Order! Before the House commences its business, I should like to refer to my statement on Wednesday, 28 February, during the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, when I said the following in reply to a point of order—

These words are open to misinterpretation and I should like to put them in their proper perspective.

†It is a fundamental principle of the democratic Parliamentary system that all hon. members, be they back-benchers or senior members, or sit on the Government or Opposition sides, are equal. They are entitled to the same protection by the Speaker and they have the same duty to the Chair. I want to reiterate that this is also one of the basic principles of our procedure.

I therefore wish to make it clear that I did not intend to convey that I propose to accord the hon. members to whom I referred in my statement more favoured treatment than other hon. members of the House.

*Within the framework of our system there are, however, certain positions of leadership and authority, such as those of particularly the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, which are treated with respect by hon. members. In general the holders of these offices deal with policy and other important public affairs.

†On such occasions I do feel that it is in keeping with the best traditions of Parliament that they should, by virtue of the positions they hold, be accorded special consideration by the House.

It is of the utmost importance that the decorum of this House be maintained and that the necessary respect be shown by all members towards one another. If, however, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are thwarted by interjections from stating their case, I shall not hesitate to take the necessary action.

Needless to say, the same protection will also be afforded to Ministers, leaders and senior members of other parties, as well as to all other members.

By this I do not mean that interjections may not be made while these members are addressing the House, but that they should be given the opportunity to make important statements on behalf of the Government and their parties, for the information of the House and the country, with a minimum of interruption.

I may remind hon. members that interjections have been described by Speaker Jansen as “the salt of debate”. I agree with this sentiment, but I do appeal to hon. members at all times to exercise restraint in making interjections, which are very often not relevant and can only lead to the disruption of debate. Such restraint will greatly assist the Chair in maintaining order and upholding the dignity of this House, which is after all the joint responsibility of all hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the 1978-’79 Appropriation Act Parliament appropriated an amount of R8 404,1 million on the various Votes. The proposals now before the House provide for an additional appropriation of R149,3 million, i.e. an increase of 1,8%. Percentagewise this increase compares very favourably with the additional estimates of the past. In fact, it is the second lowest percentage increase on the main estimates for more than a decade.

In my budget speech last year I emphasized the continued need for financial discipline. I think it is fair to say that this objective has been achieved, especially in the light of the price increases which departments have had to cope with since drafting their original estimates and the fact that departments have had to absorb the 4% general sales tax on purchases of goods and services. The increases on the Votes concerned will, of course, also be partly offset by savings on other Votes. As usual, I will review the Government’s accounts for the present financial year more fully in my budget speech.

*Hon. members will notice that six Votes make up the greater part of the additional amount, viz. Transport (R26,6 million); Plural Relations and Development (R39,6 million); Subsidies (arrear payments) to the provinces (R26,4 million); Commerce (R10,7 million); Indian Affairs (R8,2 million); Community Development (R14,6 million); and the Coloured Representative Council (R14,7 million). As usual, the explanations for these increases will be given by the responsible Ministers during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the fact that this Bill is really debated during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has, quite correctly, referred to the question of discipline in regard to appropriations and estimates. The test of good budgeting is obviously determined to some extent by the amount of extra money which is required during the course of the year in regard to the additional estimates. However, the final assessment of how good the budgeting has been will come when next year’s budget is presented to us later during this year. Therefore a final judgment really has to be withheld until that moment.

Quite obviously, in the normal course additional estimates provide for expenditure which could not be foreseen or where the Government during the course of the financial year had another purpose why particular sums of money should or should not be expended. In this case it is quite obvious that in having applied these tests to these particular additional estimates, we find that during the course of the year there was no particular new purpose which has arisen and which has made a major change to the budget for the year in so far as these estimates are concerned. However, when the hon. the Minister takes pride in the fact that the increase is only 1,8%, I want to remind him that last year he took pride in the fact that it was only 1,1%. In absolute terms, there has been a very substantial increase this year. If we compare the percentage of 1,8% with the 1,1% of last year, there is of course a very substantial percentage increase in that context. Therefore I cannot be quite as glowing in my congratulations to the hon. the Minister as I was last year. If I may use the comparison in dealing with last year as opposed to this year I can say: “Even though it is not bad, it is not good.”

The absolute increase over last year is approximately R16 million. The other thing which is quite interesting, is that the savings shown in these additional estimates only amount to less than R5 million, which is a very small saving, and one would assume that when the final accounts for this year are drawn up, these figures would be quite different.

In connection with the issue which I raised earlier as to whether there has been some new purpose which has developed during the year, we must ask specifically and get the hon. the Minister’s reaction about the fact that if we analyse these additional estimates, it seems to me at the moment that there certainly appears to be no stimulation of any major consequence, over and above what was announced in the last budget and which we can anticipate will take place before 1 April 1979.

The second point, one which is perhaps even more important, is that in so far as the approach of the hon. the Minister during this financial year is concerned, it seems to the Opposition that if we are guided for the next budget by the present situation, it appears to indicate that any stimulation which is likely to come in the next budget, will come from increased Public Service salaries, perhaps an increase in pensions and tax concessions. The principle appears to be that there should be a private sector stimulation and a consumer-led further revival of the economy. If that is the hon. the Minister’s intention, as it is demonstrated in these additional estimates, he is likely to get substantial support from this side of the House. However, we shall wait and see and reserve our judgment in respect to that matter.

The other matter with which the hon. the Minister should perhaps deal when he replies, is that it is customary for the Minister to say that the money will be available to cover this additional expenditure. One expects that the hon. the Minister will confirm that, but I think he should go somewhat further in his reply and give some indication of the revenue collections and the loan situation as far as the current financial year is concerned, because there are already indications that revenue, for example, is buoyant and that not all internal loan funds have been taken up, as it was anticipated in the last budget that it would be taken up.

The hon. the Minister correctly pointed out that we should deal with the details of this additional budget during the Committee Stage. There is one disappointment in this regard that I wish to express to the hon. the Minister. Due to a number of circumstances it became quite apparent last year that by the form of the additional estimates, as they are presented to us, a tremendous amount of time is wasted during the Committee Stage. There were hon. Ministers and one Deputy Minister particularly, who were unable to furnish the information that was required of them. As a result of the remarks that were made then, also during the Third Reading of the additional estimates of last year, the hon. the Minister said specifically that he was prepared to go into the question of whether it was not feasible and practical to give us additional information in regard to the purposes to which the money was being applied, before the debate started. In our submission this would result in a more meaningful debate. The hon. the Minister said that he would look into the matter and report back on that particular proposal at an “appropriate” moment. I should have imagined that this debate was an appropriate moment to report back to Parliament on that issue, and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to deal with that issue when he replies to the Second Reading debate. I also want to express the hope that hon. Ministers will be somewhat better briefed on this occasion and that they will be in possession of more information than they were last year.

I do not wish to deal with the individual items of these estimates now, because we shall deal with them during the Committee Stage. However, I should like to hear the hon. the Minister respond to the issues that I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the question of a possible stimulation of the economy is concerned, various measures have already been announced during the past 15 to 16 months. If one adds up and quantifies all those amounts, they come to far more than R1 billion to date. The hon. member for Yeoville will, however, have to exercise a little more patience in this regard, because I am unable to anticipate my main budget.

†The hon. member for Yeoville asked me whether the money would be available. I can tell him that it will be available. In regard to the question of the state of revenue, the loan receipts, etc., the hon. member will again have to wait as I shall make those statistics and figures available in a matter of a few weeks. I do not think this is quite the appropriate time to deal with those matters.

The hon. member also referred to a matter which was raised last year, i.e. whether it would be possible to provide the House in advance with some of the information which the Opposition might wish to have, information explaining the additional amounts that are submitted for approval in these estimates. I did investigate the matter carefully together with my colleagues and senior officials. It was felt that there was a long tradition attached to the way in which Parliament approached this whole question of authorizing additional expenditure. It was felt that this was not an unduly long debate, as only three hours are allotted for all the stages to be dealt with. We felt that the time allocated for the debate was adequate, and after having carefully weighed up the situation, we came to the conclusion that the present procedure was adequate. That is why we were not particularly persuaded to alter it I hope this explanation satisfies the hon. member. For the rest I think that as this is really a measure that should be discussed in the Committee Stage, I ought to leave it at that.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Vote 5.—“Transport”:

Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago, when the Additional Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill came before the House, I had occasion to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Transport on his budget. In this instance a considerable amount of additional funds are required under Vote No. 5. I specifically refer to main division No. 3—“Overland transport”—where an additional amount of R25 472 000 is required. Would the hon. the Minister explain what these additional funds are required for and at the same time would the hon. the Minister explain to the House why an additional amount of R1 604 000 under main division No. 5—“Government Motor Transport”—is required?

Mr. Chairman, as regards the additional amount of R25 472 000 which is being requested under programme 3—“Overland Transport” —I want to point out that the Department of Transport is merely the channel through which these moneys are channelled, partially for commuters, i.e. the transportation of people by bus, and partially for the S.A. Railways as well. An additional amount of R11 500 000 is required for non-White bus services. The expenditure for this service was estimated at R34 850 000, based on a passenger growth rate of 10%. It has become clear that a larger amount will be required. The amount currently estimated for the 1978-’79 financial year is R46 850 000. Representations have been made to the Treasury to make this additional amount available as a subsidy on bus transport services for non-Whites. I may mention at the same time that on consideration of these subsidies, efforts are also being made to recover a portion of the increase in the tariffs on bus services from the persons utilizing these bus services. Due to this effort, bus tariffs in this particular case have been increased by an amount of R6 million. If this had not happened, the amount of R11 million, which is required by way of subsidies on bus services for non-Whites, would have been a further R6 million higher. This is the first leg.

The second leg is the non-White train services. There an additional amount of R14 238 000 is requested. The original appropriation for the service amounts to R41 200 000, but the Railway Administration’s final estimation for the year amounts to R55 438 000, which includes an amount of R5 605 000, being the balance of the actual losses for the 1977-’78 financial year which can only be made good in the 1978-’79 financial year on submission of an auditor’s certificate to the Railway Administration.

The estimated losses for 1978-’79 alone, therefore, amount to a sum of R49 832 000, leaving a deficit of R8 632 000 as against the appropriation of R41 200 000. Allowing for the transfer of the R5 605 000 from the previous year, 1977-’78, the total deficit for 1978-’79 amounts to R14 238 000.

I shall now furnish some of the reasons advanced for this increase. Some capital works for commuter services of the Railways were completed earlier than originally estimated. In the second place there was a drop in revenue due to the slower than expected recovery of income levels after the riots, as well as the improved real position of the non-White workers resulting in more of them using motor-cars and other transport services to and from the settlement areas. The hon. members will realize that these amounts being paid over to the Railways, are merely deficits that are being supplemented in respect of the resettlement areas. They do not relate to all the services rendered.

Then there is another small amount of R87 000 in respect of national roads. This is due to an underestimate of the amount concerned. The total is then R25 816 000. But then there are also some reductions. There is a reduction, a decrease, in expenditure in respect of administration. This concerns posts not filled. The amount involved here is R54 000. In respect of transport inspections there is a further reduction of R190 000. Then, in respect of urban transport, also classified under this head, there are also some reductions in respect of manpower, due to some posts having been filled at a later stage. The reduction here is R25 000. In respect of the administrative expenditure for GG transport—Government transport—there is a reduction of R4 000 and in respect of estimated supplies a reduction of R1 000. If the reductions are subtracted from the amounts I mentioned just now—the R11 million for bus services and the R14 million for Railway services—there is a net amount of R25 472 000.

Rupert, now you really understand nothing, old friend!

Is that because of his explanation or my understanding?

If the hon. member reads his Hansard, he will understand this well in the course of time. I must admit that this is a little complicated, because, due to the new system of budgeting by objectives, the figures before us are not for any specific item which can be pointed to as being responsible for the increased expense. This is estimated by weighing the deficits on the one hand against the reduced expenditure on the other. Therefore, to arrive at the final amount, it is necessary to go into detail on both sides.

The hon. member also asked about post No. 5—“Government motor transport”. The revised budget there is R30 690 000 and the increase R1 604 000. The reasons for these increases are—fuel, R320 000; tyres, R316 000; spare parts, R481 000; and batteries, R5 400. This gives a subtotal of R1 122 400. In addition, there is an amount of R299 400 in respect of outside professional services rendered and an amount of R32 500 in respect of administrative expenditure, i.e. freightage. General sales tax paid on new motor vehicles by the department amounts to R440 700. This means a gross increase of R1 895 000. Excluding the general sales tax on the purchase of new vehicles, the increase was caused exclusively by the running and maintenance costs of the fleet of GG vehicles. The increase here is due to the increased prices for requirements such as fuel, tyres, spare parts, batteries, labour costs, etc. I do not want to go into detail now in this regard.

Then there are also reductions under this programme again. I must necessarily draw your attention to those to complete the picture. These reductions are in respect of staff expenditure. In respect of overestimated manpower, there was a reduction of R286 000. The post “military pay” was transferred to another programme, and therefore we had a reduction of R5 000 in that regard. The total reductions amount to R291 000. This gives us a net increase of R1 604 000 under this programme.

Mr. Chairman, I must thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation, but I regret that I do not find it entirely satisfactory. Firstly, with regard to item 3, what the hon. the Minister said basically boils down to an increase in the subsidies on bus services and train services for non-Whites. He did detail a list of savings, about which we are glad to hear, but which does not amount to all that much in terms of money. I find it very difficult to understand how one can underestimate by an amount of R11 million when it comes to subsidies on bus services. I can understand the hon. the Minister’s explanation in regard to capital works being completed ahead of time. Once the capital work is completed, it must be paid for and if that should happen in this financial year rather than the next financial year that can be accepted. In that regard his explanation was reasonable in spite of the fact that the percentage increase is considerable. However, when it comes to bus services, I am not very happy at the fact that we should be saddled with such a large percentage increase.

Regarding item 5, I find most of the hon. the Minister’s explanation satisfactory. He pointed out that petrol, tyres, spare parts, batteries and so on had escalated in price. That escalation has, of course, been considerable, but one would have thought that budgeting these days would allow for a certain rate of inflation. We have heard a lot about inflation budgeting recently. Therefore one would have hoped that that sort of thing will have been considered. The one item I was very intrigued with is the professional services to which the hon. the Minister referred. Falling, as it does, under “Government Motor Transport”, I am not quite sure what is meant by “professional services”, and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could explain that to me.

Coming back to item 3, I want to repeat that we are not very happy about the size of the percentage increase in subsidies. I realize that R6 million of the R11 million was earned in revenue as a result of increased fares. That still leaves an amount of R5 million, which I consider to be unreasonable in the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, just allow me to give an explanation in respect of the “professional services” to which I referred. The amount concerned is R299 000. There are many different makes of vehicle purchased by the Government Garage and returned to the various agents for servicing and all sorts of adjustments. These are covered under the item “professional services”. This, therefore, has bearing on the work done by outside bodies and persons for the Government Garage.

As far as the other item is concerned, I want to say that when the appropriation was drafted last year, we initially budgeted R44 850 000 for bus subsidies. After having consulted with the Treasury, however, it was later decided to cut that amount by R10 million pending the report of the Pretorius Committee. The Pretorius Committee was appointed to institute certain investigations into the subsidy paid on bus services which is gradually rising, as has been the trend recently. The Pretorius Committee submitted its report to the hon. the Minister of Finance and this is being considered at present. In view of this report we made less provision for bus services in the original appropriation. Therefore, we did not budget so poorly. We would only have been R1 million out on the original amount. In anticipation of the report we then cut down on the amount. However, the hon. members will grasp—the hon. member is as aware of this as I am—how thorny this problem is. We are always dealing with increased bus tariffs. In the past we have also had to deal with several riots and trouble as a result of these increased bus tariffs announced from time to time. Due to high costs it is absolutely inevitable that we should accede to requests for an increase in bus tariffs. Due to increased costs the Road Transport Council and the National Transport Commission simply cannot refuse. When these increased tariffs are then implemented, problems arise. As a result, we introduced this system of subsidizing bus services in order to alleviate the burden borne by the underprivileged in respect of transport costs. In the appropriation we provided for an amount of R44 million, but in view of the Pretorius Committee report this amount was reduced to R34 million for budget purposes. In the course of the year, further cost increases indicated that the original amount was actually much nearer to the mark than the amount for which we ultimately made provision in the budget. For this reason we required the additional amount of R11 million for additional subsidies on bus services.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary for me to say that we have no objection to the principle of subsidizing non-White bus fares and train fares. Through no fault of theirs many non-Whites find themselves living very far from their places of work. This is one price one has to pay for Government policy. So we have no objection to that sort of subsidy, but we are arguing the principle of accurate budgeting. I think it is necessary to make our standpoint very clear on this. I think it is also necessary to say that it will become more necessary to increase subsidies in view of the fact that we have had fuel price increases. We are again going to be faced with the situation in which we are going to raise either fares or subsidies. I am afraid the hon. the Minister has very little alternative in these circumstances. However, I think one should make it very clear that this is the result of Government policies and ideologies rather than anything else.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to item H. I want to ask his help on this. There seems to be a fine example of bilingual budgeting here. The English version reads “Miscellaneous expenditure, museumdienste” and the Afrikaans version “Diverse uitgawes, museum services”. I should like to ask whether this amount of R50 has anything to do with steam engines or anything like that.

