ones who are going to get the dividends? Secondly, is there a preference given as a result of this loan? In other words, were mortgages or notarial bonds passed? What was done? Thirdly, is there a restriction which has been imposed by the State in respect of this loan in regard to the declaration of dividends while there is, in fact, still money owing? Is there any restriction on the repayment of any other loan funds while these loan funds are owing? Is there, too, any restriction on the salaries that are to be paid to shareholders and directors while these moneys are owing? I think this is important information that we are entitled to know. The hon. the Minister also mentioned that the loans were granted at prevailing Government rates of interest. To my knowledge there are a number of prevailing Government rates of interest and I think we should be told the actual rate of interest which is being paid in the present circumstances, and also whether there is an escalation clause in respect of that interest. In other words, is it geared so that it can be increased depending on what the prevailing rates of interest are? I think these are important questions that we should have answers to. What is even more important is the principle which is at stake. Will the principle applied here be applied to other activities and other industries which are involved in the employment of people and the export of commodities from South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, I have sympathy for the argument raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, in that he states that in this instance we are dealing with a matter that requires careful handling and in that he states that in this regard we are dealing with a principle, which, if not handled correctly, could cause us problems. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member in this regard and because I myself saw the matter in this light, I submitted both of these cases to the Cabinet for approval. In that the hon. member already has an assurance that what we have here is not something that is “open for abuse” because the Cabinet went into the matter very thoroughly after the Department of Mines and the Department of Finance had themselves considered the matter very carefully. Consequently I do not think the hon. member need be in the least afraid. If one considers the few instances that have occurred in past years of loans being granted to certain bodies, one will find that there have been very good reasons why loans were granted to them. Thus there is no question of this being thrown open and of any private company, as the hon member said, simply being able to come and apply for a loan and get one for the sake of convenience.

I want to refer the hon. member to the case of Good Hope Diamonds. Surely I need not tell the hon. member that the production of diamonds is a delicate matter and that diamonds are an important currency earner in South Africa. Diamonds fall into a category of a specific mining matter of inherent importance. Good Hope Diamonds had to deal with a major flood. This was a disaster and constituted extraordinary and unique circumstances, and this resulted in their mines being flooded. The mines in question were all fissure mines. The mines were inundated, and this caused absolutely unexpected and unforeseen damage to machinery. It also caused production to come to a standstill. When the company came and put its problems to the Government, the Government Mining Engineer was instructed to investigate the matter immediately. He was to submit a report to us concerning the matter so that we could consider it. I want to say that we repeatedly refused to grant them any aid. It was only after very convincing appeals had been received and the Government Mining Engineer had personally visited the area and made a report stating how serious the flood damage had in fact been, that the Government was prepared to consider aid in this instance. I want to emphasize that the loan was only granted in respect of the actual operating losses during the period in which the pumping of water out of the workings was taking place. The loan was not granted in respect of anything else, and surely that must be very clear.

Do the owners not have money of their own to put into this?

In this case this was not possible for the owners. They furnished the necessary proof indicating that they had been hard hit and were unable to continue.

And the other mine?

I shall come to the other mine shortly. I want to state this matter very clearly because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding in this regard. I want to repeat that a proper loan agreement was entered into and that it was very effectively seen to that directors’ fees could not be increased as a result of this loan. The loan will therefore only be utilized to cover operating losses as long as the process of the pumping of water is in progress. “Escalation costs” were also provided for in the loan agreement. I am now speaking under correction, because I do not know what the precise interest rate is. An initial interest rate was mentioned but after the matter was referred to the Cabinet, the Cabinet decided that the prevailing interest rate would have to apply. I am speaking under correction but I think that it is 8½%. What I can remember is that it was an exceptionally high interest rate.

That is very cheap.

Perhaps I am wrong when I say that it is 8½%, but I know that it is a high interest rate. I can ascertain the correct figure, and when I do I shall give it to the hon. member with pleasure.

In the case of the Helam Mine we were dealing with just such extraordinary and even exceptional circumstances. I do not want to go into all the details now. I have the details at my disposal and the hon. member is very welcome to come and discuss them with me. I want to point out that here we are not dealing with a mine which is exclusively a private enterprise. It actually concerns a community which, if the mine were to be closed, would be dealt a heavy blow. I cannot speak so knowledgeably on the matter as the hon. member for Marico. However, the hon. member may accept with absolute certainty that in the case of the Helam Mine, we are not merely dealing with an ordinary private company, or even a diamond company, which applied for a loan which was granted without further ado. As I have said, there were extraordinary circumstances in this case with which all the departments concerned and the Cabinet, too, fully acquainted themselves. In this instance, too, a proper agreement was entered into. I have just received a note from the Secretary stating that the interest granted was 9¾%. I trust the hon. member is satisfied with that reply.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, feel obliged just to mention a few aspects so as to lend a little perspective to this whole affair concerning the granting of the loan to the Helam Company. I am amazed that the hon. member for Yeoville is raising objections in this regard. It is news to me that it is possible that some of the owners of this mine are unwilling to invest any more of their money in this enterprise and consequently came to me to make representations to the State in this regard. The hon. member asked why the Slate had to help them if the owners themselves were not prepared to invest money in the company. The situation in which the mine found itself had already begun to develop early in 1973. Representations had been made to me which I, in my turn, conveyed to the hon. Ministers of Mines and Finance. At the time, the directors of this mine submitted a report to me in which they stated that they should be granted certain exemptions in respect of export duty and that applications should be submitted to the Minister of Finance in regard to export duty imposed on industrial diamonds. They stated—I have it here in black and white—that during the financial year 1973 alone, they suffered a total loss of R85 000 which they ascribed to various causes, and of the loss they suffered in that year, R65 750 was ascribed to export duty. They pointed out that this was a highly productive industry that paid a substantial amount to the State every year in the form of income tax. The concession they insisted on could only be effected by including a suitable amendment in the General Law Amendment Act. This was done during the first short session in 1974 and was applied to them as from 15 March 1974. If hon. members look up Hansard, they will see that on that occasion I supported the amendment concerned. Subsequently, the mining company found that they were still unable to get by owing, to various problems and difficulties in regard to new and essential development, price increases, and so on. Consequently they approached me again and asked whether it was not possible that financial aid be granted them by the State, on the same basis as that in accordance with which low profit margin gold industries were supported by the State. I made these representations and had discussions with the hon. Ministers. I have before me all the correspondence in that regard. In addition, representations were made to me by the municipality of Swartruggens and various other local bodies who felt that they would be seriously affected if this mine were to close. In 1974 the mine had 46 Whites on its pay-roll. Their wages were —I have the details and I am quoting from their report in English—

I am only mentioning the round figures—

The hon. Minister also pointed out what this would mean to the community. I read further—

I could continue in this way mentioning figures to you which indicate that over R½ million is in circulation here annually. I want to emphasize that this was a serious situation for that mine and that it was no longer able to get by.

I have before me a letter from the directors proving that that loan of R250 000 granted to them is appreciated. I quote part of the letter from the mine manager (translation)—

I shall only read up to here … [Interjections.] Listen now; this does not concern me, personal role. I just want to put the matter in its true perspective … [Interjections.] It was not done easily. It took them almost a year to get the State to provide financial assistance. But owing to the financial aid that has now been granted, further reduction in staff has been stopped immediately and they are convinced that the mine will be able to function on a favourable financial basis again within the foreseeable future. That is what is important. This support provided by the State, for which we are very grateful, was one of the last tasks performed by the retired hon. Minister of Finance for the benefit of my constituency. On 1 February he wrote to me personally, stating that I should take cognizance that the loan had been granted, and he said that the socio-economic factors had been decisive in regard to the granting of the loan. Consequently, it is unpleasant to gather from the other side of the House, by way of all manner of questions, that loans of this nature should not be granted. As far as the principle of the matter, the details and the conditions relating to how it is to be repaid are concerned, I have nothing to say; this was explained by the hon. the Minister. I therefore want to put it very clearly that the loan is of far-reaching significance for the region, too, and not only for the mine as such.