Mr. Chairman, it has been felt that the time has arrived for provision to be made for transport items in a museum.

[Inaudible.]

No, I am not now referring to the Howick station building. Howick’s station building will still render many years of good service, since we have now repaired it beautifully. This amount is merely a provisional amount required for the museum envisaged.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 8.—“Plural Relations and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us details in respect of all three items in respect of which additional expenditure is required. A month before the main budget is to be introduced, we are asked to approve an additional expenditure of approximately R40 million on this Vote. I think the House is entitled to be given far more details in regard to the amounts required to be voted than appear on the estimates before us.

The first item relates to loans to Administration Boards. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what the purpose of these loans have been. They appear to refer to Administration Boards on the West Rand. We should also like to know what the conditions in respect of repayment and interest rates attached to these loans are and other matter relating thereto.

We are also asked to vote an additional amount of R5 897 000 in respect of a grant- in-aid to the South African Development Trust Fund. Again we would like details as to what this is about. For example, has it anything to do with the Government’s investigation into further consolidation proposals? To what does it relate in respect of the Development Trust Fund?

Finally, there is the very large item of just over R25 million under the heading “Assistance to self-governing Black States”. One recalls the debate which took place last year when we were dealing with the additional estimates then, when we tried in desperation to get details from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to how a similar amount was to be allocated. It is all very well to put an amount of R25 million on the estimates relating to additional assistance to self-governing Black States. We would like to know to which States the money is going.

What is the breakdown of the amount of R25 million? How much is going to each of the particular self-governing homelands? If the hon. the Minister could give us details of these amounts we would be grateful.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to reply in detail to the hon. member for Musgrave. He put very reasonable questions to me. The first concerns the amount of R8,5 million. I am in fact very thankful that this appears in the additional expenditure, and I want to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance at once for making this amount available to us. It goes to the West Rand Administration Board and is being used in the interests of Soweto. As the hon. members will see, this is actually bridging capital being utilized for this purpose. As the hon. members know, a community council has just been established for Soweto and I am adopting the very definite stand that we should not like to hand over a bankrupt estate to this community council. However, we should like to assist in placing this community council on a firm footing. With this purpose in mind I pleaded very hard for appropriation by my department of R8,5 million to meet some of those needs.

Now I should like to discuss the R8,5 million in detail. If the hon. members will just put up with me for a little while, I just want to point out that in 1973 the West Rand Administration Board was already saddled with a chronic yearly deficit on the Bantu Revenue Account inherited many years ago from the Johannesburg municipality. In the period 1960-’61 to 1972-’73—i.e. 12 financial years—those deficits amounted to a sum of more than R10 million. These annual deficits were financed by the municipality of Johannesburg by way of grants from its general account, i.e. from the pocket of the White municipal taxpayer. The assets in urban Black residential areas taken over by the Administration Board at that stage, left much to be desired. In addition to this, the position concerning the tariffs for stands and services were nowhere near an economic footing at the time of the takeover by the Administration Board. Therefore, it was an impossible task to raise the tariffs summarily to an economic level. For that reason the administration board was compelled to proceed with the subsidizing of the housing account from its own limited revenue resources. The result was that the administration board had to finance a deficit of at least R18,656 million from its own reserves during the period 1973-’74 to 1977-’78—a period of four financial years. Therefore the West Rand Administration Board has been through rather deep waters under these circumstances. Then there were the events of 1976, when the administration boards’ administrative machinery and revenue-earning assets were seriously disrupted and affected. At this point I am not going into the details of the results of that. I have extensive details of the way in which the administration board did everything in its power to effect savings, i.e. 20% of the existing posts on its approved establishment were frozen, and it put into effect a great many other savings in an effort to salvage the position as best they could. Since occupying this position, I have done everything in my power to place this administration board on an absolutely firm footing, and before long announcements will consequently be made in this regard. There are important reasons for my involving myself personally in this matter and for personally approaching my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, to explain the situation to him. I made an earnest appeal to him to assist in this regard. This was essential. It was then done on the usual conditions stipulated by the Department of Finance in connection with such a loan. Of course, we cannot succeed in placing the community council of Soweto on a firm footing financially with the assistance of this R8,5 million alone. We are, therefore, finding other ways and means to ensure that this council is properly constituted in the main budget. To ensure that this occurs, we shall also employ other methods to assist in establishing this council. In the first place this amount of R8,5 million will, therefore, be utilized with regard to neglected assets in Soweto, for example sewage pipes, water pipes, weathered roofs of houses, roads which are disintegrating and full of potholes, etc. The construction of three large storage tanks for the provision of water, is also envisaged.

On closer investigation we have also found that one of the major problems in Soweto is that of toilets in poor working condition over weekends. Some of this money will, therefore, also be utilized to alleviate this situation. This is regarded as a matter of top priority. It will be seen to it that rusty sewerage pipes and other factors contributing to this situation, receive the necessary attention as soon as possible.

In broad outline this is what the amount of R8,5 million will be appropriated for. We regard this as one of the most important matters concerning Soweto.

Furthermore, I want to mention that in co-operation with the community council— incidentally, Mr. Thebehali is coming to discuss this with me in Cape Town—we are determining priorities in order to undertake a proper development scheme and a proper urban renewal scheme. In consultation with the Black people of Soweto we are, therefore, attempting to solve their problems, and also, as I have already said, to assure a meaningful and happy life for them. I can say with gratitude that we have had excellent co-operation in this regard.

Furthermore, the hon. member enquired about the amount of R5,897 million, an amount which will be appropriated for the development of Black areas to self-determination. The amount was estimated in the following way: For the combating of malaria R82 000 is required, whereas R1,385 million is required to meet the deficit on health services. An amount of R5,530 million is being requested for the independence of Venda. Then there is a saving of R1,l million, details of which I am not going to deal with now. The total sum, as it appears in the appropriation of additional expenditure, therefore amounts to R5,897 million. If the hon. member for Musgrave requires further details about the independence of Venda, I shall gladly provide them. If he wants further details about the aspect of health services, I shall furnish them, too, with pleasure. I have all the details at my disposal.

I now want to refer to the amount of R25,191 million and I shall furnish complete details about this. If hon. members require details concerning specific items, they can obtain them. I have all the details and shall attempt to assist hon. members to the best of my ability. However, hon. members must remember that I have not managed this portfolio for very long yet. Therefore, they should not deal with me too harshly. However, I have all the details. R5,116 million of the R25,191 million is required for an adjustment in the salary structure, whereas R1,436 million are required with regard to backlogs in education. A replacement of the school building at Tugela Ferry cost R108 000. A special school for cripples to be established in Lebowa will require R90 000, whereas R582 000 is required for combating malaria. R19 000 is being requested to combat scabies in the Ciskei, and an amount of R4,543 million for health services. For police stations in the Ciskei and Lebowa R1,41 million is being requested. The sum which must be appropriated in the form of additional funds to Kangwane, in the Swazi area, amounts to R1 million, whereas R1,1 million must be appropriated for housing in the same city. This is necessitated by the tremendous influx of people from the Republic. For the independence of Venda R6,787 million must be appropriated from the Trust Development Fund. From general taxes an additional amount of R2 million is required. Lebowa has considerable problems with education matters which they discussed with me personally and we are now requesting an additional amount of R1 million in an effort to assist them. All these amounts total R25,191 million. I think I have replied to the questions of the hon. the member, and I hope he is satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for his explanations. However, I wonder whether he could explain why it is that these amounts are to be voted at this stage and not when the main budget is presented. In the interest of budgeting and planning I should like to know whether the items relating to the R8,5 million required for the replacement in Soweto of water pipes, roofing etc. could not have been anticipated before the main budget was presented last year, and if not, whether they could not have waited until the main budget is introduced later this month. The same sort of query relates to the other replies which the hon. the Minister has given. These are large amounts to be voted in anticipation of a budget which is expected within one month’s time. One wonders why it is necessary to have these amounts at this stage.

The further question which I want to raise is one related to detail. The hon. the Minister has indicated that in respect of the large amount of R25,191 million, approximately R4,5 million is to be voted for health. Can he give a breakdown as to how that amount is to be spent in the various homelands?

That is a very reasonable question.

Thank you. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by replying to the question: Why so late? I want to make my standpoint in this connection clear at once. An examination of the additional appropriations of the departments I have been charged with in the past will show that for the Department of National Education only R100 is required, while no additional amounts are being requested for the Department of Sport and Recreation. The reason for that is that I simply took a firm stand in those departments and said that I would not allow them to request even one cent on the additional appropriation, since I did not want to explain in the House why it had been included in the additional appropriation.

But why are you criticizing me now? [Interjections.]

But the hon. the Minister was asking for it.

When I was transferred to this portfolio, I consulted with the officials of Plural Relations and Development and told them that we must really try to budget in such a way as to keep the additional appropriation to the absolute minimum. I really lectured them about it I shall do my best to achieve this, and the hon. member may take my word for that, because I believe that if there is good planning and if one organizes one’s affairs on a firm basis, the additional appropriation will be restricted to a minimum. However, the officials told me in their turn that I had a great deal to say about no additional appropriation, but they would like to hear what I would say in 12 months’ time, because I had not yet drawn up a budget for the Black States or with a view to certain other activities. So there are problems in this connection.

As regards the amount of R8,5 million: Had I not driven such a hard bargain with my hon. colleague, nothing of that would have been in the budget. The point is that we have emergencies and other situations where we have to provide relief services, and to be able to do that, we have to scrape together some funds as best we can. Nevertheless, we shall try to plan accordingly.

As regards the other matter which was referred to, I can assure the hon. member that the expenditure on every one of them is essential. It was very difficult to plan ahead in this connection. If the hon. member is critical of it, I say that we shall simply have to try harder to budget in such a way that no large amounts will be requested in the additional appropriation. However, when one is dealing with plural affairs, one is dealing with developing areas and with matters which make such great demands that it is not always possible and practicable to budget in such a way as to obviate the need for requesting any funds on the additional estimates. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with this reply.

He asked certain questions about the health function. I shall gladly give him the details. The Department of Health, which operates health services and hospitalization as an agent of the department in those areas where the services have not yet been transferred to the Governments of Black States, indicated in its revised budget that there would be a deficit of R1,385 million.

This deficit is due to the following: Operating expenditure, R1 081 000. In certain areas, especially in Kangwane, several clinics had to be put into service because of an unexpected influx of people to that area. I went to have a look myself and I can assure hon. members that the influx to that area is enormous. This influx could not have been foreseen, and therefore it made greater demands on the area and on the expenditure relating to it A rise in the prices of medicine and other supplies also played a part in this connection. As far as the general sales tax is concerned, I just want to say that the additional expenditure resulting from the introduction of general sales tax will amount to approximately R76 000.

For the item “Contribution to Pension Provident Funds” an amount of R228 000 is being appropriated. Because of the transfer of health services to kwaZulu with effect from 1 October 1977, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, in whose budget provision was made for it, cannot pay the contribution of the Government Service to the fund of the staff transferred to the Government Service for the period 1 October 1977 to 31 March 1978. This burden therefore had to be borne by the S.A. Development Trust Fund.

What is that amount?

It is R228 000. I have just explained the position with regard to the additional amount of R5 897 000 required for the S.A. Development Trust Fund. For health functions, an additional amount of R25 191 000 is being requested. Of this R25 191 000, R4 543 000 is being debited to the various Black States as a result of the overdrawn bank accounts of a few mission hospitals. This arises from the take-over of certain health functions by these Black States. It is creating a tremendous problem, and we should like to help these people in this connection. This could not be provided for in time in a budget either. In addition, there were underestimates of operating expenditure in the budgets of a few larger hospitals, with the result that the governments concerned would not have been able to maintain the level of health services. We have therefore appropriated this amount of R4 543 000 in this budget to enable those people to maintain the level of their health services.

Does that apply to the homelands as well?

It appears in the schedule I have with me, and as far as I know, Lebowa and Gazankulu are involved in it. If the hon. member wants an analysis of the various states, I shall have to send for it, because I cannot give him the information off the cuff. If the hon. member urgently needs this information, I can get it for him. However, the information also appears in the schedule. Is the hon. member satisfied?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has offered to furnish some more particulars in connection with the independence of Venda. Are there any developments of which the hon. the Minister has not yet informed us, and can he tell us how far the arrangements in this connection have progressed?

As far as Venda is concerned, hon. members will see that two amounts are being appropriated. One of these appears on the budget of the Venda Government, and the other on the South African Trust Account. These amounts are firstly being used for the purchase of Government buildings; three Ministers’ residences; an independence stadium; infrastructure with regard to sewerage, water and roads; and electricity. Furthermore, an amount of R0,25 million is being appropriated for celebrations connected with the attainment of independence. As far as the S.A. Bantu Trust is concerned, an amount has also been appropriated for the residences of the President and the Chief Justice. Money has also been appropriated for the construction of a prison, electricity supply, post office supply material and radio supply material. All these items contribute to the extra amount to be appropriated for the achievement of independence by Venda.

Can the hon. the Minister indicate how far the arrangements have progressed?

All I can say in this connection is that very good progress is being made with the arrangements. The committee concerned, which is having consultations with Venda will soon sit in Cape Town again. The committee was to have met already, but was forced by circumstances to postpone the meeting. The arrangements are progressing satisfactorily, and the date will be announced as soon as possible. At this stage we first want to attend to the meeting of the Cabinet Committee, which is to take place shortly.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has provided some very interesting figures about the independence of Vendaland. I understood him to say in his earlier reply that R6 786 000 was being set aside as part of the additional R25 million to be voted in the estimates. In his reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout he mentioned some of the items on which the amounts were being spent, but he did not specify the actual amounts per item. The hon. the Minister talked about the independence stadium and a house for the president and other buildings. Could he give us a breakdown of the items making up the amount of R6 786 000?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must remember that we are now dealing with a country which is on its way to independence and which is arranging its own affairs in respect of its part of the budget. It would not be fair for me to discuss the affairs of the Venda Government in detail in this House. I have the amounts, but I cannot say for sure that they are the correct ones. While I would very gladly make available to the hon. member for Musgrave all the information I have, I should prefer, out of courtesy to the Venda Government, not to disclose in this House the figures I have. I shall make them available to the hon. member privately with the greatest of pleasure at a later stage. They are in respect of Government buildings, three Ministers’ houses and so forth.

I can give the hon. member the figures furnished by the S.A. Development Trust. These are:

†For residences for the President and the Chief Justice, R630 000; for the National Force base, R1 831 000; for Prisons buildings, R1 465 000; for bulk power supply, R1 377 000; for postal service equipment, R250 000; and for radio equipment, R430 000. That gives a total of R5 983 000.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to ask some questions about Venda. I respect the hon. the Minister’s wish to show courtesy towards a newly emerging State, but it is after all South Africa’s money. I think we are entitled to know what our money is being spent on and the hon. the Minister should consider giving the hon. member for Musgrave the information he asked for. Secondly, is the hon. the Minister in a position to tell the House how much money in toto is going to be spent on bringing Vendaland to independence?

My main question relates to the explanation the hon. the Minister gave with regard to the West Rand Administration Board. We on this side of the House have no problem in supporting the hon. the Minister to create the amenities which he has spoken about. However, I experience difficulty with the explanation which the hon. the Minister gave.

*The hon. the Minister said that he did not want to hand over a bankrupt enterprise to the board. [Interjections.] Yes, I agree that he must not do it, but in that case, why is it a loan? How is this loan going to be repaid? I have great difficulty with this. If the whole enterprise is to be handed to the board, what is going to happen in respect of this loan? Who will be responsible for it and where is West Rand Administration Board going to find the money to repay the loan?

Mr. Chairman, I shall first reply to the question concerning the West Rand Administration Board. The Browne Committee, which was appointed to examine the whole question of financing, will publish its report shortly. The committee will make recommendations concerning the whole question which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. At this stage I cannot say any more about it. The fact is simply that up to date, the Department of Finance has* not made any contribution or financed the administration boards in any way. This is an absolute standpoint of principle which the Department of Finance has adopted right from the outset, when these administration boards were introduced. At that time I still handled that aspect in this House. It remains the standpoint to this day. Had it not been possible to negotiate a loan, therefore, there would have been no other way of finding this bridging capital. That is why I thanked my colleague the moment I rose to speak. If he had not been prepared to provide for this, therefore, it would not have been possible to make provision in any other way.

The loan was made available to the administration board on the normal financing conditions. It goes without saying that we shall be as considerate as possible to this community Council of Soweto so that the council can get off the ground. Therefore I think the hon. member should trust me a little and be satisfied for the time being as far as this matter is concerned. If he finds any reason to take the matter further at a later stage, however, I invite him to do so. However, we shall try to place this council on a firm basis as soon as possible. I shall do everything in my power to achieve this, because I should very much like to do so.

Now I come to the independence of Venda. According to the information I have before me, these funds are required, as I have said, for the construction of buildings, etc., with a view to the independence of Venda. Arising from the department’s representations about the appropriation— the hon. member asked me what the total amount was; it was R18,90 million—the Treasury told me that the total expenditure for all the departments concerned should not exceed R17 million. I shall now give the following figures which represent the amount after scaling down. I wonder, however, whether I may mention the figures for 1979-’80 at this stage?

No!

I therefore give the following figures: Venda Government, R6 787 000 for 1978-’79; the S.A. Development Trust, R5,530 million; and other departments, R1,480 million. The hon. member must not ask me any further questions, for he might lead me into temptation and then I would embarrass my colleague.

We must deliver you from evil!

Mr. Chairman, I shall leave the hon. the Minister alone about Venda, at his own request, because I would not want to be the one to lead him into temptation. Far be it from me to do so!

It happens to him in any event.

Yes, I agree, he is tempted enough. I do, however, want to come back to the loan to the West Rand Board. I must say I have difficulties with the hon. the Minister’s replies. Firstly, can he tell us what the term of the loan is? In other words, when must it be repaid, how must it be repaid and what is the rate of interest? I think those are the first questions I must ask the hon. the Minister.

Secondly, I must say that I do not understand his explanation about how this matter is going to be dealt with. If one is now going to saddle the new council, with its very limited revenue-raising powers, with such a loan liability, one is creating a tremendous problem. I do not think there is any moral justification for this because I remember some of the things the hon. the Minister said the money was going to be used for. He said there were services that had been neglected, services which had to be patched up and things that were not in order. How does one therefore saddle a new body with the eventual liability for a loan one is making to the West Rand Board? So whatever the accepted principal may be about not giving them grants, the reality of the situation obviously changes.

The hon. the Minister must know, as well as I do, that the West Rand Board cannot, in fact, repay the money, that the new council cannot repay it and that the revenue-raising powers of the new council are quite inadequate to deal with this. What is therefore going to have to happen is that either the loan will have to be written off or someone else will have to assume the liability.

In these circumstances I must say to the hon. the Minister that making this a loan does not, with respect, make financial sense. It makes no financial sense of any kind, because one cannot lend money to a person when one knows that person cannot pay it back. It just does not make sense.

Mr. Chairman, the point is that we are making the money available by way of a loan because that is the only way out in the circumstances. That is all we can do until we receive the findings of the Browne Committee. That is why I say we have no option. Obviously, we have not created this problem. As I have indicated right at the beginning, this problem has been inherited. The hon. member must also bear the disturbances of 1976 in mind. They added to this problem and made things more difficult. As the hon. member will be able to imagine, the expenses involved ran into millions of rand. However, let us not debate that too much. The fact of the matter is that the option we had was a very simple one. With the Browne Committee not yet being in a position to make recommendations with regard to the financing of, amongst others, the West Rand Administration Board, I for one could not see any other way of assisting than by way of a loan. This was the best we could do in the circumstances, and the loan to the West Rand Administration Board was made under conditions to be determined in consultation with the Treasury in due course.

Until the Browne Committee has reported.

That is so. I ask for patience in this regard. This is a problem. About that there can be no question. I am not saying that the way in which we are dealing with this is the best possible way, but in the circumstances it is the only way that I can see of getting this off the ground. We will have time to discuss this in great depth and at length when my Vote comes under consideration. I am looking forward to that because then we can go into details. I should like to take this opportunity of appealing to the official Opposition, the other Opposition parties and also to all the other people involved to assist us in solving this problem. It is an important problem and must be solved. Together with my department I am making a concerted effort to solve it. The hon. member must not attack me for this. I know that I do not have all the answers yet, but if I receive cooperation and a wee bit of understanding, I know for sure that we can grow out of this problem and create something very excellent. I ask the hon. member to assist me in that.

Mr. Chairman

Harry, you must stop being a nuisance.

Mr. Chairman, no, I am actually being very kind to the hon. the Minister. I think the situation now is that firstly, this concerns a loan of which the terms of repayment and the rate of interest have not been agreed to and, secondly, the entity to whom it is being lent cannot repay. That we now know. That means that we have the situation that the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is granting this loan, is doing so with the full knowledge that it will not be re-payed. It must be understood that it is not expected to be re-payed and that it is going to be converted into a grant. Otherwise this is an idle exercise, because the hon. the Minister has said that the circumstances are exactly as I see them and arise purely from what he has said. There can be no question about it: We want these facilities granted to Soweto. However, one cannot indulge in a sort of financial gymnastics in order to create a situation that really does not exist. The truth is that Soweto needs this money and the hon. the Minister of Finance must give it this money. It is no use pretending that it is a loan. It is not a loan.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Finance is very well-informed. He is aware of the circumstances as far as this matter is concerned. I have given the complete facts here. They are correct as I have given them. I only want to repeat that we cannot anticipate the findings of the Browne Committee which was appointed for this purpose. We have to await the findings of the Browne Committee. The question is whether one should allow this situation there to develop in the meantime because one does not have a way in which to counteract it. I say: No, I refuse to do that. Therefore I have to do what I can, and in this case the only way was to lend them the money. That we have done now. I think it was the right thing to do in the circumstances. I believe that the future will, in fact, prove this. There can be no doubt about this. The hon. member would do well to leave the matter to us.

Why did you not just change your policy?

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to this matter. If I understand it correctly, the Browne Committee is going to report to the hon. the Minister on ways which will allow income to be generated in the area to which this loan has been granted.

No. [Interjections.]

I want to ask him whether it is the intention, when the report of the Browne Committee is submitted to him, that income will be generated which will allow this loan to be repaid in any way at all, because there is no intention whatsoever to create an income from which this loan can be repaid over a period of time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is conversant with the reasons why the Browne Committee was established. The Browne Committee was established by my colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance, to investigate in general the whole question of the financing of local governments in South Africa. If the hon. member wants to create the impression that the Browne Committee was established to examine inquire into this matter, he is wrong. Apart from the most important provision of its terms of reference, viz. to consider the best financing methods for local authorities, the Browne Committee was also asked to consider to the whole question of the financing of administration boards. We are still awaiting the findings of the committee. To this day the position is still that Parliament does not allocate Treasury money for the financing of administration boards. At this stage we cannot anticipate the recommendations of the Browne Committee, because we do not know what the committee will recommend. We know, however, that the committee is investigating this whole matter. A week or so after I was appointed Minister of this department, I asked the hon. the Minister of Finance to ensure that the Browne Committee would also pay very close attention to this matter of the financing of administration boards. The hon. the Minister of Finance and I then considered this problem which the hon. member for Yeoville explained so well, and looked for a method better than that we are using now, i.e. to request Parliament to make that amount available as a loan. Only after the Browne Committee has paid expert attention to this matter and made its recommendations shall we have to decide whether it is necessary to take other steps and, if so, which steps we shall be obliged to take. Therefore, it is enough if I tell the hon. members that we shall give this matter our serious attention to see whether we can put this on a sound basis. That is our wish and our desire. I do believe that it is possible and that it will be done.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 10.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”:

Mr. Chairman, it stands to reason that we welcome any additional expenditure of money for the care of the aged and infirm. We see that an additional amount of R1,5 million is being voted for this purpose. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us an explanation of how this amount is going to be spent.

Mr. Chairman, this amount being asked for under main division Q will be used for the care of the aged and infirm. What this amounts to is that an additional amount of R10 561 000 is required. I now want to give an explanation of how this amount is made up. The cost with regard to State homes for the aged and infirm amounted to an additional R19 000 as a result of the introduction of sales tax. The Department of Community Development also subsidized housing for the aged by providing money and loans. Recently some of those houses were completed sooner than planned and therefore the amount voted in this regard was exceeded by R1 365 000. The Department of Community Development receives the difference between the interest of 0,05% on the loans with regard to the houses which were completed earlier and the economic rate of interest of approximately 9% which is paid by the department. However, they do not send their accounts to my department at fixed times. In other words, this amount of R200 000 also includes part of the interest of the previous year.

The increase of R19 000 was due to the introduction of the sales tax, as I have said. R1 365 000 was spent by the State on the building of homes for the aged which were completed earlier than anticipated. The interest on the loans for these houses which were completed earlier came to R200 000.

Subsidies are also payable with regard to service centres. A number of new service centres were built. I do not have everything at my fingertips, but there is one in Johannesburg and one in Pietermaritzburg. Perhaps the hon. member knows about more. But there are five new centres and the increase in the number of members of these centres also led to the fact that there was over expenditure amounting to R30 000. The total is R1 614 000. However, because we made over settlements such as Karatara near George to the Department of Forestry, we saved R350 000 on settlements. The remaining total was R1 561 000. However, under the other main divisions of the department— and there are quite a number of them: from administration to the aged at the end of the list, a total of R61 000 was saved. Therefore the amount actually asked for is R1 500 000.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 11.—“National Education”:

Mr. Chairman, just to satisfy my curiosity, this is either very good budgeting or there is something mysterious about the small item of R100. Could the hon. the Minister kindly explain to us what it is for?

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you there is nothing sinister about this small amount. The amount of R100 is being asked under a new sub programme “National Film Board” under our programme given in the additional expenditure as “Supporting and associated services”. There is an arrangement that provision be made for interest-free loans to the National Film Board. That authorization was received from the hon. the Minister of Finance, and I can even give the authorization numbers. If the hon. member does not know the background, I can point out that the Select Committee on Public Accounts has recommended that a committee of inquiry be appointed to inquire into the activities, the financing, the continued existence, etc., of the National Film Board. That was in fact done. This committee made certain recommendations especially as a result of the fact that the Film Board is experiencing financial problems. The Cabinet decided that the Film Board should start rounding off its activities so that it could gradually terminate its existence. But for the interim period, which is necessary to finalize its activities, money is needed. The board still has a degree of income from certain work that is still being done, but this income is not enough to fulfil all the needs. Therefore this amount is voted in the department’s budget.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has any idea of what amount is going to be involved? This R100 is merely a token amount and allows of other payments to be made. When operations come to an end, has the hon. the Minister any idea of what amount will be involved?

Mr. Chairman, the indication now, as has been indicated by the board, is that the amount will be approximately R616 000.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister give an indication of when the activities of the board will be finalized?

Mr. Chairman, that is somewhat difficult, because there are various aspects of the board’s activities to be considered. As far as film production is concerned, for example, the board still has some contractual obligations, but indications are that that section of the work might be finalized by the end of the year. There has already been a considerable decrease in staff. It is, in other words, coming to an end. Then there is the important section, micrographic work. The National Film Board works for Government departments, provincial authorities, local authorities, and a number of statutory bodies. The Public Service Commission is carrying out an investigation to determine how these activities can be handled within the Government departments themselves. It is somewhat difficult to say exactly when this will be finished. As far as the building is concerned, the committee of inquiry recommended that the building be sold by negotiation with the SABC. That is not so easy, either. There are Government departments that are also interested in the building, amongst others the State Archives, and even a section of my department, audio-visual education, is interested in it, as well as the Department of Defence. We have asked, however, that the Department of Public Works examine the possibilities as regards utilization of the building so that they can also make the best recommendations to us in this regard. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that good progress is being made with the systematical phasing out of the work of the National Film Board, although it is difficult to give a precise indication as to exactly when the various sections of the work will be finished.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister made certain information available to us in advance, and I thank him for that. I want to know from him, however, if he anticipates eventually having to come to the House with legislation in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, indications are that when the Finance Bill is discussed later this year, provision will be made in that Bill for the termination of the National Film Board.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister mentioned the amount of R600 000. For the sake of clarity, could the hon. the Minister indicate to the House whether part of it will come within the present financial year, or will all of it be provided for in the next budget? How is it going to be done? I should further like to know, when the buildings are sold, to whom those funds will accrue. Will it be to the board or to the State?

Mr. Chairman, it was recommended by the committee of inquiry—and the Treasury also made provision for this—that, on realizing the assets, everything will accrue to the State. Therefore all this once more becomes the property of the State. The R616 000 is money needed for the past financial year. It might even be possible that money will be asked for again at a later stage. As the activities of the Film Board are systematically phased out, certain amounts of money may become necessary.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 13.—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain what has given rise to an ex gratia payment of more than R14 000 for the acquisition of land. More important than that, however, is that in a year in which it is clear that the agricultural sector has been suffering severe hardships, a year in which the hon. the Minister himself has had to travel fairly extensively to visit drought-stricken distress areas and in which the hon. the Minister has made certain promises regarding the provision of the means of production etc., no considerable additional sum is being requested under this Vote …

Order! The hon. member may not advance new arguments now.

Mr. Chairman, once I have given my explanation, the hon. member for Wynberg would not be inclined to put any further questions in this regard. As the hon. member knows, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is responsible for the acquisition of land, and obviously that also embraces improvements as well as rights for the purposes of the removal of, for example, Black areas. Provision for that is made in the estimates of this department but the physical removal is actually undertaken by the Department of Plural Relations and Development. That is the department which handles the matter.

In this specific instance we are concerned with section 2 of the farm Doornkop, in the district of Ventersdorp. It was the property of a White company, Pretoria Smallholdings Limited. That company subdivided this property into 135 agricultural plots. 103 of them were sold to Black owners. In due course these properties were proclaimed a badly situated Black area, which, in terms of present policy, obviously had to be cleared. Consequently it was necessary to move the Black owners and the squatters who were living there. They obviously had to be moved to land granted to them as compensation. Apart from the compensation to the owners in respect of the land values, owners and squatters are, of course, compensated for improvements effected on the property as well. This expenditure constitutes a liability against the appropriation under the land acquisition programme. What happened, however, was that 22 squatter families were still living on 18 of the remaining plots, which were still the property of the White company, Pretoria Smallholdings (Pty.) Limited. These families had effected improvements and occupied the properties. To effect a meaningful removal, these squatters also had to be given notice to leave so as to have the area declared a White area.

The issue at that stage was the compensation to be paid to these squatters. The hon. member will know that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure had no legal obligations to these squatters as far as compensation was concerned in view of the fact that they were squatters and were not occupying properties to which they really had the right of ownership. But for various reasons, inter alia, the peaceful removal of the people and the fact that these squatters knew that there were other squatters who had lived in Black areas and had been compensated for improvements, as well as for the sake of good relations, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure decided to recommend to the Treasury that an ex gratia payment be made to these people. The hon. member will appreciate that it is difficult for them to understand why their neighbours had been compensated while they were not. Because of the fact that the Audit Act provides for no more than an amount of R10 000 being paid out by the department, parliamentary approval has to be obtained and consequently this payment has been included in the additional estimates.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 16.—“Health”:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have some information from the hon. the Minister in connection with the relatively small amount in respect of item 2—“Infectious, communicable and preventable diseases”. How much of the R356 000 involved is in respect of prevention and eradication of malaria in South Africa? I know that spraying was dealt with under an earlier heading and know that the hon. the Minister made an announcement last year that extra funds were being spent. However, I would just like to know how much of the R356 000 is actually in respect of eradication of malaria.