To come back to Vote 30. Under subhead J. R1 196 000 is being allocated for the administration of occupational diseases in mines and works. Could I have some details of how this amount is going to be spent on administration?

Mr. Chairman, the position in this regard is that before the amendment Act came into operation, beneficiaries under the Act had to exercise their option to convert their monthly pension payments to one-sum payments within six months from 1 October 1973. The amendment Act removed the restriction, resulting in a considerable number of conversions for which no provision is available to meet the expenditure. Obviously this also had to do with the administration of this specific Act. Thirdly, pensions were increased as from 1 May 1974, and provision is required to meet the increased expenditure resulting therefrom.

I consider that the hon. the Minister should be more explicit. Instead of having a large amount of money set aside under “administration”, the Minister should have separate headings reading “administration”, “pensions”, “grants-in-aid”, or whatever the case may be.

I will do it next time.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 31—“Immigration”:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to subhead G—assistance to immigrants. I would like the hon. the Minister to give us a little more information and tell us whether this is simply an escalation of costs, or whether this is some new assistance given to immigrants. Has this any reference at all to the assistance given to those who have left Mozambique?

The position with, regard to subhead G is this: The expected shortfall is due to the fact that considerably more immigrants are being expected than was originally anticipated. There have been increases in air fares and hotel rates, and railway tariffs were increased as from 1 November 1974. The indications at present are that approximately 40 200 immigrants may be expected, compared with 31 200 provided for in the draft Estimates for 1974-’75. I just want to point out that it must be understood that the figure which I am mentioning now is for the financial year, that is, from 1 April to 31 March,, and not for the calendar year 1974, i.e. from 1 January to the end of December.

How many of those are from Mozambique?

There was a considerable increase in the overall number of immigrants last year, we are very happy about it; that is the main reason for the increase.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether part of this increase is being devoted to expenditure in London in particular, because there have been considerable delays caused by administrative paper work in dealing with the applications of would-be immigrants?

Yes, part of the money has been used to provide administrative and other assistance not only in the London office but also in the Glasgow office and other offices, where there has been a considerable increase in the number of applications.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has omitted to tell us, with regard to subhead G, to what extent these immigrants in fact came from Mozambique, and I think also from Angola. The hon. the Minister mentioned a figure of 40 200. What percentage of that figure is expected to come from Mozambique and Angola? Secondly, would the hon. the Minister give us details of the amount of R70 000 under subhead F?

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, may I first deal with subhead F, and then I will come back to the question of Portuguese immigrants under subhead G. with regard to subhead F, the expected shortfall is due to the following: (a) The per capita contribution in respect of each immigrant brought to the Republic by approved organizations was, in the case of one of the organizations, increased with effect from 1 April 1974; that is to say, after the draft Estimates for 1974-’75 had already been compiled. In the case of the other organization, more immigrants are expected than was originally estimated. The one organization which got the actual assistance was TRANSA, and the other one SANMORGAN. Secondly, South Africa’s contribution towards the administrative budget of the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM) has been increased from 4,6% to 4,75% and an assessment of 171 000 U.S. dollars is expected. At the time of the compilation of the draft Estimates for 1974-75, the indications were that South Africa’s contribution would be 155 774 U.S. dollars.

Then, lastly, the indications are that considerably more immigrants will be transported to the Republic by ICEM, the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration, than was originally estimated. Due to rising costs, the per capita contribution payable to the committee was also increased from 43,8 U.S. dollars to 50 U.S. dollars with effect from 1 July 1974. That is the explanation for the increase under subhead F.

*Then there is the last question in regard to the Portuguese. If the hon. member is referring to Portuguese refugees, I have to tell him that in the figures I mentioned in connection with the increase in the actual number of immigrants, these comprise only a very small number. I cannot remember the exact figure now, but it is a very small number because most refugees are being dealt with by the Department of the Interior; it is only when they apply for permanent residence, i.e. wh,en they are certain of what their position is, and so on, that they become the responsibility of my department. For that reason it is only a small number that is involved here.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 34.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General”, Revenue Vote No. 36.—“Agricultural Technical Services”, and S.W.A. Vote No. 20. —“Agricultural Technical Services”:

Would the hon. the Minister just explain to us what this interest subsidy, on page 24, on the purchase of cotton means?

Sir, we had a very large cotton crop of >2 205 000 bales last year. Of this number 160000 bales fell under the agreement between the spinners and the gin millers. Unfortunately the length of the cotton in the remaining 40 000 bales did not reach 1 l/16th of an inch and had to be purchased under a scheme we call the B scheme. On account of problems in the textile industry, the spinners and the gin millers experienced a shortage of funds and initially we lent them R18 million from Land Bank funds, secured by the Minister of Agriculture. This amount of R35 000 is the difference in the rate of interest in order to give them equalization of interest because this industry was in financial difficulties, and also to enable the gin millers to buy from the farmers the additional 40 000 bales of cotton which did not comply with the required length of the lint. Hence this additional expenditure.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 37.—“Health” and Revenue Vote No. 38.—“Health: Hospitals and Institutions”:

Under subhead K there is an amount of R1 368 000 set aside for medical “poor relief”. Would the Minister be good enough to tell us how this amount of money is made up?

The increase in the cost and demand for medical assistance on the part of indigent people, particularly as far as medicine, bandages, and so on, are concerned, increased from R2,5 million to R7,5 million during the past four years. The increase in cost is enormous and the need also exists on account of the fact that we provide free services for pensioners. This is an important item, but the most important item here is the fact that, as far as family planning is concerned, we are only now experiencing an escalation, an upward trend, from the foundations laid by the department during the first three years, and an additional amount of approximately R1,4 million was required to satisfy family planning needs. It is unfortunately a fact that we are unable to furnish you with exact figures as to how much was spent in respect of each service, but the total savings on a number of items which were off-set against the increases in other items, amounted to R1 368 000. This amount was placed under subhead K with the concurrence of the Treasury. Approximately 90% of this amount is for family planning. Additional services were required in that respect. Approximately 3% was for additional surgical requirements and approximately 7% for the increase in medicines in connection with poor relief.

Mr. Chairman, I was exceedingly glad to hear how much money is being spent on family planning now. But the hon. the Minister only referred to subhead K of Vote 37. I wonder whether, in regard to subhead F of Vote 38, he could tell us what percentage of the required amount was needed for family planning?

Mr. Chairman, the question of family planning is not really relevant under Vote 38— Health: Hospitals and Institutions—and since it applies there to such a minimal extent, it is not an item which has been budgeted for.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 39 and S.W.A. Vote No. 22.—“Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, under subhead G an amount of R52 000 has to be appropriated in respect of the University of the Western Cape and under subhead H R1 500 000 is required for the Coloured Persons Representative Council. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could explain why these extra amounts are required.

Mr. Chairman, the amount of R1 500 000 is required because of the additional remuneration for the members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Coloured staff of the Administration of Coloured Affairs following salary increases granted in July 1974. This is a column 2 amount Parliament has to vote and consequently it is not possible for this amount to be obtained by means of virement or in any other way.