Secondly, I would like to have some indication of the research under item 6, where an amount of R1 319 000 is being requested. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister along what lines the research is going.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question by the hon. member, I wish to announce that R194 000 has been spent on malaria and R162 000 on tuberculosis. When those two figures are added up, it gives a total of R356 000. We have experienced quite a serious epidemic this year.

With regard to the question concerning research, I think the hon. member did not understand the facts quite correctly. The research in fact refers to the item in column 2—the Medical Research Council. The amount of R1 319 000 is in fact R1 361 000 and is constituted as follows. The most important priorities are really family planning, medical schemes, nutritional services, medical services and research. The amount of R42 000 is in respect of this research. As far as publicity services, laboratory services, board and lodging and the burial of unclaimed corpses are concerned, the total excess amount with regard to seven of these sub-programmes is R1 531 000. As a result of certain posts which have not been filled and also as a result of certain requests that were not made to us, we saved R170 000 on family planning.

†On educational programmes for nutritional diseases, etc. we saved R72 000. That gives us a total of R170 000. If one subtracts that from the total of R1 531 000, one arrives at the amount of R1 361 000. This R1 361 000 includes the amount to be voted in column 2 in respect of the S.A. Medical Research Council. This amount of R42 000 is as a result of a 5% increase in the salaries of those professional people who earn above R12 000 a year.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister mentioned a saving on family planning services. In correspondence with me the hon. the Minister mentioned that the district surgeon was involved in this and I would like to get some certainty as to whether the amount involved is the amount the Minister mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, usually district surgeons have to do with family planning on a small scale. We are trying our utmost today to obtain the necessary personnel to be present at the various distribution points and places where people are educated in family planning. In the past year we have not always had sufficient applicants and therefore some of the posts remained vacant. All the posts that we budgeted for would therefore not be filled. That is what happened in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, in relation to item 3—“Mental health”, I wonder whether we could seek some information from the hon. the Minister in regard to the amount spent on extra accommodation for mental patients related to the amount to be spent on actual medicine for such patients. Does the hon. the Minister have a breakdown of the figures in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, the only summary which I have in this regard, is hospital treatment on the one hand and services to out-patients on the other hand. The full amount is not being voted for extra facilities, but is spent on hospital treatments, of which a considerable portion goes towards covering the increase in the cost of medicine. The money is also being voted for a number of additional posts which have to be filled in the hospitals, to exercise additional control over our State hospitals for the mentally ill. We are experiencing certain problems in maintaining effective control in this regard. R200 000 is being voted for this purpose. A full R1 million is being voted for services to out-patients.

†The hon. member will realize that the latest trend is to concentrate on out-patient services. The costs involved in this respect have greatly escalated. We have had many more out-patients, and there has also been a considerable rise in the price of medicines.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 19.—“Treasury”:

Mr. Chairman, I note that under main division 2—“Fiscal transfers”—an additional amount of R26 415 000 is asked for in respect of provincial subsidies. Would the hon. the Minister tell the House what this is for?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will recall that the basis of the calculation of the subsidies by the central Government is according to an agreed subsidy formula which over recent years has been worked out in considerable detail and which I think both the Treasury and the provinces feel works very well. At the beginning of the year an estimate is made of what the provinces will require. This usually takes place in January. Among the factors which have to be taken into account is the so-called escalation factor—the inflation factor. Then, in December, a final discussion is held with the provinces where a final calculation is made, as was done in December 1978. As a result of that it was found that the provision made for the so-called escalation factor was not sufficient. It was a bit optimistic. Furthermore, there are always a few other small items that have to be adjusted in terms of the subsidy formula. When this recalculation was made it was therefore found that the provinces should have approximately an additional R85 million over and above the first calculation which was made in advance. As a result of negotiations with the provinces they agreed, as part of their contribution to the need for economy and so on, to take R26 415 000 instead of the full amount which they, strictly in terms of the subsidy formula, could claim. We therefore now have to provide an amount of R26 415 000.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister provide the House with some further information on how the amount of R26 415 000 was divided between the four provinces? As far as I am aware the formula worked out for provincial funds from the Treasury is one thing while the amount of money the provinces have received in past years is another. They have in fact been cut down with regard to the amount of money they should have received in terms of the formula. Was this the case in December 1978? If this is so, and taking the amount of R26 415 000 into consideration, what percentage of the amount of money the provinces should have got did they receive? Obviously I do not expect the hon. the Minister to give an exact figure here and now, but I will be grateful if he could give the House an approximate figure.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should perhaps break down the amount of R26 415 000 into the amounts which each province received. In the case of the Cape Province it is R8 474 000, which is 1,5% above the original January estimate I have referred to. In the case of the Transvaal it is R11 677 000, which is 1,6% above the original estimate. The figure for the Orange Free State is R1 255 000, which is 0,7% above the original estimate, and for Natal the figure is R5 009 000, which is 2,1% above the original estimate. [Interjections.] It cannot simply be made a flat rate. The formula does not work that way. It is quite a complicated formula, but on the other hand one which I think has led to a great deal of confidence on the part of the provinces, because they can see the exact basis on which these things happen. I think that is as far as I can break it down at the moment. If I give the hon. member the original amounts it will perhaps become clearer. In the case of the Cape the original calculation was R572 228 000. To this they get R8 474 000 added on now as their share of the R26 million.

In the case of the Transvaal the original figure was R716 156 000, and the Transvaal obtained R11,677 million. For the Orange Free State the original figure was R183 882 000, and the Free State obtained R1,255 million. For Natal the original figure was R243 744 000, and Natal obtained an extra amount of just over R5 million. Those are the figures I have, and if I can possibly give any further information, I would indeed be only too pleased to let the hon. member have it. The hon. member will understand, however, that the overall picture is one of great detail, a comprehensive subsidy being involved. I hope, however, that the information I have given will satisfy him.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 24.—“Commerce”:

Mr. Chairman, the amount involved here is R10 600 000 as an additional amount to be voted for export trade promotion services. We realize that these export trade promotion services have paid good dividends, but we should nevertheless be grateful if the hon. the Minister would explain how the money was spent and what the precise purpose was.

Mr. Chairman, this specific increase is necessary to cover various headings. The hon. member will remember that there are various headings under which export trade promotion concessions or contributions are granted or made, but this largely concerns two of them.

The first is the provision of contributions for financing costs to exporters. The claims received under this scheme and the claims paid by the end of December 1978, already amounted to R15,43 million, while the amount voted which was available up to that stage, was only R16 million. However, when one looks at the real expenditure during the last financial year, i.e. the 1977 financial year, one finds that the amount voted under this particular subhead was R21 million. This indicates very clearly that the amount of R16 million which had been voted for the year under consideration, would perhaps in the first place have been too little. When one looks at the figures further, one finds that the amount now being requested, will be a total of R4 million more than the expenditure for the previous year, i.e. R21 million, as I have already indicated.

There is just something which I wish to point out in this regard. In respect of the estimates for the year under discussion, i.e. the present financial year, the department has cut back on the requested amounts. It has been shown in practice that it was necessary, under the particular subhead, for the amount to be increased in any event. There is something which I could just mention to the hon. member. The claim of one of the claimants—in this particular case Iscor itself—has already been R1,9 million more for the present year than the claim for the previous year. Therefore, even if the additional amount of R9 million is voted now, we must understand that as a result of this amount which we have to pay to Iscor—and Iscor is only one claimant—there will only be R2,1 million available for normal expansion.

The following concerns the financing of interest rates in respect of the export trade credit re-insurance scheme, and the hon. member knows that this is also being done by the IDC. From April 1978 to January 1979, R4,6 million has already been paid out to the Industrial Development Corporation, and it will need an additional amount of R1,l million to meet its obligations during the present financial year. Although provision is therefore being made for R5,l million, a further R1,l million is being requested. The increase in this particular regard is attributed to the fact that it has not yet been possible to recover short-term revolving credit made available to an African country for the purchase of necessary food and medical supplies because the country concerned is experiencing serious exchange problems. As a result of this, the interest on the overdue amount is still accruing. I am quite prepared to give the name of the country concerned to the hon. member privately, but I do not think we should do it here across the floor of the House.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the first case, i.e. the promotion services as such, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether I understood him correctly that the additional amounts are paid out according to a formula and cannot be determined precisely beforehand, i.e. that the earnings should be measured against the claim which are submitted and that the additional amounts are paid out accordingly. Is that what the hon. the Minister means?

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should put it differently. The amount voted under the subhead in question during the previous financial year, amounted to R21 million. For budget purposes the amount under this subhead has been reduced to R16 million. Then it became clear that this was too little and consequently we had to request an increase. The increase which we are requesting now, amounts to R9 million. With the increase, the total expenditure under this item will amount to R24 million. It is therefore, if I may make a quick calculation, R4 million more than during the previous year. That is the explanation. There is a formula according to which individual claimants are paid out. This was only an under appropriation in this particular regard.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 29.—“Indian Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, the Vote provides for an increase of R7 372 000 in respect of “Salaries, Wages and Allowances”. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether this relates to increased staff for Indian education or whether it relates to increases in the salaries or allowances of existing staff. I should like him to give us some kind of breakdown to indicate how this amount is made up.

My second question relates to the comparatively small amount of R158 000 to be voted for “Financial Assistance to Technical Colleges”. I notice that “Colleges” is in the plural. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us to which institutions this refers, because there is speculation at the present time that the Government is about to embark upon a policy of decentralizing technical colleges. I

should be interested to know in respect of which institutions the additional amount is required.

Mr. Chairman, the increase of R7 372 000 in respect of salaries, wages and allowances in Indian education may seem a large amount, but the explanation is quite simple. At the time when the last budget was being prepared a new deal for teachers was under consideration. We estimated very roughly in consultation with the Public Service Commission that the average increase teachers would get would be approximately 9%. On that we budgeted. We discovered afterwards that the increase would vary between 10% and 56%. That shows how extraordinarily generous we have been to the teaching profession. That increased the amount needed to adjust salaries accordingly from R200 000 to R7 372 000. That is the reason why this amount is asked for. It is to make possible and pay for the new deal given to Indian teachers in common with all the teachers in South Africa last year.

The amount of R158 000 refers only to the M. L. Sultan Technical College. There was an adjustment in the formula used to calculate the subsidy. This came into effect after we had prepared our budget and therefore we could not provide for it in our original estimates and ask for it in the Additional Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, just to comment on the first part of the hon. the Minister’s reply, if the figure for increased salaries goes up to as much as 56%, the hon. the Minister may be right in saying that this shows how generous they are to their teachers, but of course it also shows how parsimonious they were to their teachers beforehand. There seems to be a tremendous gap here and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can explain how it is possible for the need to arise for an increase of as much as 56%.

Mr. Chairman, this new deal and the consequent adjustment was the result of long and protracted discussion between the teachers, White, Indian and Coloured, and the authorities. Because of the decision that they would get professional status—prior to that they did not have such status in the Civil Service— these adjustments were made, and they were major adjustments. However, I do hope that the hon. member is not going to start cavilling about this, because if, like me, he has the interests of the children at heart, he will be related to think that this is being done for the teachers of our children.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 30.—“Community Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give us a little more information on main divisions Nos. 2 and 4. Main division No. 2 deals with an ex gratia payment of R200 000 to the City Council of Kimberley, as well as an additional amount of approximately R14 million which will be used for other sub-programmes. Main division No. 4 deals with an additional amount of R900 000 in respect of official quarters. Could the hon. the Minister explain these matters a little more?

Mr. Chairman, I could not hear very clearly what the hon. member said and therefore I hope that if I omit anything, he will point it out to me.

The amount of approximately R14 million with regard to the provision of housing had to be voted additionally, because the Department of Community Development pays a subsidy of 2% in respect of the rent on the interest of 9,25% on the loans made available for that type of house from the Housing Fund. We asked for an estimated amount of R12 million last year to pay those subsidies, but the Treasury indicated that they would like us to obtain this amount from our normal housing funds. We did our best, but in the course of the year it became clear that as a result of the rate at which we were building and providing houses, it would be impossible to obtain the amount of R12 million from normal funds. On 23 November 1978 the Treasury agreed that we could include the R12 million we originally asked for last year, into this additional appropriation.

The vast housing scheme at Roodepan, Kimberley, was built by the Department of Community Development through the agency of the city council of Kimberley. In the years between 1974-’76 this area, however, experienced exceptional rainfall. The average rainfall increased from 400 mm per annum to between 600 mm and 700 mm per annum. Although due preventive measures were taken, the clay on which these houses are built underwent exceptional expansion, and considerable damage was done to the buildings. We asked experts of the Department of Community Development and the Building Research Institute of the CSIR to go and investigate the matter. They were all in agreement that the catastrophe the people there had met with, was the result of a natural disaster and circumstances over which no one could have had any control. Will the hon. member for Sandton give me a chance?

I am not saying a word. The hon. the Minister is not talking to me and I am not listening to him.

Although we are not legally obliged to compensate the people in the event of a natural disaster, we have decided because of the circumstances and the poverty of the people involved, to make available the amount of R900 000 through the city council of Kimberley to have the houses rebuilt where necessary or to have them repaired in such a way that they will not again be damaged in future, even in abnormal circumstances such as those we experienced. [Interjections.] R200 000 of this amount is being requested in this additional estimate. However, the total amount the Treasury has approved, and which will be requested over a period of two years, exceeds R900 000.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his statement. However, I also referred to main division No. 4, which deals with official quarters. Could the hon. the Minister give us a little more information as to why that additional amount of R900 000 is being requested?

Mr. Chairman, that is the result of the urgent housing requirements which the Department of Defence is experiencing at the moment. We plan in advance for the Department of Defence and it would appear that they will need approximately R19 million for departmental housing as a result of the expansion of the Defence Force. Of that, approximately R500 000 is for professional funds we pay to experts from outside, planners from outside, architects from outside, etc. That is the amount which now has to be voted.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us a few more details with regard to item No. 3, viz. the R500 000 for community development?

Yes, I shall gladly do that. The planning of the city centre at Mitchell’s Plain, and of a business complex for Indians in Durban and the development of the mighty suburb, the town/city Ennersdale for the Coloureds, meant that we had to employ professional people from outside, viz. town planners, architects, quantity surveyors, etc. Possibly because of the size of the undertakings, the required amount proved to be a little more than we had expected it to be in this financial year. It is largely because we are speeding up the work and are therefore spending the money faster than we expected. However, this amount of R500 000 will, of course, be paid out of savings which have been effected under item 7, as hon. members will see in the estimates.

Mr. Chairman when the hon. the Minister replied earlier to my colleague, the hon. member for Rondebosch, he referred to a certain reduction.

*At the time he spoke of “rent” of 2% in connection with interest. I did not understand that point Does it represent a difference in interest or does it represent a subsidization of rent?

Mr. Chairman, I thought it was general knowledge that up to 1977 the Department of Community Development paid a subsidy of 2% to house-owners with bonds of up to R15 000 on houses with a value not exceeding R20 000.

I know that. I am speaking of rent.

Yes, it is being phased out at present, but the people who were in receipt of subsidies in 1977, will continue to receive the subsidies for a period of three years unless they sell their houses and pay off their bonds. In that case, they forfeit the benefit. I think that is the point to which the hon. member is referring.

It has nothing to do with rent. It is interest.

“Rente” is interest in English.

†What then is the hon. member’s problem?

The hon. the Minister used the word “huur”.

No, I do not think I did. If I did, it was a mistake and anybody can make a mistake.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 31.—“Tourism”:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us the full circumstances with regard to item E, the repayment to the Administration of South West Africa of a portion of a loan to a hotel in Walvis Bay. Why just a portion? Is it an old hotel or a new one and what are the future obligations of the Government in this connection?

Mr. Chairman, I shall gladly furnish the particulars to the hon. member. The Executive Committee of the Administration of South West Africa granted a loan of R196 300 to South West Breweries Limited in respect of this hotel in Walvis Bay. From time to time, advances were granted to the company by the Administration of South West Africa. On 31 August 1977, the outstanding amount of this loan was R76 957,12. This amount was paid out to South West Breweries Limited after the Administration of Walvis Bay had been taken over by the Republic of South Africa on 1 September 1977. For that reason, the South African Government is now responsible for paying this amount to the Administration of South West Africa. The full amount is R76 557,12. This amount has to be paid by us. That is why provision is being made for it in this additional appropriation. As soon as the amount is approved here, it will be paid over to the South West Administration. However, the South West Administration is the mortgagee and will therefore continue to bear file responsibility. The South West Administration will recover the mortgage from the company concerned, on certain conditions. This amount will therefore be paid back to the South African Government in due course.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this means that the Government will not subsidize breweries here in the Republic in the future.