As far as the amount of R52 000 is concerned, I just want to point out that an additional amount of R151000 was required for the University of the Western Cape for extensions to, among others, the dental faculty. The Department of Public Works also required an additional amount for various extensions to the university buildings. Facilities and equipment were required for the buildings accommodating the dental faculty. However, an amount of approximately R99 000 was saved on other items, and consequently an amount of only R52 000 was required in the end.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to subhead H of South West Africa Vote 22—Health Services—for which an additional amount of R274 000 is required. Could the hon. the Minister give details of the reasons for the increased expenditure?

Mr. Chairman, the Government has decided —we have been dealing with this matter for some years now—that the Department of Coloured Relations is responsible for the health services provided to the Coloureds, Basters and Naina in South West Africa. The South West African Administration carries out the work on behalf of the Department of Coloured Relations in accordance with a formula approved by the Treasury. Owing to an increase in costs, which was well motivated by the S.W.A. Administration, this additional amount is being required. The increase is for the most part due to increased salaries paid to the people rendering those services. In addition, there is the increase in the price of food, medicine, and so on. These factors are the principal reason for the additional amount being required.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 41 and Loan Vote J.—“Industries”:

Mr. Chairman, in respect of Vote No. 41 an additional amount of R1 250 000 is to be voted in respect of subhead M—Financial Assistances to the Local Film Industry. Under subhead N—Subsidy to Shipbuilding Industry—an additional amount of R333 000 is to be voted. Under Loan Vote J an amount of R1 000 is to be voted in respect of subhead 9—Loan to the Fisheries Development Corporation of S.A. Ltd. for the Development of the Fishing Industry. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would be good enough to comment on the reasons for these additional amounts?

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to the questions of the hon. member in sequence. Firstly I come to subhead M, the financial aid provided to the local film industry. Owing to the increase in the production of films on which a state subsidy is payable in terms of a specific formula of which the hon. member is aware, it has become necessary for us to budget an additional amount of R1250 000 for which provision is being made here. According to my information, this rapid increase must be seen in the light of the fear on the part of the manufacturers of films in South Africa concerning what is going to happen to their industry if and when television broadcasts are commenced in South Africa.

Most of the existing film makers, and various newcomers, too, now realize that cinema attendance in general—hon. members will remember that the subsidy is calculated on that basis—is going to drop drastically when a television service, which is going to start test broadcasts as early as April of this year, is introduced. Therefore these manufacturers are understandably trying to utilize to the fullest the time still available before the advent of television. The association is of the opinion that the production of local films is going to drop by about 40% to 50% in the period from about July 1975 to the middle of 1976. It would be correct, therefore, to see the exceptionally high subsidy expected against the background of an expected sharp drop in box office income and the subsidy in regard to the introduction of television. In other words, although we must now budget for a substantial additional amount here, it is expected that there will be a lower rate of production of films after the introduction of television which will quite probably cause a drop in the amount paid to the industry by way of assistance, in terms of the total picture. I trust that the hon. member accepts this explanation.

The hon. member also referred to subhead N, the subsidy to the shipbuilding industry, for which an additional amount of R333 000 must be budgeted. I want to restate as a matter of principle that we want to stimulate and encourage the shipbuilding industry in our country. The State therefore pays a subsidy to shipbuilders in respect of ships built in South African shipyards. Owing to further new applications for the payment of a subsidy, it appears that the original provision of R3 million in the budget will not be adequate and additional funds must therefore be provided. If these ships—this is important —were to have been built overseas, it would have meant an outflow of about R13 million in currency and would also have resulted in local shipyards coming to a standstill. The hon. member will understand that this would lead to people being left jobless in this specific industry. As a result the Treasury approved the provision of a supplementary amount of R333 000 in the additional estimates. Basically the explanation is that the R3 million was in fact insufficient to cover the subsidy for which there is an existing formula. The hon. member also questioned me in regard to Loan Vote J.

†I would just like to say that this is a new item, as the hon. member will note. This item must be seen in the light of the legislation already introduced during this session increasing the issued capital of Fishcor. The share capital was increased by two million shares valued at R4 million. I indicated that the capital required by Fishcor would be obtained by the increase of its share capital and also by way of the Loan Account. This is just a nominal provision for this particular purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would give us some additional information in regard to subhead L of Vote 41?

Actually, Mr. Chairman, there are three reasons for the existence of the amount of R4 500 000. The first and biggest item comprises R4 million out of a total amount of R4½ million. The National Supplies Procurement Fund is financed by advances made from time to time and from the Stabilization Account. Since there are no further funds available in the Stabilization Account, it was decided on 9 July 1974 that advances would be made from the Treasury Account for the financing of the activities of the National Supplies Procurement Fund, but on one important condition, namely that the advances would be repaid to the Treasury on demand. To date advances of R105 million have already been granted in this way. They have been paid from the Treasury Account to the National Supplies Procurement Account. In the meantime the Treasury requested that R50 million be repaid during November 1974 and a further R50 million of the advances be repaid in December of the same year. As a result the National Supplies Procurement Fund was obliged to make use of overdraft facilities with the S.A. Reserve Bank. Apart from this overdrawn account, the Fund had to assume a further obligation of R150 000 000 before the end of March 1975. In spite of the fact that advances were again made to the fund from the Treasury Account during February 1975, there is a possibility that these advances, again, will have to be repaid during March, i.e. this month. They can be called up by the Treasury. Consequently, therefore, bearing the above in mind, the Fund may again have to make use of overdraft facilities during March this year. The Fund will have to pay interest of 7% to the S.A. Reserve Bank on these facilities, viz. an estimated amount of R4 million to which I have referred. I hope that this is sufficiently comprehensive information for the hon. member. I do not want to spend more time now. The second aspect arises from increases in the price of commodities and increased interest subsidies, storage fees and handling fees of R400 000. When the Estimate of Expenditure for 1974-’75, the present financial year, was compiled, the provision of R1 299 million was regarded as sufficient to cover expenditure of this nature in regard to the State’s stockpiling scheme, of which the hon. member is also aware. Owing to the rise in the bank interest rates—we had an average rise of 3% from 1 April 1974—and owing to the increase in the price of supplies that had to be imported for stockpiling purposes, it now appears that an additional amount of R400 000 must be provided for these purposes; in other words, the amount has to be provided, firstly, in respect of the interest rates that were increased from 1 April 1974 and, secondly, in respect of the increased price of the supplies that have to be purchased as well as for increased storage fees and handling fees. Thirdly, provision is made for R100 000 to compensate for losses suffered by the National Supplies Procurement Fund as a result of theft. Thus the amounts required in this regard give us the total amount of R4½ million for which provision is made. In terms of a Treasury decision, all losses suffered from the Fund as a result of theft must be paid out of the Revenue Account. In terms of this decision an amount of approximately R100 000 must be transferred to the Fund as compensation. For the most part the amount is being utilized to compensate for the theft of grain bags. A claim for the full damage to State property, comprising an amount of R184 363-58, was submitted to the insurance company concerned. The insurers contested the claim on the basis of certain technical objections. After the matter had been considered for some time, the State Attorney, assisted by the two advocates that had been appointed, recommended on the balance of possibilities and probabilities in the law that this department accept an amount of R90 000 in settlement of the claim of more than R184 000. Consequently this resulted in a deficit of almost R100 000 (in round figures). I trust that this information is sufficient.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 42 and Loan Vote R.—“Indian Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, an additional amount of R1½ million is required to be voted for salaries, wages and allowances under Vote 42. Is any part of this amount due to the fact that Indian Council members are to be paid? If this is the case, how much of this amount is due to that fact? Furthermore I should like to know whether any part of this amount is due to the fact that this department seems to get a new Minister every six months.

Mr. Chairman, I must say how glad I am that the hon. member for Mooi River is apparently the chief spokesman on the Opposition side on Indian Affairs. I look forward to interesting discussions with him. I am afraid, however, that he has not started very well, because neither of the points he has raised has anything to do with the items on the Additional Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to Loan Vote R, subhead 1 —“Assistance to flood-stricken Indian farmers”, I should like to know whether this amount of R60 000 was in respect of the devastating floods on the north coast of Natal, particularly in the Umvoti and Nonoti River areas. If this is in fact so, through which agencies has this money been paid or through which agencies will it be paid if it has not as yet been done. Thirdly I would like to know whether the hon. Minister considers this amount to be sufficient bearing in mind that one White farmer in the Kearsney district, which is upstream the areas in question, has claimed an amount of R48 000 in respect of just one farm.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will recall that during last year there were serious floods along the Orange, Riet, Fish and Sundays Rivers. Certain relief measures were introduced, and I think they were quite generous measures. More or less at the same time there were serious floods in the Stanger and Umkomaas areas, the areas to which the hon. member is referring. The Cabinet then decided that assistance would be given to the Indian farmers who suffered because of those floods on exactly the same basis as the assistance given to the White farmers in the area of the rivers to which I have referred. As a result Indian farmers can apply to the Brummer Committee which was established by the Department of Community Development in order to assist farmers. The number of applications for assistance to the committee from Indians has been surprisingly low but, at a meeting of the Indian Council held in Durban about a fortnight ago, this matter was discussed and steps were taken to give better publicity to the fact that assistance can be had. As a result we expect a larger number of applications for assistance. Originally we got a State President’s warrant for R20 000, but we now feel it should be increased to R60 000 for this financial year. Obvisouly, we do not think that this amount will be adequate and the hon. member was quite right to raise that point. Surveys were made of the extent of the damage; and working on the reports we received, we came to the conclusion that an amount of about R230 000 would be required to give assistance to these Indian farmers. We are asking for R60 000 on account, and we shall ask for a further R170 000 when we come to the main estimates.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to give us details in regard to the additional amount of R1 521 000 under Vote 42?

Mr. Chairman, I do so with pleasure because I expect applause from the hon. member in this regard. The hon. member is a great champion of the principle of closing the wage gap. In that regard I want to tell him that by far the largest amount I am asking for, an amount of R1 545 000, is for increased salaries to Indian teachers and in the process considerable progress is being made in closing the gap. That is the major item, but there are other items of interest I do not think the hon. member will want me to mention them all, because some of them are quite insignificant. The other major items are: Printing, stationery, R15 000; primary, high and nursery schools, R28 000; financial assistance to declared institutions and courses for education and technical colleges, R163 000; financial assistance in respect of buildings, grounds, furniture and equipment for state-aided vocational and special schools, R13 000; and also additional provision for the University of Durban-Westville, R107 000. The other items are smaller.

There were certain savings. While I am on this point, I shall mention one saving that is quite interesting. We find that the department will need R102 000 less on social pensions and R191000 less on child welfare than we expected. This is not the result of any refusals on the part of the department; it is just that the need has been less than we allowed for. This seems to indicate that the Indian community has a rising standard of living which exceeds even the expectations of the Department of Indian Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister can expect that, when he does the right thing, I shall applaud him, but that when he does the wrong thing, I shall do something else. May I follow up his answer by asking him, when he talks of closing the gap, whether it is his intention that the gap should disappear. Secondly, as there has been a saving in respect of social pensions and as he feels so strongly about closing the gap—I am happy to hear of it—is it not possible to use that saving to close the gap even further?

Order! I cannot allow a discussion on that.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 44.—“Justice”:

Mr. Chairman, there is one item I would like some information on. I refer to subhead M—Legal expenses incurred by State Attorney—in respect of which the revised estimate is almost double the original estimate. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is as a result of any particular litigation in which the State is involved and, if so, what that litigation is. If that is not the cause, I would like to know why the increase is nevertheless so large.

Mr. Chairman, the position is that legal costs are incurred by the State Attorney on behalf of other departments. This happens when this department has to act on behalf of other departments. When the estimates are drawn up, it is impossible to determine which claims will be submitted by or against State departments during the following financial year. Therefore, the amount for which provision is made in the estimates is to a large extent dependent upon speculation and guess-work. The hon. member will understand that it is impossible for this department to determine how long a court case is going to continue and what the costs involved would be. The costs are extremely high, particularly in court cases where expropriation takes place. It is for these reasons that this amount has shown such a tremendous increase.

Vote agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the fine progress we have made. I also wish to reply to two points which were raised. One was the question put to me by the hon. member for Yeoville with regard to the R1 and R2 coins. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised the second point with regard to half-cent pieces.

†In regard to the question of the R1 and R2 gold coins the position is that we are at the moment confined to selling the proof sets. Although no decision has as yet been arrived at in regard to extending it, the matter is still under consideration. We will see what can be done from a practical point of view.

As far as the position in regard to half cents is concerned, I should just like to mention to the House that from 1961 to 1969, over that eight year period, 80 million half cents were minted. During the following four year period, from 1970 to 1974, a further 60 million were minted, making 140 million in total. Theoretically these coins ought all to be in circulation. Let me make a quick calculation. If we take an average population figure of 20 million people including men, women and children, there should on average be approximately seven half cents per person at any given moment in time. This is more than the number of half cents I have in my pocket at any moment in time. As I attempted to explain, in replying to the hon. member earlier, the Mint has been fairly active in regard to the minting of half cent pieces and up to last year 140 million of them had been minted since decimalization was introduced.

I do not wish to keep the House any further, Sir.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

On 2 February this year it was precisely 316 years ago that Jan van Riebeeck was able to record with pride in his journal that the first wine had been pressed from Cape grapes. South Africa became known as a wine-producing country when wines from the Groot Constantia cellars won renown in the high society of Europe at the end of the 17th century. Ever since, Groot Constantia has symbolized quality, high standards, achievement and prestige in the South African wine industry. The Bill which is before this hon. House for consideration today, seeks to enhance this image of Groot Constantia as a wine farm, and to preserve it as such for future generations.

Groot Constantia was laid out in 1692 by Simon van der Stel. After his death, this historic farm changed hands several times before the Cape Government bought it in 1885. Of the original almost 900 hectare there are today, after subdivisions, a scant 100 hectare left, which is situated in the middle of a residential area. Today all the historic buildings on Groot Constantia are national monuments which bring home the glory of bygone days in a striking manner to thousands of visitors. Groot Constantia is undoubtedly our most famous wine farm and because the farm, like the buildings, ought to be properly cared for, it was transferred in 1957 to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services so that the farming operations could be carried out under expert supervision.

The farm was leased between 1924 and 1957, and when taken over was in a considerably neglected condition. Production was low and because it was initially intended to be a quasi-experimental farm, the farm has never since, from an agricultural point of view, been fully utilized for production. The increasing demand in recent years for Groot Constantia wines has necessitated a change in our thinking in regard to the farm. Owing to its special historical connections the farm cannot be regarded simply as a commercial undertaking, although it has in recent years shown a good profit. The Public Service is not organizationally geared to being and having to be able to undertake a production function. I therefore propose that the farm should in future be managed by a control board, the members of which shall be appointed by the Minister. The object of the control board shall be to control and manage the farm in accordance with a policy approved by the Minister, with a view especially to the production of quality wines from grapes grown on the farm. The Bill provides that the control board be given the necessary powers to achieve its object.