No, not at all.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. the Minister when this amount is expected to be repaid?

Mr. Chairman, it will take quite a number of years, because the loan is being paid back in 17 yearly payments of R4 275,47. It will, therefore, take some time before it is repaid.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 34.—“Government Printing Works”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to us the reasons for the very considerable increase of R2,159 million in respect of printing services.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wants to listen to it, I could report to him at length. The basic problems are actually of a two-fold nature. In the first place, there has been a rise of 23% in the tender prices of paper since 1 April 1978. Furthermore, departments seem to have held back printing work to a large extent, because of financial circumstances in the previous year. Then the Government Printer was suddenly inundated with printing work in this particular year. Consequently the printing expenses have been very high in this particular year. However, I am prepared to report to the hon. member on every item. I have the whole list of particulars with me. If he is interested, I shall read it to him.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister just tell us what the main items relating to the increase are?

Mr. Chairman, I suppose I shall have to read it to the hon. member in detail. In the first place, there has been an average increase of 23% in the tender prices of paper since April 1978. The prices of other printing requirements, as well as of imported articles, are constantly rising. It is estimated that the additional expenditure resulting from price rises amounts to approximately R1,2 million. The next reason is that the physical curtailment of services during the previous financial year—in order to economize— resulted in a printing backlog which now has to be made up in order to meet the urgent needs of departments. Because of the curtailment of Government expenditure during the previous financial year— especially during the 1977-’78 financial year—a printing backlog seems to have developed on the part of departments as well, as appears from the number of printing orders received during the first eight months of the financial year.

On 31 March 1978, 2 880 unfinished orders had been handed over, while a further 5 913 orders were received during the period 1 April to 20 November 1978. During the first eight months of the financial year, 6 554 of the total number of 8 793 orders were carried out, leaving a balance of 2 239 as at 30 November 1978. During the first four months of this year, an average of 809 orders per month was received, and during the subsequent four months, an average of 670 per month. Judging by the demand during the previous financial year, it is expected that there will be another increase in the number of orders during the last four months of 1978-’79.

Then the final reason. In addition to a number of urgent major operations which have to be completed without delay— including income tax forms, with an impression of 4 million, Defence Bonus Bonds, special stamp issues over 31 March 1979, annual reports of departments and printing with a view to Health Year—the current political and economic conditions lead to a constant stream of urgent orders from departments, which have to be carried out at once and for which I am compelled to make provision.

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to show the hon. member that the activities of the Government Printer are such that it is very difficult to predict what the printing order is going to be. This is why the considerably increased costs have been incurred.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to thank the hon. the Minister firstly for that explanation. Could I also ask him to tell us about main division 3, which involves expenditure of R800 000 which was not budgeted for at all in the original budget. I wonder what this amount of R800 000, which is now required, is needed for.

Mr. Chairman, this amount is merely an additional capital appropriation for additional supplies.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 37.—“Water Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, there are three nominal amounts on these estimates which appear for the first time and I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us something more about these three projects.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the amount for the O.F.S. Goldfields is concerned, amounts exceeding a certain limit cannot be placed on the estimates, as the hon. member knows, unless a White Paper is submitted in that connection.

A White Paper has already been tabled for the O.F.S. Goldfields extension (Sand River) amounting to R10,5 million. This matter is very urgent, because new gold and uranium mines are being opened there. The people need water very urgently and the Department of Water Affairs has to make a start with it during this financial year. However, they cannot proceed with it before it has been formally placed on the estimates and the White Paper has been submitted. Therefore it has to be included in the programme. That is the purpose for which a nominal amount has been included here. Savings have been effected in the department which can cover the remaining expenditure during this financial year. However, we have to do it in this way, in accordance with requirements. I am just making it clear, therefore, that the other amounts which are being spent are not additional, since we do have money available for them. Hon. members know that if a scheme of a certain magnitude is embarked upon, a White Paper must be submitted to the House so that formal approval may be requested. This is a nominal amount, therefore, because we are not quite sure what will be spent in this connection this year. It will be more than this amount, of course, but this money is being obtained from savings effected in other sections of the department. If that is not clear, I shall wait before explaining the next amount.

Mr. Chairman, I have a slight problem in this regard, and perhaps the hon. the Minister can enlighten me. My difficulty is: Once this R50 appears in the additional estimates and is approved, does it mean tacit acceptance of the fact that the scheme costing R10 500 000 is now going ahead? In other words, are we approving of this scheme by putting this amount on the estimates for the first time?

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is what it amounts to in practice, because if the start of the scheme is approved, it cannot be said later that only R50 was approved and that the rest of the expenditure must therefore be turned down. By approving the R50, therefore, I believe that the House is giving its approval to the entire scheme. The White Paper setting out the whole scheme has been submitted to this House, so when this R50 has been approved, I do not believe that the House can subsequently invalidate it.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to submit additional estimates on this basis, I believe we are making nonsense of the whole question of parliamentary scrutiny over Government spending. If we are tacitly accepting a scheme of R10½ million by passing an amount of R50 in the additional estimates, this is, to my mind, not the right way to go about it. We know that the White Paper is before us and we know that we are going to discuss the issue during the hon. the Minister’s Vote in the forthcoming budget: Why, therefore, is it necessary at this stage to have the R50 appropriated?

Mr. Chairman, I wish to take the matter a little further by asking whether the voting of this R50 is in fact in order. According to existing procedures, the hon. the Minister states that he is going to issue a White Paper that will have to be passed by the House to the Select Committee on Water Affairs for scrutiny. This White Paper is thereafter approved by the House when the hon. the Minister’s Vote is discussed during the main budget. This R50 is allowing the hon. the Minister to spend money which he has saved on other projects. In order to transfer the money from one head to another, the matter has to be reported to the House, but I seriously question whether the hon. the Minister is in order to do so. I fail to see how he can commit the House to approving of something which has not yet appeared before the House, or has not yet been referred to a Select Committee. I query the procedure that is being followed in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, we are acting here in accordance with the requirements of the Treasury and the provisions of the Water Act. I repeat: a scheme cannot commence before a White Paper has been submitted to this House. The provision does not require the White Paper to be accepted first. The White Paper is there to explain the amount to be expended, as well as the planning of the scheme. This White Paper was tabled as long ago as 6 February. This is a new enterprise and does not appear in the previous budget. The situation has become very urgent, and for that reason we have included a nominal amount in the additional appropriation for the scheme, so as to enable us to proceed with the work before the end of this financial year. The hon. member wants to know whether that is correct. There is indeed a prescribed method for doing these things. We cannot spend anything before the House has approved a nominal amount and thereby the scheme as such. I cannot appropriate RO for the scheme in the additional appropriation, for then it would serve no purpose. Therefore, we are placing this R50 on these additional estimates, and in that way approval is granted for the scheme to proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is proving my case for me. I want to ask a ruling from the Chair on this matter. Is it in order for the hon. the Minister to put an amount in the additional estimates which prejudges an issue which will still come before the House at a later stage? The hon. the Minister quite rightly says that a White Paper has been submitted and laid on the Table. Hon. members have this in their possession. But the hon. the Minister says that he is entitled to commence this scheme before the project has been approved by Parliament.

Nonsense. You are now first approving the scheme.

I am just saying … [Interjections.] The hon. member is … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I ask for your ruling on this matter, because it appears to me that the R50 which the House is now asked to approve is committing the House to the approval of an amount which requires the approval of the House at a later stage. I cannot see that the hon. the Minister is in order in asking the amount of R50 to be approved under this Additional Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Chairman, it is being done in accordance with the provisions of existing laws. The scheme may not commence before the approval of the Treasury has been obtained. If the Treasury has granted its approval, the White Paper is submitted and a nominal amount is budgeted. That nominal amount is then approved. Hon. members can always come back later and say that they are not satisfied. It is their right in this Parliament. But in order to enable the department to proceed with the scheme in terms of existing laws and requirements and not to hold back the entire development, provision must be made for this amount in the additional appropriation. I shall be glad if the hon. member in his wisdom could suggest a new way of handling the matter. Parliament may eventually decide that the scheme is not to be proceeded with. Then expenditure will have taken place, that is true, but it will have taken place with the approval of Parliament.

Order! The hon. member for Mooi River cannot expect me to give a ruling unless he takes a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, if one is assessing a Water Affairs budget one ought to be able to look at the total amount that is being spent under that Vote and to assess priorities, and on that basis to decide whether the required amount of money should be set aside. Here, on the hon. the Minister’s own admission, by setting aside R50, an amount of R10,5 million is in fact going to be spent which the hon. the Minister is financing out of savings under other headings of the Vote. I do not think this can be done unless there is some understanding and some knowledge of where the savings have come about and how he is going to finance the scheme. I really feel constrained to say that we have to move for this amount to be excised unless the hon. the Minister can give us a further explanation on this matter. I am at one with the hon. member for Mooi River that it is quite ridiculous and out of context of the total Vote to expect us to vote R50 now towards a project which is going to cost R10,5 million.

Mr. Chairman, one would expect that the hon. member for Mooi River, who is a Whip in his party and the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is an ex-Whip of his party would have some understanding of parliamentary procedure. Before the hon. members so lightly rise to oppose the amount, they should surely first read what is written in the estimates. The hon. the Minister is seeking parliamentary approval for these schemes. If the hon. members do not do their homework on White Papers which are tabled in the House, they must not come and raise objections. Are we now to understand that these two hon. members in objecting to this amount of R50, which gives approval to the scheme, are in fact opposing the scheme? Do they want to delay it?

Not at all. We must see it in context.

I do not know whether the two hon. members are serious in what they are doing or whether they are merely wasting the time of the House. There are hundreds of precedents for what the hon. the Minister is asking for under this Vote. I submit that the hon. members are attempting to waste the time of the House by taking up this attitude.

You are reflecting on the Chair.

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair?

No, Mr. Chairman. I am just referring to the attitude of the two hon. members concerning the additional amount which is being requested by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make the matter quite clear to hon. members. This House never specifically approves the cost for every scheme. From year to year, matters are revised by the department, and certain amounts are requested for expenditure during a particular financial year. It is never specifically decided that a particular amount is approved for the total cost of a particular scheme. In other words, if the arguments of hon. members were valid, they would decide here and now that they were going to spend R10,5 million, while I am only asking for R50 in this appropriation. Therefore their conclusion is not correct. What they are in fact approving today is the expenditure of R50, but that implies that the department may proceed with the expenditure of the rest, but the amounts concerned will be submitted in the budget in detail at the appropriate time. All that the law requires is that a White Paper be submitted, and it has been submitted.

That is the whole point.

I am not allowed to ask for money before I have submitted a White Paper setting out the whole scheme. I think hon. members must realize and accept that, because that has always been the procedure.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 39.—“Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations”:

Mr. Chairman, I think the question is obvious. Could the hon. the Minister kindly furnish us with just a little more information on item J? I refer to the additional amount of R14 700 000 to be voted for the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

Mr. Chairman, I shall do so gladly. I do not know whether the hon. member should like me to go into great detail, but I can do that as well if he so wishes. Firstly, I should like to refer to education. The steadily increasing number of pupils, resulting from the systematic annual rise in the compulsory school going age, necessarily gives rise to greater expenditure, but during the course of the year there are also price increases at hostels, increased fuel prices, etc.

I now come to social welfare and pensions. In the course of this year the approved applications for social pensions showed an increase of more than 4 000 as against an average of 2 200 over the previous four years. In other words, there has been an above-normal increase. The same phenomenon was encountered in the case of the approved applications for disability pensions. In that case the increase was 5 700 as against the average for the previous three years of 3 700. Then of course there are also the salary adjustments which have to be made, and here we are dealing with a twofold phenomenon. Firstly, we had the salary adjustments with effect from 1 April last year to the end of the financial year, but provision was then also made for the adjustment with effect from 1 January, something for which we had to budget separately. If the hon. member wants me to go into greater detail, I can do so.

Mr. Chairman, no, I should just like to know in general what most of that R14 million was used for.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to list the major items for the hon. member. We had the salary adjustments with effect from 1 April 1978 until the end of this month. That amounts to R8 900. To that should be added R2 million for salary adjustments with effect from 1 January

R8 900 000?

I am sorry, it was a slip of the tongue on my part. As the hon.

member has heard, the Minister of Indian Affairs has just said that anyone can make a mistake. I meant R8,9 million. Then one has to add to that a further R2 million for the retrospective period from 1 January to 31 March of last year when the increases were announced. The amount in respect of the increase of social pensions and other social benefits is R8,7 million. Those are the two outstanding items.

Mr. Chairman, I did not understand that clearly. According to the hon. the Minister the one amount is R8,9 million and the other is R8,7 million. It is therefore more than R16 million in total.

There I can help the hon. member. It is a simple arithmetical calculation. After the original estimate, a reduction of R7 million was effected at the insistence of the Treasury. If one then adds up the other smaller items, it tallies with the amount of R14,7 million.

Vote agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, before the debate was adjourned, I paid tribute to the National Monuments Council for the work it had done and to the director of the council, Prof. Oberholzer, and his staff for their unselfish devotion to the task in which they were embroiled. I want to say again that South Africa can be grateful to the council members for the devotion they showed to their work of preserving our history and the monuments that exist.

I think this is the ninth Bill to come before the House since 1934 in regard to the preservation of historical monuments and our historical heritage. I think the interest in this debate shows the general concern that exists for the preservation of our cultural heritage. Looking through Hansard, we find interestingly enough that when the original legislation was passed in 1969 only two or at the most three very short speeches were made. In the present debate my colleague, the hon. member for Hercules, made an excellent contribution, as did the hon. member for Johannesburg North and others. Their speeches show the increasing concern there is for the preservation of our cultural heritage in this country.

The improvements to the original Act contained in this Bill are, as the hon. the Minister has stated, the result of an interdepartmental committee that reported in 1976 after having investigated various aspects of the working of the original legislation. Since 1934 some 634 national monuments have been proclaimed of which 339 have been proclaimed since 1969 when the original legislation was passed by the House. If one examines the past reports of the Monuments Council and looks through the estimates, one sees that the work of this council has been done on an exceedingly limited budget. The last report, the report for 1977-’78, reflects a total expenditure of some R137 000, all the work having been done by a staff of 12. I am only referring to expenditure in the administration of the council and its other projects and am not including any other ex gratia grants that were made by the Government or the department for specific projects.

From this budget the council has had to meet the cost of the necessary monument badge. I have a specimen here, and as it is rather heavy I have to hold it in both hands. These badges cost something like R18 each. However, in addition to the badge certain signs had to be erected in terms of the Act, plaques describing the history of the particular monument that has been proclaimed. The average cost of one of these plaques, depending upon its descriptive length, is something like R450. At the present moment there is a backlog of 372 plaques for monuments that have been proclaimed. Taking the present average cost of these bronze plaques into consideration, a total cost of some R167 000 would have to be incurred to meet the backlog alone, an amount which is some R30 000 more than the original estimates of the council for the financial year 1977-’78. I think hon. members will side with me in my plea to the hon. the Minister to approach his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance—I am glad to see him here—to see whether it is possible for an additional ex gratia payment to be made to enable the council to proceed with the erection of these plaques.

The badge in itself is important because it shows the stamp of the council, but the plaque is of interest to the visitor and the tourist. It describes the property, its history and its background, and this is what one wants to convey to any tourist or visitor to a monument so that he can at least learn about the history of a building and not just have to look at a building made of iron or whatever the case may be. He would then at least become aware of the atmosphere that surrounds that particular monument by way of the description on the plaque erected by the council. As I have said, I hope other hon. members will join with me in my plea to the hon. the Minister to give attention to this backlog. I think it would, of course, also be of great encouragement to the council members if this could be done.

The costs may seem high. At first, when I was investigating this matter—because I am concerned with a particular national monument—I was surprised at the high cost involved in the erection of these bronze plaques. One wonders whether it is not possible for some cheaper method to be found for depicting the history of these particular monuments. However, I am informed that because of the high incidence of destructive vandalism when other materials such as aluminium or wood were used, it was considered necessary to use bronze which is hard and weather-resisting. If such a bronze plaque is solidly mounted, there is less likelihood of the insignia and the description of the history of the monument being damaged.