Because a farm such as Groot Constantia requires only a limited staff, it is being envisaged that its full-time staff shall consist of officers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, who are seconded to the service of the control board. In addition the Bill provides that certain other persons may render services to the control board, for example a firm of accountants which keeps its books, and seasonal workers during the grape-harvesting season.

Provision is being made for an amount of R150 000 to be made available from State funds to the control board as working capital, and also for the control board to be able to borrow money from the State. The funds of the control board will also be supplemented from the sale of wine and agricultural produce. Although the control board will initially incur considerable expenditure in developing Groot Constantia to its full potential, it is being proposed in the Bill that the control board itself shall bear all expenditure in regard to the control and management of the farm. Provision is being made for the profits shown by the farm to be used for further development or otherwise invested or utilized in a manner approved by the Minister.

Because no fundamental change in the present farming situation is envisaged, it is being proposed that the movable property of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on the farm be transferred to the control board. It is also being provided that the State shall complete at its expense the building projects which it has already commenced on the farm, and that the control board shall subsequently maintain the buildings.

In terms of the Bill the Minister retains control over the estimates of the control board, and its books are audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. The control board shall also report annually on its activities and such report is tabled in Parliament.

It is being provided that the control board shall not be liable to any licence money or tax other than customs, excise and sales duty, and the customary levy to the KWV. Furthermore it is being proposed that the control board be exempted from the provisions of the Liquor Act to enable it to sell the wine which it has produced on the farm.

For a long time there has clearly been a need for a prestige restaurant at Groot Constantia in which the public can enjoy traditional South African dishes accompanied by our selected home-grown wines, In the Bill it is being provided that the person who manages such a restaurant in a building which he leases from the control board shall be deemed to be the holder of a restaurant liquor licence.

Mr. Speaker, members of this hon. House are thoroughly aware of the inconvenience which the present wine-selling procedure at Groot Constantia causes. It is expected that wine production will in due course increase considerably, and that Groot Constantia wines will become more freely available.

I am convinced that the proposed new dispensation will contribute to Groot Constantia being restored to its full former glory.

Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as representative in this House of the constituency of Constantia, in which the estate with which this Bill deals is situated, it is my privilege on behalf of this side of the House to welcome this Bill and to advise the Government that it will have our full support. This is a forward-looking measure which is being taken in connection with what must be termed one of the most unique farming operations in this country. The Groot Constantia farming operation, if one takes it also in conjunction with the other assets which are present on the Groot Constantia Estate, such as the historical monument of the old homestead, forms part of the tradition and the history not only of the Cape but of the country as a whole. This farming operation and the homestead are a showpiece of the Cape and of South Africa. I think, therefore, that it is very fitting that special attention should be given to this area, special attention which should preserve the tradition and the historical worth of Groot Constantia for future generations, besides having various other considerable and tangible advantages.

This Bill provides for a board of control to control and manage the farming operations of Groot Constantia. In effect it converts the farm of Groot Constantia into a form of public corporation with similarities to other public corporations but also with very significant differences.

I should like to pay tribute to the work which has been done by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in the past few years in connection with Groot Constantia farm. The department took over the farming operations of Groot Constantia in 1957, when the farm was in a pretty rundown condition. Since then the department has not only rehabilitated the farm, but I think has run it efficiently and has built up the farming operations into something of which we can be proud. In addition to that, it has developed products which I think are very deserving of the high reputation which they have and they certainly do justice to the famous wines which were produced in this part of the country centuries ago.

I welcome this Bill because it places the Groot Constantia farming operations under its own board and will give it a measure of autonomy, although not by any means complete autonomy. This will mean, I hope, that closer attention will be given to certain aspects of the operation. I hope it will mean that the operation will be free from some of the laborious procedures and red tape which is associated with any operation run by a Government department. I hope it will mean far greater scope for development of new products and for expansion of production. I hope it will mean improved selling methods and improved marketing methods, which is one aspect of the Groot Constantia operation which is open to much improvement. Anyone who has stood in a queue for an hour or so on a hot summer’s day on a Wednesday, in order to obtain the ration of two cases of wine, will realize that the method of marketing in the past did not measure up to what one would call a modern method of marketing.

However, now that Groot Constantia is going to have its own board of control I find that the possibilities that are thereby opened up for development and expansion could be very exciting. I welcome this Bill because the hon. the Minister has not shed his final responsibility for this operation. He is going to continue to be answerable to Parliament in this respect. Although Groot Constantia will be a form of public corporation it will differ from other public corporations, particularly those under the control of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, in respect of which we are always told that Parliament cannot discuss their affairs because they are autonomous.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister when he replies to the Second Reading debate what financial policy it is proposed that Groot Constantia farming operations will follow under the board of control. It appears to me that the board is going to be placed in an extremely favourable financial position from the start. It is going to receive a working capital of R150 000 for which no return or interest is provided for in the Bill. I therefore presume that this is an interest-free amount. It is going to receive the property, to work it apparently on a rent-free basis. It will, therefore, not have to incur any expense of occupation. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services has, after all, been running Groot Constantia only on an experimental basis; it has not been exploiting the commercial potential of the farm. Yet, in its most recent year, it was able to make a profit of R104 000. With development, which I expect will take place under its own board of control, Groot Constantia should produce substantially greater profits than those made under its previous control. I realize that fairly substantial amounts from profits are going to be needed for development. There are improvements and farming developments that have to be made. On the other hand, I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that, as this is a State enterprise, he should be setting an example by pricing its products on a reasonable basis even though the products are quality products and are likely to be in high demand and command a high price.

Higher or lower?

I think that the present pricing arrangement, which is lower, generally speaking, than other comparable products, is a reasonable one.

Finally, I have a particular further interest in this Bill, because Groot Constantia occupies a particular position in the environmental situation of the Constantia valley. It also occupies a key position in the historical triangle in the Constantia valley. This historical triangle contains no fewer than five national monuments, namely Groot Constantia, Klein Constantia, Nova Constantia, Hope of Constantia and Buitenverwachting. Normally I would not be an advocate for the extension of State enterprise …

Like prisons.

Yes, like prisons, but there are always exceptions to any rule, and exceptions often prove the rule. I believe that in this situation the State has a particular responsibility. There is little doubt that the privately owned vineyards of Constantia and particularly the privately owned vineyards that border on the Groot Constantia Estate are inevitably going to disappear and be subdivided into residential plots. I believe it would be very much in the interests of the country as a whole if the State did not delay too long in expanding the Groot Constantia wine farm by gradually acquiring neighbouring and adjoining vineyard land. I have in mind particularly the land of Hope of Constantia which is at present the subject of a court case involving the possible development of that land into cluster housing. I believe the State would be serving a very useful purpose if they did not delay in considering the acquisition of further land for Groot Constantia. If it does so, it is not going to do so at the expense of residential development as there is a big superfluity of undeveloped residential plots in the Constantia valley. If it does so, it would be preserving the farming nature of the land involved. It would help preserve the historical tradition and the beauty of the valley. Above all, it would enable Groot Constantia over the years to expand its production of products of which we can only be proud. In this respect I would finally like to say that the interests of the residents of Constantia are very much affected by the development of Groot Constantia. I would like to suggest to the Minister that when he considers the constitution of the board, included in the appointments he makes should be some prominent person, preferably a resident of Constantia, who has the interests of Constantia at heart, not only the interests of Groot Constantia as a farming venture, but also the traditional, historical and beauty interests of the valley.

Mr. Speaker, when one considers the subject matter of this Bill, one is impressed by the tremendous value of the cultural-historical treasure which we have in the Groot Constantia Estate. In fact, I think that, next to the Company Gardens adjoining us here, Groot Constantia is the greatest cultural historical treasure of natural value dating from the 17th century. As the hon. the Minister has said, the buildings are already historical monuments. But Groot Constantia, which was laid out in 1692 by Simon van der Stel, is in the first place a typical example of an old Cape farm. Therefore I welcome sincerely the establishment of this control board which will ensure that justice is done to the agricultural activities of this farm.

To us who were born and bred here in the Western Cape, Groot Constantia possesses a special fascination. As I have said, this farm was laid out in 1692 by Simon van der Stel. I reside on a farm which was granted by the same Simon van der Stel to the Huguenot Solomon de Gournay in 1694, only two years later, and to me the Groot Constantia Estate possesses a special fascination. Not only is it beautifully situated in the wonderful natural surroundings of Constantiaberg, but it is also endowed with the most valuable, most fruitful soil for vine cultivation. That is why we who hale from the Boland go into raptures so readily about the special character of Groot Constantia. We want to say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister for the steps which he is now taking to do justice to the agricultural potential of this precious cultural-historical treasure from the 17th century. We are grateful that the hon. Opposition supports this Bill for we see in this visions of the renascence of Groot Constantia, as it existed in the 17th, 18th and even 19th centuries.

However, I want to say at once that the greatness of the Groot Constantia Estate as an agricultural undertaking lies in the production of red wine. There are very few climatic zones in our country which are eminently suited to the production of red wine. For superior white wines there are many areas which are well suited, but it is quite simply an oenological fact that it is not only good soil which is required for the manufacture of red wine of a superior quality, the right climate is also necessary for this purpose. Those climatic conditions which are required for the manufacture of prestige red wine are the moist, mild breezes which one finds near the ocean. Is it strange, then, that the very best wine at the Cape wine show for the past four years came from a farm a few miles from False Bay? I am referring to the red wine variety, Cabernet Sauvignon. The Groot Constantia estate has precisely the same climate. It is also situated near the False Bay coast, and it might even have a better soil than that from which this famous wine of the past four years came. For that reason I foresee that justice will now be done to the agricultural potential of this farm as well.

As I have said, I do not for one moment want to detract from the wonderful work which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has been doing there since 1957. However, the problem is that when the Department of Agricultural Technical Services was managing the farm, all the profits from the farm were simply paid into the Treasury or into the appropriation of the department. The farm had no direct control over the profits. When it subsequently required money for the development of that splendid estate, with all its wonderful potential, it simply had to join the queue before the department’s door.

While research work elsewhere was consuming vast sums of money, this estate was rather far back in the queue. For that reason I welcome the fact that this control board is now being established. This control board will now be able to plough back the profits immediately and apply them for further development and the introduction of more modern wine-production methods. I believe that the hon. the Minister will appoint people to that control board who have the necessary scientific knowledge of the most modern agricultural methods, for I believe that in the Groot Constantia area there is only one factor which can prevent the production there of the finest wines, and that is the rains during the harvesting season which cause the very severe grape disease botrytis. Fortunately we now have a preparation which is able to restrict botrytis as well, but for the combating of this disease the best knowledge and experience is needed. I say again that this disease is in my opinion the only factor which could prevent us from making wines of supreme quality at Groot Constantia.

If I may offer the Minister one suggestion, then it is that he should reconsider whether 31 March is the best closing date for the financial year for a wine farm. On 31 March it may even happen that not all the grapes have been processed into wine, and it is extremely difficult to close a farm’s financial statements when one is in the process of making wine. I want to suggest very courteously that 30 June is a far better date for closing the financial year than 31 March. In spite of this minor reservation, I want to give this Bill my sincere support. I want to repeat that I see visions of the renascence of a glorious Groot Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl and I have one thing in common and that is an appreciation of and a love for the noble wines of our country. I must confess that when I had to give this Bill my attention I took myself to my library and with me I took a bottle of 1968 Groot Constantia Cabernet. I spent a very pleasant Saturday evening delving into the many authorities on the subject of this wonderful old gracious Cape home, Groot Constantia, not the least of whom were Dorothea Fairbridge, the National Monuments Commission and many others. I want to say that we owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. the Minister for having introduced this Bill, but I ask myself why it has been introduced. In all fairness, the advisory board which has up to now been responsible for advising on the management of this estate and for giving assistance to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, has produced outstanding work. The result is seen in the wines which they produce today, and I think that we should go on record as knowing what they are. The wines which are available to the South African public today are the Constantia Cabernet, Pinotage, Shiraz and White Steen. All these wines except for the White Steen are noble red wines which one may well keep, wines which have matured and which will mature further.

The hon. the Minister will recall that during the debate on his Vote last year the hon. member for Constantia and I raised the subject of the distribution of wines at the farm. We asked whether it could not be improved upon. I think this House should take itself back to the early history of the Groot Constantia Estate. We should realize that while we are talking generally of Groot Constantia as a single name we are really dealing with three departmental controls. First there is the great house itself, so steeped in history, which falls under the Department of Public Works and also under the control of the National Cultural History Museum. The farm itself falls under the hon. the Minister’s control, while the upper reaches of the farm, where trees have been planted, falls under the Department of Forestry.

I wonder whether anyone has asked in recent years why Simon van der Stel called the property “Groot Constantia”. Has any member of the House realized that he lived there alone during those wonderful years of his life and that his wife, Johanna Six, did not come out from Europe to join him? It appears that there is confusion as to why the house was called “Constantia”.

He was not altogether alone.

Some writers describe the name as having been that of his wife, but this is historically wrong. Others have said that the farm was called after his daughter, but that is also historically wrong. Others have suggested that it was named after the daughter of the patron who recommended that he should be granted the farm. Be that as it may, this farm has come to be known throughout history as the most gracious South African home. I must confess that like many others who have been born and bred in the Cape, I have on many occasions driven into the Constantia Valley. I did so in the early 1920s with my parents in a horse and cart and visited the lovely farms Buitenverwachting, High Constantia, Hope of Constantia. Groot Constantia. Klein Constantia, Witte Boomen and others. I remember the times when candlelight parties were given there and, after supper, the daughters of the house gathered around the piano and we enjoyed what was regarded as the loveliest form of entertainment of our early youth.

It is also known that the winery and winelands of Groot Constantia are so singular that, as the hon. member for Paarl has indicated, cooled as they are by the soft breezes coming from the coast and getting just the right amount of sunshine, they produce wines which history has recorded as being even better than the wines of Hope of Constantia even though the two vineyards are merely divided by a hedge. It should also be known that in the early days the real Constantia wines about which writers have said “No one has lived unless he has drunk the wines of Constantia and Tokai” were produced in the singular fashion which is also known to be followed in order to produce some of the famous wines of Germany, namely that just before picking the bunches of grapes were twisted slightly. This reduced the flow of sap to the grapes which remained on the bunch until they were almost raisins. At that stage no bad berry was ever allowed to go into the vats. In this condition the grapes were then pressed in large vats by the feet of six slaves, who danced on them bare-footed and sang Bacchanalian songs while the juice ran out at the bottom and was pumped away into larger vats.