There is another interesting aspect in this proposed amending legislation. In spite of nine previous Bills passed by this House, this is the first time that any proposed legislation dealing with our historic background, and the preservation of our historical monuments, does in fact describe the objectives of the council, as is done in clause 2 of the Bill. What is interesting about the description of the objectives of the council, is not only the fact that it is there to preserve and protect some building. Its objectives are actually twofold. The entire emphasis, in the objectives of the council, is on the preservation and protection of our historical and cultural heritage. The second aspect is the retention of monuments as a token of this heritage so that they serve as an inspiration for the future. I think it is important that emphasis should be given to this because unhappily the idea is abroad among quite a fair section of the public that the function of the National Monuments Council is really to save some old buildings that are possibly falling into decay. The cultural aspects of the work of the council are not fully appreciated, I think, amongst the public as a whole. Therefore I for one am extremely pleased to see that these objectives have been written into this amending Bill with the emphasis being placed entirely on the saving of our cultural heritage and its development for the inspiration of generations still to come. I think that that is the important aspect we should bear in mind.

When I say that the impression exists outside that the council’s function is to preserve old buildings, etc., around the country-side from possibly falling into decay, it must be realized that the proclamation of national monuments—and hon. members can verify this if they study the annual report of the council—is not simply restricted to buildings. There are four farms alone that have been declared national monuments. There is a complex of 21 farms and small-holdings in Ida’s Valley which has been declared a national monument. The whole intention is to preserve those places, the individual farms with their old titles and what is situated on them, from being altered in order that they may serve as a reminder of the past on which we can build and with which we can enrich ourselves. This should be clearly understood. Age is also not the only factor in determining the value of the land, the structure, the village or whatever which the council has determined should be preserved and retained for future inspiration. It is not age alone but also the history that is attached to a particular monument that is important.

I should like to refer very briefly to certain of the clauses on which I would submit certain thoughts to the hon. the Minister. Clause 3 amends section 5 of the principal Act to broaden the powers of the council to preserve monuments and maintain them. The importance of this amendment will be appreciated when it is considered that 80% of our national monuments are privately owned. This is important also when it is realized that the council has no inspectoral staff whatsoever. It is entirely reliant on the police authorities or the Department of Public Works to carry out regular inspections of these buildings to see that they are being maintained and are not falling apart, and that they are not being put to uses for which they were never intended, having once been declared national monuments.

I submit to the hon. the Minister that, possibly in the budget still to come, provision should be made for a properly trained inspectorate because there are already something like 646 national monuments. I can speak from experience because a police sergeant arrived one day at the national monument I happen to own, and upon arrival at the farm he said: “Oh! Is this the monument?” After I had replied in the affirmative, he said: “Well, I was looking for it and came to find it” I told him that he was at the monument and, when he asked whether everything was in order, I said: “Yes, everything seems to me to be in order.” Then he said: “Well, that is fine, I shall report accordingly,” and off he went. He was not trained to look at the building, to look at the concept of the building, to see whether it was being put to uses to which it should never have been put; he was not trained to see whether there were additional lean-to’s being built or whether the monument’s appearance was being altered in any way. It takes a trained inspectorate, as I believe other countries have, a body of trained personnel who are familiar with the circumstances, who know the monuments and who have had adequate training, to judge the aesthetic value of these places in terms of what was originally determined should be a monument. I would therefore submit to the hon. the Minister that possibly some consideration should be given to this aspect in order to strengthen the hands of the council.

The proposed new subsection (8)(a), in connection with which the hon. member for Johannesburg North had a great deal to say, deals with the council’s endeavours to ensure that the land surrounding monuments be kept unspoilt and unobstructed. I think it should be realized that the inclusion of this provision is in keeping with the council’s policy of obtaining cooperation of the people whose properties are intended to be declared national monuments in the national interest. Therefore, I believe it is wrong that the hon. member for Johannesburg North should create the impression that there will be compulsion in this respect. In terms of this new proposed subsection that is not so. If it had been the intention it would be contrary to the policy followed by the council in achieving their goal of public cooperation.

I now turn to clause 11 of the Bill. I must point out that the wording of this clause is an improvement on that of section 12 of the principal Act, which is to be amended in terms of clause 11. It places certain prohibitions on the damaging of monuments. As I read the clause it places a restriction on the individual. However, I submit that the same prohibition should be placed on authorities. With regard to this particular aspect I should like to lodge a special appeal with the hon. the Minister. If the restriction I refer to prohibits a person or an individual from doing certain things, I believe it should be broadened by having the same restrictions placed on local authorities, divisional councils or any other statutory body. From my own personal experience I can tell hon. members that this was an issue that was dealt with at some length by the committee of inquiry. When we talk about vandalism we should also include excavation or other activities by local authorities. I really do not believe that certain local authorities or divisional councils are entirely innocent in this regard. Therefore I feel that if the hon. the Minister were to broaden this prohibition …

Which clause do you refer to?

I am referring to clause 11, in terms of which section 12 of the principal Act is to be amended. The wording I refer to reads as follows—

1. (a) destroy, damage, excavate, alter, remove from its original site or export from the Republic any …

I take “no person” to refer to an individual, unless the hon. the Minister gives me the assurance that it will be taken to include also local authorities, divisional councils, or any other statutory bodies. If he could do so, I would be very delighted.

In clause 13 one finds, what I believe to be one of the most important provisions in this Bill. It is far-reaching in its implications. It contains two important aspects. The first is the powers of the council as such in respect of national monuments. The second aspect is the powers that are now being given, albeit subject to the council’s approval, to local authorities in regard to national monuments. Bearing in mind that 80% of the national monuments in South Africa are privately owned, this provision that local authorities can draft regulations regulating the conditions of use by any person of any area of land declared to be a monument is, I believe, far-reaching. That is far-reaching. I have no objection, as an owner of a monument, to subjecting myself to the rules and regulations of the council because, before the monument is ever declared, they firstly co-operate with one, give advice and assistance and all the other services they can give. One knows that one is dealing with a body which is fully appreciative of the historical and aesthetic values of the building or land that has been declared a national monument.

I submit to the hon. the Minister that the Bill, as it is worded at the moment, is rather far-reaching in its implications. I understand that the original intention, as far as the committee was concerned, was that local authorities, provincial administrations and divisional councils should have authority for these powers over monuments owned by them. There can be no objection in that regard. I therefore submit to the hon. the Minister that I would be particularly happy if that aspect could possibly be looked at during the Committee or in the Other Place. I understand that the intention of the second part of this provision was that these powers should be granted when an authority actually owns the monument or has it under its control.

Finally, there is one aspect I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. We have 646 monuments to our history and our past, and in terms of the objectives of the council we want to convey their meaning to our public, our youth and our future generations. However, one of the sad aspects about having these 646 proclaimed monuments is the problem of finding them. One of the amazing things is that one can travel South Africa and find very few boards indicating where the national monuments are, so that if one is touring one can go and have a look at them. They are hidden away. Therefore, let me tell the hon. the Minister that I know that the council has had its problems in this regard, particularly in its past dealings with provincial administrations. I am happy to say, however, that we in the Transvaal are probably much further ahead than the Cape. The Cape Province has the problem of divisional councils while we do not have that problem in the Transvaal. I do not know whether it is a matter of funds or whether it should be the responsibility of the National commission or the provincial authority, but I think one should establish a definite programme involving a standardized badge of the council, showing clearly to our tourists in South Africa—of which a large portion are our own people— where the monuments are. When they pass through a certain area they can then take time off to go and look at a monument, to study it and get its background as well as the history of that particular monument.

Mr. Speaker, may I firstly take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Von Brandis on a very interesting speech. I think I can say with great sincerity that the contributions from both sides of the House have been very good during the course of the debate thus far.

Before I go on with the main thrust of my own arguments, I wish to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown. I think he made one of the most interesting contributions on a conservation subject that I have heard for a long time. In fact, he stole a portion of my speech, but I think he dealt with the matter perhaps more exhaustively than I would have been able to. I therefore congratulate him. It amused me when he regaled us with the story of Noel Coward refusing to sail on any ship other than a British one because on a British ship there was none of this nonsense of women and children first.

As he was speaking, it struck me that I also knew a story of a fleet which in those days was manoeuvring in the eastern Mediterranean—these are potential wrecks, Mr. Speaker. The Admiral was aboard the flagship and as the ships were criss-crossing on their maneouvres, a ship under a young Lieutenant-Commander passed aft of the flagship, nearly touching the stem of the flagship as it did so. The Admiral then signalled to him: “If you touch me there again, I will scream.” I leave the subject there.

You will receive a three-page letter for that [Interjections.]

As regards the final remarks he made, the thrust of his argument was that recognition should be given to the Advisory Committee for Maritime Archaeology. If the hon. member looks at clause 4 of the Bill, he will see that it provides for this very thing to take place. From what he said about this body, Acma, I should think that this is the very kind of body that should be affiliated to or registered by the National Monuments Council so that they could apply their skills and act as a conduit of information to the National Monuments Council, which in turn could use its powers as provided for in this Bill. I agree with the hon. member that the powers of the Bill are limited and that they are difficult to interpret. The onus is now being placed on the National Monuments Council to physically survey the area locations on our coast where the approximately 1 600 to 1 700 wrecks lie. The locality of these wrecks is difficult to discern and this will therefore pose both an administrative problem and a cost problem to them, especially in the light of their limited budget. The survey in itself can be expensive and the exploration required in order to erect the necessary beacons also makes the task extremely difficult and complex. I shall leave that thought with the hon. the Minister, as I do not wish to say much more on that subject.

If one looks at the provisions of this Bill, I think one understands that the National Monuments Council is given a broader function, more power and stronger teeth and that the scope of its activities is being increased. If one looks at the historical background of the National Monuments Council, it is interesting to see how it has moved from being a body which essentially proclaimed the odd building, of which the national importance was beyond doubt, to a body which looks at conservation far more generally and, with far greater vision and sensitivity than was previously the case. It is, for instance, looking at landscapes, beaches, mountains and mountain ranges. It is looking not at buildings, but at streets; not only at particular buildings but at whole squares and sometimes even a whole village. Good examples of this are Dorp Street, Elim and the proclamation of battlefields. It is not only the battle site that is of interest to them, but the battlefield. They do not merely look at a single building, but at the whole area in which the building is situated. Evidence of this can be seen all over.

The idea of not only considering the building, but the whole area in which the building is situated, is something I should like to deal with fairly briefly. The clause provides that the land surrounding or in the immediate vicinity of a monument should also be protected, and not only the monument itself. In this regard we have a great conflict developing in Cape Town. Evidence of this conflict could be seen in the Press recently, and it concerns the intended construction of a hypermarket at Constantia. The Constantia Valley is studded with national monuments, and if ever there was a valley where the provision of this clause makes it important for the National Monuments Council to look at the whole environment, the landscape and the use and potential abuse of that landscape, then I would say it is the Constantia Valley. Here we have some land which was a farm and which was zoned for a particular purpose long ago. Before the local authority or the public in that particular region had crystallized their thoughts in respect of the conservation of the valley, it had been zoned for that purpose. The zoning also took place before the advent of hypermarkets. The zoning of that particular site at the time was a matter of convenience. The whole farm was zoned without thought being given to the possibility that part of it would ever be used for a hypermarket. The upshot of that has been that without the zoning having been reviewed, we now suddenly find that a fantastically huge hypermarket, which will attract trade within a 60 mile radius bringing tens of thousands of motor-cars into that area, is threatening not only the valley, but also all the national monuments in that valley.

The impact of the application by the developer for the zoning can be catastrophic for the conservation of the valley. I am not saying that the developer is not making use of the zoning as it is, but the impact of that development was never anticipated. It is interesting that both the developer and the main tenant of the proposed building agree that the development is wrong because they have both offered R5 000 for the preservation or non-use of the site. So it seems to me that there is no argument about this by either the developer, the main tenant or the people of Constantia. I thank the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for having come out strongly against the construction of the hypermarket on this site, and I want to suggest to the local authorities that they hold a referendum to test local opinion on this matter, as was done in the case of Melkbosstrand and Bloubergstrand. However, I shall not continue this line of argument.

I now want to come to the Bill, and let me say at once that the success or failure of conservation by the National Monuments Council will hinge on the interpretation of several of the clauses in this Bill. The emphasis in the functioning of the National Monuments Council is, in terms of the provisions of this Bill, increasingly being placed on its co-ordinating function and we see that the results and consequences of their actions go far beyond the narrowness of the particular budget Already, in the Cape Peninsula, one finds that the Cape Town Peninsula Trust, which busies itself with the saving of important buildings and artefacts, has become a committee of the National Monuments Council.

I see the interpretation of the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill as being very important, because it has always been the dream of conservationists in general, and of the National Monuments Council, that a national trust type of situation should be established in South Africa so that one can have the maximum co-operation between public authorities and private persons and associations. This clause makes this possible, and I believe it is imperative, if conservation is going to succeed in the long term, to involve the public, the local authorities and the provincial authorities to the maximum extent. The regulations governing the interpretation of clause 4 will, however, be absolutely vital because it is the regulations that will govern membership or affiliation and determine how efficiently and positively these various elements, which the National Monuments Council will now give recognition to throughout the country, will function. At Uniondale, Cradock, Graaff-Reinet, Somerset West and all over the Transvaal and Natal there are historical societies and regional societies which, although they show an interest in the national sense, culturally direct their gaze inwards to their own communities. By involving and registering those societies, associations and local conservation bodies, the National Monuments Council will assist them by giving them the status, the muscle and the necessary skills to perform their functions, because it is a fact that many of these authorities are more enthusiastic than they are skilful. Through their very enthusiasm, they can sometimes proclaim the wrong monument as important, give impetus to the wrong priority in their particular community or even wrongly restore a particular building. In terms of the provisions of clause 4 the National Monuments Council will be able to control these bodies to a great extent, on a voluntary basis of course, by contact and by opening lines of communication with them. The National Monuments Council can also lend stature to them, thus assisting the local bodies in raising money in their own communities to fund local monuments that need to be proclaimed and restored. I say this because if one looks at the experience of the National Trust in Great Britain, one of the most interesting of world-wide conservation authorities, one sees that they devolve the maximum of power down to the local community to preserve, protect, manage, etc., local buildings or artefacts. So by giving local bodies like the Cape Peninsula Civic Trust, equal stature— associate status, if you like—with the National Monuments Council, one can lend credence to their efforts, direct such efforts and assist them with fund-raising. One would then have listening posts throughout the country, something we do not have at the moment because of the small staff and limited budget of the National Monuments Council. This would enable it to spread its tentacles across the country and also operate through the provinces in terms of clause 14 of the Bill.

The important thing, however, is that they will be able to facilitate the feed-back of information and perform an educating function. Although the Bill makes provision for financing such bodies, because of the limited nature of the budget it is very clear that, even with a dramatic increase in the budget, they will never really be able to succeed in granting funds for conservation. As I interpret the clause, they should, in fact, grant financial assistance in the sense of giving these local societies or associations enough money to run the administrative side of their activities, e.g. normal administrative costs involving aspects such as postage, other forms of communication, etc., thus allowing them to function and remain alive as listening posts for the National Monuments Council so that they can engage in particular projects at particular times, either of their own volition or as directed by the National Monuments Council.

I also want to speak briefly about clause 11. In the Committee Stage I intend to move an amendment to clause 11. We shall discuss the matter more fully in the Committee Stage, but I just want to mention generally that we have problems at Rorke’s Drift, Fort Melville and Kambula. I refer, in particular, to Rorke’s Drift and Fort Melville, which are proposed national monuments. There one finds fellows going round with Geiger counters, and in so doing they pick up all kinds of artefacts such as Zulu spears, shot, belt buckles, medallions of various kinds, parts of guns, etc. The principal Act makes mention of “archaeological or palaeontological” finds, but because these finds are historic and not archaeological, the courts are unable to act against people who are destroying these battlefields and removing the important artefacts on these battlefields. For the moment, I shall leave the matter there, but I shall be going into it in greater detail when I move the relevant amendment in the Committee Stage.