In view of the lateness of the hour, I am sure that all of us will be feeling that the efforts of these slaves were not in vain! Be that as it may, these wines were then stored for many years in that huge cellar with that wonderful frieze above it, the pediment done by Anton Anreith. Eventually these wines were sent all over the world. It should be noted too that Groot Constantia and persons in the valley such as the Lategans, the Louws, the Cloetes themselves and others, were visited by almost every person of importance who ever came to Cape Town. At the same time the ships’ captains loaded their vessels with wines and these wines travelled to the courts of the world. So today the name “Groot Constantia” is a name worthy of being retained in respect of the wine. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House do appreciate the fact that in future the farm will be handed over to a small board of control.

Incidentally, I hope that men of the calibre of Oom Paul Sauer, who is still very much alive and a wine farmer and who was Minister of Lands at the time when the State took over the farm in 1957, will be members of the board. It is to be hoped that men of this calibre, steeped as they are in Cape and South African history, will be members of the board. I hope, too, that the distribution of the wine will be such that it will reach the widest possible circle. In this regard I refer to the Houses of Parliament, the homes of the State President, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, our leading clubs, the Blue Train and our leading hotels so that this prestige wine, a wine which we can be proud of will spread in fame and that we who are true South Africans will be able to enjoy it to the utmost.

I also want to ask that in view of the fact that this Bill provides for a restaurant, that restaurant conceivably be established in the Hope of Constantia, a homestead which is at present somewhat derelict but which is to be controlled by the division of Cultural History and Museums. We could create here what Hildagonda Duckitt described as the true South African venue. This could be a venue where our foreign diplomats, trade visitors and ordinary visitors could enjoy a meal accompanied by parliamentarians and others. They could eat here by candle-light in a romantic setting and with their food enjoy the wines of Constantia. I also want to ask that a true farmer should be in charge of that farm and that the use of horses and mules should again be reverted to. Sufficient cattle should also be bred on the farm to give the visitor an idea of what a farm should be like. If these things are done, I believe that this Bill will be one of which the hon. the Minister will be proud. He himself is a grape grower but I am sure that the wines of the Transvaal will never ever be able to match the standard and the quality of the noble wines of Groot Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, great tribute has been paid this afternoon to the farm Groot Constantia and its produce. I agree with this. I wonder whether all the hon. members know that this farm might not have been established if Simon van der Stel had not been rather reluctant to work in his office. I read that when Rijdeloff van Goens recommended to the Council of Seventeen that this farm be given to the governor, he wrote as follows about him (translation)—

This man developed a farm and soon made vine cultivation an extensive occupation. So famous did these wines become that they became a sought after item in the European courts of kings and emperors. Elsewhere I read a description of Constantia wines by one of the writers of that time (translation)—

I think we may be proud of this product.

The hon. member for Paarl discussed the financial arrangement in regard to this matter. I also want to say that I think it will be a good thing, with the new dispensation, that the farm will be able to exist as an entity in itself, and that it will be able now to utilize its own profits, which formerly had to go to the Treasury. So popular were these Constantia wines, as they are today, that the owner of the farm in earlier days was required to relinquish a large portion of his crop to the governor of the Cape and to the Council of Seventeen, and what is more, at a reduced price. We know that the present person in charge of agriculture, the hon. the Minister, will most certainly not expect the produce of this farm, or even a part thereof, to be relinquished to the Government.

I should like to mention three reasons for supporting this Bill. In the first place I think that, with the new dispensation, it will be possible to develop the agricultural potential of this farm. At present there are approximately 160 000 vines, there is room for a further 40 000 or 50 000, and there is also room for varietal improvement. I think the production of this Constantia farm was in the region of 370 tons of grapes last year, and with new methods, with more vines being planted and improved varieties, this production could possibly be pushed up to 600 tons. This will of course increase the revenue of the farm considerably.

In the second place, now that the farm is going to have its own accounts for its own use, I think that the cellar at Constantia could be modernized. I am certain that the control board will try to turn this cellar into a model cellar as an example to other estate wine cellars and co-operative cellars so that they may come and see what a model cellar should look like.

In the third place I want to say that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, according to my Hansard, used to complain about the high wine prices in the past. He even said that he wondered whether the Department of Commerce should not investigate the position. I want to mention two wines in this connection. I think that the Groot Constantia Superior Pinotage and the Cabernet is being sold at a fair price in comparison with the prices being charged by other suppliers. Superior Pinotage retails at R1 per bottle, and the Cabernet at R1-50. These are three-year-old wines. I want to tell my hon. friend for Cape Town Gardens that if he were to buy wines of this type on the outside market, he would pay far more than this for a one-year-old wine. Perhaps we should not be too optimistic, for it may happen that with this new dispensation and development the wines might even become a little more expensive. However, we hope that this will not be the case, but it is nevertheless possible that there could perhaps be a small increase. I just want to request that these wines, which are very popular, should not be made scarcer, as far as internal consumption is concerned, than they already are at present. We know that there are many visitors from abroad who want to buy up these wines. I want to request that steps be taken to ensure that this excellent produce of Constantia should be made more freely available for consumption by people in our own country.

In conclusion I want to mention a matter which is of deep concern to me. The hon. member for Constantia mentioned it last year, and it was mentioned again this afternoon. Originally the Constantia farm was 900 ha in extent, but over the years it has been subdivided—frequently as a result of the fact that the farms became uneconomic—and until today we have a scant 100 ha of land left. I want to agree with him and join him in advocating that if it is possible, the State should consider acquiring in due course the two farms Nova Constantia and Klein Constantia for agricultural purposes as well. The hon. member for Constantia stated quite correctly that the amount of land is not increasing, and that attempts are being made on the part of certain parties to purchase this land as well for the purpose of housing schemes. We will never recover the heritage of our forefathers if we allow this to be neglected and allow fragmentation to take place. If this dispensation now before the House had not taken place, then it could have happened in theory that the Department of National Education, for example, would have been able to say that it required 20 ha of land in Constantia for a school, that it could then have applied to the department, Agricultural Credit, and could then have bought 20 or 30 morgen so that of that 100 morgen only 70 would have remained. I am therefore very grateful that the possible further subdivision which could in theory have happened, has now been completely eliminated. I should also like to lend strong support to an appeal made by the hon. member for Constantia, namely that our hon. Minister should think along the lines of purchasing in addition the land in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Constantia for having paid a tribute to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. It is not only the land, the vicinity and the location of the farm, but also the wine maker who contributes to the production of this wonderful and well-known Constantia wines. The hon. member for Constantia hopes to see the day when he will not have to stand in a queue. That is one of the reasons why we are thinking of having a restaurant and other selling methods instead of having people standing in a queue on Wednesdays. One thing that the hon. member must not forget is that the farm of 100 ha can bear only 200 000 vines at the utmost. The hon. member will be amazed to see from where we get requests, even from a place like Messina. We have hotels writing to us to get only one case a week. Where can you get a popular wine like this at the price of R1-00 for a Pinotage, compared to other prices? It is a wine that took most of the prizes in the French competition on the Paris Wine Show and is therefore a world-renowned wine. I feel that we should have a prestige attached to it so that it will not be like a “vaaljapie” which you can buy anywhere you want to. It must be a prestige wine to protect the name “Constantia”. I agree that having people queing up there is not the right thing.

The R150 000 will be made available tax-free—the hon. member was perfectly right —and the profits can be ploughed back into the farm.

To erect buildings according to the standards of the Historical Monuments Commission, as with the Coloured homes we built there, we have to have a look at the architectural tradition. We cannot upset the apple-cart and build modern buildings there, because everything must fit in with the old style of building. These buildings are going to cost us money, but because it is a question of prestige we must be prepared to spend money. I am glad therefore that the hon. member is not upset about the R150 000.

Then there is the matter the hon. member raised 1st year and also this year. Last week the hon. the Deputy Minister, myself and the Secretary visited Constantia and saw that it was possible, as the hon. member said, to buy adjoining land. I am glad that we will have the hon. member’s support if we buy the adjoining land to make the farm bigger.

*The hon. member for Paarl spoke the language which, I like, about the cultural-historical wealth of the 17th century and “superior red wine”. It is really and truly lovely to hear that it is a superior thing.

†The hon. member for Gardens said that wines in the Transvaal will never be able to compete with, wines in the Cape. That is perfectly correct. You cannot expect in an area which is first of all a summer rainfall area, to make wine in summer-time. We can produce early table grapes in the Transvaal, and in the Western Cape and the Benede-Oranje.

*But as I have said before, Transvaal grapes are of such a high quality that one cannot allow them to ferment and then bottle the result. The hon. member for Paarl mentioned the date 31 March, the date of closing. We can look into this. I foresee that this farm will never have to pay tax, but we can look into this to facilitate these things because these are things which can be corrected. We agree that we must appoint good businessmen to this board, and it is a very good idea of the hon. member for Constantia that we appoint a man from the vicinity, who knows the vicinity well, and that we appoint a connoiseur as well, someone who will be able to see immediately whether farming methods are correct or not.

†The hon. member for Gardens asked about a restaurant, and he proposed that there should be one at Hope of Constantia, to have this restaurant in that building. We will take the Minister of National Education there to show him, because at the moment it is his building and he probably wants to turn it into a museum. But I think we can have a much better set-up by having an old-time restaurant dating back to the 17th century and having the museum in some other place.

*The hon. member for Worcester spoke well about prices. Our Pinotage is R1 per bottle and our Cabernet R1-50. The big problem is that we do not want to make the price unreasonable, but we want our distribution to be such that everyone can have the opportunity to drink some of this prestige wine. We are severely criticized, and both sides of the House spoke last year about people having to queue on Wednesdays. In terms of this legislation we want to have orderly marketing so that every man who has a love for this cultural asset, wine, can have the opportunity to obtain a little red wine occasionally. The hon. member for Worcester asked what tastes better than red wine. I can tell him that only mutton chops taste better.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that I announced during the discussion of the Police Vote on 25 October last year that the Government had approved the allotment of 500 national servicemen annually to the South African Police for training and subsequent integration as full-fledged members of the force for periods of one or two years. I also indicated how allotments would be made by way of two intakes of 250 per annum, and how the national servicemen would eventually be integrated with the Police Reserve. The purpose of the Bill which is being submitted to this House for consideration today is to give effect to this decision and to provide that such national servicemen may remain integrated as members of the Police Reserve after the expiration of their periods of service in the force. As hon. members have probably observed, the entire Bill is devoted to the substitution of the existing section 34A of the Police Act 1958, in terms of which a Police Reserve was established for the first time in 1972. Some of the older hon. members in this House will perhaps recall that the existing Police Reserve of Officers was established in 1964. The latter reserve, however, involved only persons of officers’ rank in the Police Force, while the Police Reserve at present includes all former members who had served on the force in a permanent capacity for not less than six months.

The question of the allotment of national servicemen to the police is not an idea which suddenly originated last year. For several years hon. members on both sides of the House addressed pleas to my hon. predecessor for the allotment of national servicemen for training and service in the S.A. Police instead of normal national service. The matter was thoroughly investigated at the time, and the conclusion arrived at was that what was being contemplated at the time was impracticable. However, the matter was not left at that, and further attention, consultations and consideration followed, which led to the present step. In order to give legal effect to the allotment of servicemen to the S.A. Police, the Defence Act, 1957, will have to be suitably amended during this session.

I should now like to furnish this House with a few explanatory remarks dealing specifically with the provisions of the Bill:

Clause 1 substitutes the existing section 34A of the Act and contains all the provisions and proposed amendments in regard to the Police Reserve and the allotment of national servicemen.

Subparagraph (l)(a) of the substituted section 34A incorporates the existing subsection (1) in order to retain the operative provisions, to ensure in that way that persons who, prior to the commencement of this Bill, had rendered permanent service in the force for six months, will remain members of the Police Reserve. The words “was discharged or dismissed from the force” are being inserted to eliminate any measure of doubt which may have existed, and to ensure that not only those who left the force through normal termination of service or retirement on pension are required to furnish their addresses within three months after having thus left the force.

Subparagraph (l)(b) contains a new provision in terms of which the period of six months continuous service is being extended to 12 months. This provision is necessary to bring the term of permanent service approximately into line with the period which a serviceman is required to serve in the Defence Force in terms of the Defence Act.

Subparagraph (l)(c) makes provision for inclusion in the Police Reserve of persons who will be allotted in terms of the envisaged provisions of the Defence Act to the S.A. Police for training and service; that is, national servicemen.

To summarize briefly: The Police Reserve will in future therefore consist of three categories of persons:

1. (a) those who had served for a period of not less than six months prior to the commencement of this Bill; that is, those who had already become members of the Police Reserve in terms of the operative provisions;
2. (b) those who served for not less than 12 months after the commencement of this Bill; that is, the persons who will in future have completed at least 12 months permanent service in the force; and
3. (c) the national servicemen allotted to the police for training and service.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing one can usefully add to what the hon. the Minister has said about this Bill, save just to point out one thing, namely that provision is made that no one is exempted from future service even if he has been discharged or dismissed from the force. This is a necessary provision, otherwise some people could get themselves dismissed from the force to avoid service. I hope that in respect of those people we shall have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that when they are in fact re-employed as reservists, the force will be very selective about what kind of jobs those people will do.

Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member the assurance that those people who were discharged and had to join the Police Reserve will be given work which will cause them to regret that they were discharged.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

As a result of a reorganization and expansion of the programme of the Department of Prisons for the spiritual care of prisoners, it has become necessary to amend the provisions of section 7 of the Prisons Act, 1959.

At present there are 920 spiritual workers of 35 denominations who have been appointed to minister to prisoners. One of the most important problems under the present dispensation is the control over and the co-ordination of their activities. Owing to the increasing efforts of the department to influence a prisoner to the good it has become imperative to tighten the control over the quality and the intensity of spiritual care.

The solution to the problem is seen in a chaplain’s control corps appointed on a full-time basis to the fixed establishment of the department. These chaplains will be appointed as officers in terms of the provisions of section 4(1) of the Act.

Other spiritual workers who undertake spiritual ministration in prisons are authorized to do so in terms of the provisions of section 7. Section 7 is now being reformulated to draw a clear distinction between chaplains on the fixed establishment and other persons who undertake spiritual ministration in prisons. The term “other persons” is being used because it is not only ordained ministers who render this service, but also lay-preachers such as elders, etc.

Mr. Speaker, we support this Bill as well as the Second Reading. One wonders why this Bill was really necessary. The Bill merely sets out what the current practice is. One can see that it is necessary as far as the Public Service is concerned that the measure should be rephrased, as it is now, and we therefore offer no objection to it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.