I should also like to say something about clause 14. I think this clause is enormously important. Let me say at once that the hon. member for Johannesburg North made a good speech, but I do not agree with him that the provinces should now be galvanized into action, that they have been backward in coming forward and that Natal has been doing a glorious job and other provinces not. I think that is an oversimplification. I do have a great admiration for what the province of Natal is doing for conservation but I do not, by any means, think that the other provinces have been reticent. The other provinces have indeed wanted to engage upon the conservation exercise, but they have been withheld from doing so by the fact that they have not had the necessary powers. I can mention two examples to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. There is the example of the Sendinggestig, an example of which he is well aware. The hon. member for Algoa had much to do with this and did fantastic work in connection with it. This was at the time when he was a member of the Executive Committee of the provincial council of the Cape Province. There one had the situation that, although they wanted to proclaim the Sendinggestig as a monument, they could not do so because they did not have the power to do so. They therefore had to use a back-door: They proclaimed it a museum. However, before a museum can be proclaimed—and the hon. member was engaged in this—one has to have a museum council or trust which has to be formed before the building can be proclaimed a museum and the province can negotiate for the acquisition of the building. In the delay caused by this rather devious machinery which had to be used to acquire the building, one of the internal walls of the building in fact collapsed. In the end many people were doubtful whether it could in fact be restored at all. Another example is that of Voorgelegen. The provincial authority wanted to have it proclaimed, but could not. Again, all kinds of devious machinery had to be used to get the State President to intervene to say this was a building of purely local interest. This had to be done before the province could act in respect of a building that forms part of Dorp Street and the garden of which extends to Die Braak where the old millstream flows. It was a very important building. Now, the province is spending some R250 000 on it. I think it would be wrong to say that the provinces will now be galvanized into action. I think the provinces have wanted to do a lot. We have seen the wonderful work done in the Transvaal. Some fantastic work has been done at, for example, Pilgrim’s Rest in the Eastern Transvaal by the Transvaal provincial authority. I think, therefore, that the clause is of great significance. Particularly clauses 4, 14 and 15 are of profound significance and are going to have an enormous effect on conservation in South Africa.

In the Bill we see provision being made for widened powers and functions. I think the Bill is therefore a vote of confidence in the National Monuments Council. I think we can be very grateful to the National Monuments Council, this tiny band of men, for what they have achieved. I think their greatest achievement has been in shaping public opinion. As hon. members may know, I have for a relatively short time, some 15 years, been involved in this kind of conservation work and I find that everybody is aware that the climate for conservation in South Africa has changed enormously. I think that the reason why it has changed enormously is that the National Monuments Council has spearheaded an attack on public opinion. When one considers that almost all of the approximately 1 000 monuments, I think, have been established as such voluntarily and by persuasion, one sees how effective they have been not only in proclaiming so many important buildings and artefacts, but also in changing the climate of public opinion so that members of the public themselves have started taking a more active interest and societies have mushroomed all over the country. This Bill will enable the National Monuments Council to open lines of communication with bodies such as the Historical Society of Simonstown and others I have mentioned, enabling both sides to do their jobs more effectively.

Finally, I want to say something about aesthetics committees. The hon. member for Hercules made a very interesting speech in which he referred to the approximately 900 buildings threatened in Cape Town and the problem in Cape Town itself. He also spoke of the wonderful job done by the Historical Homes of South Africa. This society is under the leadership of Dr. Rupert. I agree wholeheartedly with him that it has done wonderful work. I once heard Dr. Rupert say that the 50 important buildings they have had proclaimed monuments have represented a cost of approximately half a million rand which was less than the cost of one kilometre of highway. When one considers the impact of that on our society, I think that that has been a marvellous contribution. The local authorities have it in their power to shape our destiny and quality of life through the national monuments in our cities. I think it is terribly important that the National Monuments Council, being also a coordinating and educating authority, should in fact encourage municipalities like the city council of Cape Town to establish aesthetics committees so that when a plan appears on a desk in the Health Department, the Roads Department or the Sanitary Department, it should also appear on the desk of an aesthetics committee which can evaluate the building concerned. If it concerns a building of importance that is being restored, it can ensure that the restoration is accurate and that the work is being done properly. They can consult with the National Monuments Council. If an adjoining building is built it should be built according to the same scale, size and shape, etc., of the historical building, it should not detract from the national monument or the precinct in which the national monument stands. I think that by encouraging the local authorities to establish an aesthetic committee—I understand the municipality of Johannesburg already has such a committee, for which I commend them—the National Monuments Council will further be able to give effect and impetus to their whole effort by liaising through the aesthetic committee with the local authorities, so becoming involved in the whole forward planning process and not waiting, as they do now, to deal only with conflict situations, because very often the National Monuments Council is operating in a hostile, high temperature zone. Once the concentrations of capital are formed and the matter becomes one of public interest— in this regard one can refer to Groot Constantia, Church Square in Pretoria, certain mountains and beaches, etc.—the National Monuments Council is brought in at a time of conflict, which may be very difficult and costly to resolve. I think that if they operate through aesthetic committees, they will be able to move ahead of the conflict and the accumulations of capital by proclaiming and planning and encouraging people to zone buildings which they know are important.

With these few words I want to congratulate the National Monuments Council and thank the hon. the Minister for introducing an important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister sincerely on having this important portfolio entrusted to him. I want to point out that the duties and responsibilities in terms of this Bill will, of course, form only a minimal part of the whole spectrum of his duties and responsibilities in the new department. However, I do want to make an appeal to him to treat any representations made to him by the National Monuments Council—which one could almost call one of the Cinderellas of our governmental setup—with special consideration and sympathy. I am sure he will do this.

I expect that in conservation circles there will be general agreement with the principal provisions in this Bill. I think this is universally welcomed in those circles, since basically it is really in accordance with representations made from time to time to the authorities in this regard. Having said that this is universally welcomed, I must add that there may in fact be some reservations and even perhaps objections. In certain respects it may be that the Bill does not go quite as far as was hoped. Previous speakers have already pointed out some of the reservations. However, in general the Bill is certainly an important step in the right direction, and we are thankful for this.

In addition I want to point out that the quality and scope of the very lively discussion in this debate, must have been very encouraging for all who are interested in conservation. It is striking that the discussion was more far-reaching in this than in previous debates. If one consults Hansard, it is striking that when the Natural and Historical Monuments, Relics and Antiques Act, No. 4 of 1934, and even the National Monuments Act, No. 28 of 1969, was included in the Statute Book, hon. members had very little to say about it at that stage.

I also want to refer briefly to a few of the clauses. Quite a few hon. members have already referred to clause 2, in which the aims of the council are now clearly spelt out. The most important of these is, of course, the co-ordinating function now specifically allocated to this council.

It is interesting to note that when the 1934 Act was discussed, mention was also made of the purpose of the Act although this was not embodied in the Act itself. The Minister of Interior at that time, the late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr, who introduced this legislation, when speaking about the aim of this legislation described it as the awakening of the historic sense among our people.

It is clear from the legislation before us today that its whole spirit and object is to give the National Monuments Council greater powers and to improve its status. Therefore, I want to refer briefly to a few of the provisions illustrating this. In clause 3 a whole series of new duties and responsibilities are entrusted to this council. When an owner neglects to maintain the building, the council is authorized to maintain it itself and recover the cost from the owner. The council is also authorized to affix a badge to any monument. The council is authorized to publish and distribute information, as well as to encourage the preservation of monuments. Then there is a very important provision, namely the prevention of developments which could obstruct the aspect of or the view from a monument. The council may also render financial assistance to certain bodies. Then there is the new responsibility in respect of shipwrecks. Furthermore, as far as the prestige of this council is concerned, the chief official is accorded the title of director. This will probably increase the status and prestige of this council. Then there is also the extension of powers to lay down regulations for the council itself and to control the regulations of local authorities. In this regard I refer to clause 13.

Clause 14 was also referred to with great pleasure and everyone agreed with it I just want to make one remark concerning clause namely that I hope that problems will not arise with the interpretation of the concept “is about to be declared”.

This legislation having been introduced, a considerable number of new duties and responsibilities are being entrusted to the council. There is in particular the specific duty that the board must ensure that harmful developments do not take place. Whereas all this is welcomed, I think that it is desirable for us to point out certain implications, particularly the financial implications of this council. I am perhaps more familiar and more aware than most other members of the particular problems faced by the National Monuments Council and other conservation bodies, due to a special interest in and close ties with some of these bodies. For that reason it is perhaps as well that I avail myself of this opportunity to focus some attention on this.

The fact is, nor is this in anyway a secret, that these bodies are struggling financially. The NMC as well as the other body, the Government-recognized body for conservation in the private sector, the Simon Van der Stel Foundation, we know, are finding it difficult to make ends meet with the finances at their disposal. It is a fact that their limited finances and funds restrict them in their functions and one fears that this could frustrate them in respect of their fine and elevated task and the ideal which they set themselves and pursue. In the case of the NMC it is not merely an ideal they are striving for; it is its statutory task. There is definitely a risk that it could be frustrated in carrying out its task if it cannot make ends meet. Then, inevitably, this cause would suffer. It would be unable to succeed in its aim. What I want to say is that if it is true that in present circumstances the council, cannot make ends meet with the finances at its disposal, surely one can draw the conclusion that this council will be unable to fulfil its purpose now, perhaps even less so, with the proposed supplementary duties, unless more funds are appropriated for its activities. In this regard I should like to draw hon. members’ attention to what the previous Minister said when introducing the existing Act. At the time he said something which was quite illuminating. I refer to the late Senator Jan de Klerk, the then Minister of National Education. He stated (Hansard, Vol. 25, col. 1830)—

It is interesting to note what happened in this regard over the past decade, since 1969. If one takes this into account, I believe, it can rightly be said that the wish expressed by the former Minister at that time, has not remained unfulfilled. I think we can rightly say that, during the past decade, we have experienced something in South Africa which without doubt could be regarded as a true conservation renaissance. In fact, it has been described as such on more than one occasion. This is indeed an encouraging development.

However, there is one reservation in conservation circles. It is said that if it is, in fact, true that we have experienced a conservation renaissance—if, therefore, the wish of the former Minister has been realized—it is more specifically the private sector which has been responsible for this. It is also a considered viewpoint that the contribution of the Government does not, perhaps, yet attest to the necessary seriousness with regard to the task of conservation. It is, in fact, true that our legislation possibly reflects the Government’s realization of that responsibility. However, the amount budgeted for conservation, does not yet attest to this completely. If, therefore, we must assess the claim of the private sector, viz. that up to now the task of conservation has to a large extent been furthered by the private sector, I believe that this is a reasonably valid claim. In this regard one calls to mind the many voluntary conservation bodies, for example the regional committees of the Simon Van der Stel Foundation. Then there is the body known as Preserve Arniston, the Stellenbosch 300-Aksie, a body fulfilling a very important task at Stellenbosch, as well as the Institute of Architects and Historical Houses of South Africa, Limited, a body which does, it is true, seek to make a profit. Then too, there are the various historical associations, for example those at Somerset West and elsewhere. The hon. member for Maitland also referred to this. It is, therefore, felt that the private sector has really contributed its share during the past few decades, and is, therefore, to a large extent responsible for the greater interest in the task of conservation.

As a result of the view that there is still a major deficiency, that the Government should make a larger contribution, there is now a very strong movement in favour of a radical new organizational structure in respect of the whole conservation action. This is something which, in fact, is often advocated nowadays. There are even arguments in favour of a possible Government department for the care of monuments, a Government department established and modelled on the same lines as similar bodies in Europe, quite a few of which have already been established. Bodies of this nature exist more specifically in Holland and England. What is envisaged, therefore, is that a statutory body be established, a body under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Education. As a possible name for this department the following have already been proposed: the National Council for the Preservation of Monuments or the Council for the Preservation of our Cultural Heritage. This particular body must then co-ordinate all the conservation activities in this country, including the activities of the NMC, the Simon Van der Stel Foundation, the Vereniging Oud-Pretoria, and all other similar bodies, and must also have divisions for matters such as heraldry, genealogy, archaeology, etc. The whole idea is that this should be a completely new Government department, a department with a task for which the Government should, therefore, accept the greatest responsibility.

The statement I just want to make briefly, is this. To invest the National Monuments Board with greater powers, more authority and higher status, will only make sense and have real meaning if this is coupled with the appropriation of more generous funds for the council. I sincerely believe that this will be the case. In fact, this is also what the argument of the hon. member for Johannesburg North amounted to, and I agree with him wholeheartedly on this matter. For that reason I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that more adequate funds are appropriated in future for the requirements of this council’s activities. On the grounds of special interest and a close tie with these bodies I am perhaps in a position to lift the veil on some of the problems experienced by the council. Therefore, I want to refer briefly to a few of them. Some have already been broached by the hon. member for Von Brandis, and therefore I shall just deal briefly with a few of the remaining ones.

The National Monuments Council expects to receive an amount of R192 500 for the 1979-’80 financial year. According to indications this will be its total budget compared with the budget for this year amounting to approximately R175 000, including capital expenditure. This R192 500 is intended to cover all capital and administrative expenditure. However, according to estimates the administrative expenditure alone will amount to R174 830 in the coming financial year. This, therefore, leaves the council with less than R18 000 to finance its real activities. This includes the restoration and maintenance of more than 1 000 declared buildings and areas. For the last two years now the council has only been able to grant the most essential subsidies to bodies receiving assistance from the council. In any case this amounts to a minimal proportion of the true restoration and maintenance costs. Nevertheless an amount of R134 000 has already been voted by the council for such projects, an amount, however, which they have not yet been able to pay out.

The hon. member for Von Brandis has already dealt with the question of the bronze plaques. It is therefore unnecessary for me to elaborate on the matter again. However, the fact is that, estimated at R450 per plaque, it will cost R167 400 merely to wipe out the backlog. At the present rate, therefore, this will take 11 years, which means that no provision can be made for running costs, i.e. expenditure in respect of approximately 100 monuments declared per annum.

Then there is also the question of the survey of potential monuments. This is also a service that is becoming increasingly expensive. These surveys are essential for terrains such as battlefields and natural monuments.

In the Transvaal it is also necessary to have all properties surveyed where the declared terrain does not correspond with the boundaries of the particular property or plot. The expense of an average survey—in regard to which the council already has a large backlog—amounts of approximately R800.

The current financial position of the council also affects the number of posts which can be created. There are only 12 full-time approved posts for the whole of the Republic. An additional two posts for experts have been frozen for a considerable time now due to a shortage of funds. Additional posts for a Coloured clerk and a part-time typist were also recommended in approximately July 1978 by the principal work study officer of the Department of National Education, but the council has heard nothing further about the matter.

The Eastern Province and Natal are particularly rich in history, as previous speakers have also emphasized. However, for that whole area there is not a single staff member, and this is a matter for which the council has to endure constant criticism.

To illustrate the importance the Government ascribes to this service, a few comparisons could be drawn. Comparisons often serve no useful purpose and are not always valid, either, for the simple reason that there is not a recognized common denominator according to which one can measure and weigh up the value of specific services. However, comparisons are made. For example, the comparison is made that in contrast to the council’s totally inadequate staff, according to information the Cultural History Museum in Pretoria has a staff of more than 100 members. The S.A. Museum in Cape Town has, as far as can be ascertained, approximately 80 staff members. Even a medium-sized provincial museum such as the McGregor Museum in Kimberley, has a larger staff than the NMC and a budget of approximately R¼ million per annum. Five of the Cape Province’s provincial museums have a larger budget than the NMC. The total museum appropriation of the Cape Provincial Administration amounts to R2,25 million for the current financial year. Not one of these museums has the national function of the NMC. The scope of their responsibilities cannot be compared with those of this council at all. The grant to this council is, of course, minimal in comparison to the approximately R25 million allocated as far back as 1977 for the care of monuments in the Netherlands. By this time this amount is probably much more.

A few other comparisons can be drawn as well. The title “director” must now afford the council greater prestige, but it is really the salary paid to a person and not so much the title which will afford the status. This is the indication of the importance and evaluation of this post. One can weigh up the salaries of certain comparable posts. In the first place one thinks of the university staff from whom the director, assistant director and other staff will probably be drawn. Looking at the hierarchy of a university’s teaching staff, one finds that the salary of the director of the NMC is nowhere near comparable to those of faculty heads, professors, associate professors or even senior lecturers. One must go to the level of lecturer before the salaries become comparable. After that only the junior lecturer remains. Therefore, the director’s salary can actually be compared with those of the lowest academic staff at universities. When we come to teaching staff, his salary cannot be compared with that of a director, deputy director, head inspectors, inspectors, principals of high schools or even of large primary schools. The first post with which it can be compared, is that of the headmaster of smaller primary schools, i.e. schools with pupils numbering between 250 and 599. The salaries of headmasters of this type of primary school are comparable today with that which can be paid to the director of the NMC. If one compares this with the salaries received by the curators of provincial museums, one finds that in the Cape—I do not know what the situation is in other provinces—there are five natural history museums, i.e. in Port Elizabeth, East London, Grahamstown, Kimberley and King William’s Town, of which the curators’ salaries are comparable with that which the director can be paid. If one compares the director’s salary with the salaries in the local government structure, one finds that in the Cape, the salaries of town clerks are divided into certain categories. These categories vary and the highest is R20 700, known as category 14. If one wants to determine which town clerks in the Cape receive salaries comparable to that which the director can be paid, the first eight categories must be eliminated. Then one finally reaches category 6, i.e. 8 categories lower than the highest scale, and this brings one to towns such as Beaufort West, Cradock, Despatch, Mossel Bay and Wellington. The salaries of the town clerks of these towns, are comparable to that which the director can be paid today.

Time does not permit me to do so, but I should also like to have drawn certain comparisons with regard to the budgets for other comparable services in the Parliament’s annual appropriations. A very popular comparison is that drawn between sport promotion and conservation. Time does not permit me to furnish full details in this regard, but I do want to say that on occasion, reference has been made in somewhat cynical terms to the fact that R25 000 was appropriated from the budget for a sport such as tug-of-war in a certain year, when the comparison was drawn— whereas in the same year the Simon Van der Stel Foundation was allocated a subsidy of only R21 000.

I want to request the hon. Minister to see to it that in determining the amounts to be budgeted for the council in future, certain facts are taken into account. In this regard I am thinking of two important considerations, i.e. the tremendous increase in the general awareness of conservations among die people throughout the Republic, and the increase in the number of domestic and foreign tours, with the result that there are growing demands that their divergent interests be satisfied meaningfully. These and many other factors of which the hon. the Minister is probably well aware, must be taken into account.

Furthermore, I want to refer to the total imbalance existing between the funds allocated for administrative purposes and funds for fulfilling the council’s functions. Therefore, to an extent the council has an expensive and well-trained staff, but due to a shortage of funds, they are unable to carry out their activities and aims effectively in practice. In view of the present allocation to the council and its inadequate staff, it is impossible to undertake a survey of buildings worth preserving. This is the situation in spite of the fact that increasing pressure is being exerted on the council from various quarters in this regard.

Government departments and other authorities increasingly expect this council, as the Government’s official conservation body, to take over or purchase historical buildings. This necessarily entails major additional financial obligations. The alternative is that this council must witness these buildings being demolished. At present there are already more than 30 properties registered in the name of this council and it is an impossible task to maintain these buildings on its current subsidy. The council’s current allocation does not provide for emergency situations such as storm damage, either. The Kruidhuis in Potchefstroom, for example, was damaged in this way some time ago, but there are no prospects of restoration work and the damage is necessarily getting worse.

The council cannot even have meetings as regularly as before. Due to financial considerations, at present only one full meeting and one meeting of the executive committee is held per annum, in contrast to two meetings for both bodies, as was the case earlier. The amount available for travel expenses and board and lodging has also become totally inadequate for the council’s requirements and needs.

At present it is almost impossible to allocate any funds to the council’s library, at present in its embrionic stage. There is practically no money for essential publicity and publications. This is one of the tasks now being specifically entrusted to this council under clause 3. The present situation has become almost intolerable for staff and council members. The result is that two staff members have already left the council over the past three months and further resignations are not impossible.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that if one examines this catalogue of needs, the council can justly be described as one of the Cinderellas of our Governmental set-up. It is definitely not to our credit that a body with such an elevated task virtually has to sit like a beggar at the entrance to the city waiting for alms. Therefore I trust that this measure will usher in a new dispensation also as regards the Government’s financial contribution to conservation. We now have the legislation; all that is now necessary is that the matter be redressed in the appropriations as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a long debate on this Bill. I am not complaining about this, on the contrary I am grateful, for we have few opportunities to discuss culture and our cultural assets and related matters here in this House. Because this is so, the impression may even arise that these matters are not of deep concern to us, that we are indifferent to or even entirely ignorant of them. Fortunately the discussion which followed on this Bill proved the contrary to be true, viz. that there is great interest in our cultural assets and related matters.

†It was noticeable that English and Afrikaans-speaking members on both sides of the House spoke during this debate. This indicates that progress is being made in this country, if one can speak on these matters as was done during this debate and that what we want to conserve and retain for posterity belongs to all of us. It has no sectional interest, but belongs to South Africa, to all of us. I think we can motivate the broad public to play their part as well if we speak about these matters in the manner in which we did in this House on this Bill.

What about the White Zulu?

The hon. member must not look at me when he says that He must look at the hon. member for South Coast!

*Sir, I am grateful for the support which this measure received from both sides of the House. I shall refer to specific matters at a later stage in my speech.

It is incumbent on me to thank all hon. members who congratulated me on my appointment as Minister of National Education for their good wishes. I am just afraid that if I keep on changing portfolios, as has been my lot up to now, I am going to “run out of departments”, as one might say. Eventually there will be no more departments left for me. I trust that the wish of the hon. member for Durban Central will come true, i.e. that as long as this Government is in power I shall continue to manage this portfolio, despite the fact that someone said: “Do you want the Minister to become as old as the Ayatollah?” [Interjections.] That would seem to be my destiny. But I hope, at least, that I will not remain sitting here so long that hon. members will eventually be afraid that I do not want to leave.

We know the hon. member for Johannesburg North to be a person who takes a great interest in the arts and conservation matters. We know that the matters which he touched on in his speech are matters which he can discuss with great expertise. He expressed his concern at the shortage of funds. This is a problem, for we will never be able to hide behind the excuse that we had insufficient money once a very valuable historical monument has been destroyed. I am not offering this as an excuse, but one should not only look at the amount of money reflected in the annual report of the National Monuments Council, for quite a lot more money is being spent in respect of conservation in a wider sense as well. The council itself receives a budget. The Simon Van der Stel Foundation, the Table Mountain Preservation Board, the War Graves Board, museums, archives and so on all receive grants from the Department of National Education. If these amounts are added together it gives a total amount of R6½ million. Although this does not exempt us from the work that has to be done in respect of national monuments, I mention this in general so that a more balanced picture can be obtained. In addition, it is not the function of the State only to undertake the task of conservation. It is the joint responsibility of the State and the citizen of the State. The danger exists that if the State alone concerns itself with this work, a conservation-conscious citizenry will never be built up. Then the State can struggle until it is exhausted, yet the citizenry, if it does not also have a feeling for conservation, will have no love and respect for what is ultimately being preserved for it and posterity. We must admit, and we are grateful for this, that conservation consciousness has increased considerably in recent years among individuals, organizations as well as the authorities.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also referred to areas adjoining or surrounding monuments and what was being done with these areas. So far we have been fortunate that the owners of such areas have not given us many problems. Of course we do not know what problems could be experienced in future, but at present there is still a remarkable degree of co-operation. In this respect the council will be given the right, in terms of the provisions of the Bill before the House, to negotiate with owners and in that way it will make even further progress to ensure that the view from and of monuments is not obstructed.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also referred to money for private conservation organizations. We are pleased that provision is being made for this in the legislation. It is hoped that there will not be many restrictions owing to a lack of funds.

The hon. member for Hercules, who apologized for not being able to be present, spoke of conservation with dedication and love. He put it very neatly when he said: “We must assure our past of a future.” He went on to say that through conservation history could be visibly presented, and become tangible to posterity. Our lives are lived at a merciless tempo in this modern age. Relations between people, interpersonal relations, and relations between people and objects are becoming increasingly ephemeral. People pass one another by in haste. A larger quantity of objects stream through one’s life. The danger arises that one may eventually come to have scant respect for such objects, scant respect even for our cultural assets and objects of historical value. We can easily begin to develop a kind of “discard-it” mentality. I have even been prevailed upon to shave with a discardable razor. If someone were to have told me about this a few years ago, I would have said that it was not possible. We find it easy to discard things. In this way, too, a “discard-it” mentality could develop among our people in respect of these other things which have higher value, and this should be guarded against. I have great appreciation for what the hon. member for Hercules said in this connection. He asked whether an inventory could not be drawn up of all buildings and objects that are worth preserving. There is nothing to stop the National Monuments Council from keeping such an inventory, but to give statutory expression to such a survey actually means that we have provisionally declared those buildings or objects to be national monuments. The council already has that power in terms of the existing Act, and consequently I do not think it is necessary for it to be done in this way.

I also want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central. He also tendered an apology for his absence. He expressed his disapproval of the contempt which certain people and even certain organizations have for historical and national monuments.

†He also expressed his dissatisfaction with the provisions laid down in respect of the declaration of wrecks. As far as the hon. member is concerned, the proposed legislation is inadequate and does not go far enough. I shall return to this matter, because it was also dealt with at length by the hon. member for Simonstown. Later I shall avail myself of the opportunity to discuss that matter again.

*The hon. member for Durban Central also referred to the Durban railway station. At present Durban’s railway station is still receiving attention. As hon. members know, decisions of the council depend on historical, scientific or architectural facts, and so on. All these facts must be ascertained before a building, for example, can be declared to be a national monument. Last year a start was made with such an architectural study of Durban’s station. The council also intended to discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister of Transport, but unfortunately there were circumstances which made this impossible. However, the council still intends to hold that discussion with the hon. the Minister of Transport. While the matter is being dealt with in this way, I think that we may rest assured on the question of Durban station—I almost said Germiston station, because that is of course the most important station in the country.

Where is it?

The hon. member for Virginia also expressed his concern at the fact that so many people are indifferent to culture and that the feeling for and appreciation of culture among people can easily be stifled and ousted by material values. We may share this concern with him. Albert Schweitzer, who in addition to all his other accomplishments was also an accomplished cultural philosopher, said, inter alia, that one of the things which was undermining Western culture and would still lead to its downfall, was in fact the lack of equilibrium between material and spiritual values, values which we should treat in the correct way. Any overemphasis of the material values and our logistic preparedness will eventually cause us to suffer from cultural anaemia and cause our inner strength to drain away so that eventually we will not be as strong as we think we are. I think it was Spengler, the German philosopher, who said that the city—I am not going to agree with this entirely—is the graveyard of culture and that it is poor in culture, but rich in civilization. Even if we do not agree with this, it may at least serve as a warning to us as urban-dwellers that we should not only be civilized, but culturally aware as well.

The hon. member pointed out that we should preserve and handle with great care these creations and cultural products, for these are also the things which have an enriching influence on future generations. That is our task. If we here at the southernmost point of Africa also wish to have an enriching influence on future generations, we must not neglect these things unnecessarily and we must carry out our conservation task. We must also inculcate this fact in the youth, because we cannot treat our own property as if it is discardable and then expect the youth to regard it as valuable personal property. We would then be making a terrible mistake, for then we would already have failed to adopt that course of conservation. I am grateful to him for having placed particular emphasis on the objects of the council. The hon. member for Algoa and other hon. members also referred to the objects of coordination and so on which are clearly outlined by this Bill.

†I now want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown. I know him as a person who shows a great interest in the living things in the sea—he has demonstrated that already—but now we have come to know him as a person who also shows a great interest in the historic objects and relics which rest on the seabed. He directed most of his remarks to the provisions concerning the declaration of wrecks. He expressed his concern especially about unprotected wrecks and the articles salvaged from these vessels, particularly by the pirates and looters. He spoke with considerable knowledge about the Birkenhead and other vessels. Reference has been made to his very interesting speech.

He furthermore dealt with the matter of marine archaeology and gave us information about young men who are doing pioneering work in this regard. He was of the opinion that this Bill is a step in the right direction, but that it is only a temporary measure. He asked me whether we could perhaps have a discussion on this matter before the Committee Stage. This morning I was in a fortunate position to grant an interview to this hon. member and representatives of Acma, the body to which he has referred. These gentlemen are genuinely interested in this proposed legislation and all matters relating to wrecks. During this discussion I indicated to this delegation that this Bill deals with national monuments, that the whole field the hon. member and his friends want to be covered, cannot be accommodated in this Bill as it stands at the moment and that we shall have to introduce some other provision to cover that aspect. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member that all these matters should receive our urgent attention and that we should assist all interested individuals and other bodies who are perturbed about the merit of the retention of these articles salvaged from vessels.

I then said that I think that our solution lies in section 4 of the existing Act in which provision is made for committees to be constituted. I think a way out of this predicament is to apply that section in the existing Act in order to constitute a committee consisting of representatives of all the departments who now have a say over the seashore and parts of the seabed, and bodies such as the National Monuments Council, museums, and Acma and perhaps even others, to consider this proposed legislation and to discuss all these matters which concern the hon. member and his friends. As a result of such discussion and investigation they should draw up a completely new Bill, which can be considered by my department or even another department if it is found that the new Bill should be administered by another department. I think that this can at least be a starting point. My suggestion was accepted by the hon. member and the delegation to whom I spoke this morning. In the Committee Stage we can perhaps refer to a few more of these matters. However, the hon. member has indicated that he will not move any amendments in the Committee Stage. I may also inform the hon. member that subsequently, after we spoke this morning, I had a word with the director of the council who told me that he was in complete agreement with my views, and that it may be a solution to our problem. This whole area which has been referred to, may then be covered.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether I understand it correctly that he will motivate a setting up of that body of people who will draw up a new Bill?

That is the idea.

The hon. member for Von Brandis praised and commended the members of the council, their staff and the director for the work they are doing. He referred to the debate that took place in 1934, when only a few short speeches were made. The fact that we are now speaking at length on this matter, I do not think is in itself an improvement, but I think what he actually wanted to indicate, is that we are much more conscious about these matters, something which is to our benefit.

*The hon. member also mentioned the badges of the council, of which he had an example in his possession, and pointed to the backlog in connection with the affixing of these badges and said that additional money was required for this purpose. I did not know that the position was as he spelt it out for us here, but I shall give some attention to this matter, because if we do not affix the badge of the council, we have not made much progress towards indicating to people what is an historical monument.

The hon. member also mentioned another important matter in passing, viz. that the aims of the council, as laid down, refer not only to the preservation of old buildings but also to an entire cultural campaign, and we must try to bring this home very clearly. The hon. member went on to refer to the possibility of an inspectorate, and we shall have to look into this matter. Experts in particular will be able to go and ascertain where the buildings and other objects should be preserved in their original form. The hon. member also asked: “Whether a person as indicated in the Bill also includes a group of people or an authority like a local authority.”

I am assured that that is so. It refers to a body of people as well. I shall have to go into the problem which the hon. member mentioned in connection with the purchase by local authorities of land, etc., a little more closely. In some areas I am still new to this work. He will therefore understand my position, but I shall subsequently furnish him with a reply to this aspect as well.

The putting-up of signs showing the way to places of historical importance is not the task of the council. They must consult with local authorities. In fact, it is the local authority which has more say in this area and which can be of assistance in this connection. In this connection I think we could perhaps do a little more public relations work so that we can receive greater assistance on the part of other bodies.

†I discovered that the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Simonstown know many stories about ships and the sea. Those of us who come from the interior know stories only about droughts, and those stories are not as pleasant as the stories they can tell about the sea and ships.

Would you rather die from thirst or drowning?

The hon. member for Maitland spoke about the Constantia valley, the abuse of land there and the conservation of the whole area, not only of buildings. He also referred to the proposed hypermarket I think this is a difficult question to discuss here. However, I do think we must contact the relevant local authorities, because they have a specific and very important function to perform as far as this matter is concerned.

*The hon. member referred further to the whole problem of battlefields. He referred to those which have already been proclaimed, such as Rorke’s Drift and Isandlwana, and he referred to people walking around there with instruments who then pick up objects of historical interest there and do not really afford the council or other interested parties an opportunity of functioning in such an area. I should like to listen to the hon. member in a little more detail during the Committee Stage, and if it is not possible to effect an amendment in this House—if an amendment is acceptable and we can clear it with the legal experts— then we can effect the amendment ourselves in the Other Place.

The hon. member went on to praise the provincial authorities for the work they are doing, and I also want to express my thanks to them for their willingness to play a part here as well and their desire to do more, as we are now making provision for in this amendment Bill.

†The hon. member then said that this legislation was a vote of confidence in the National Monuments Council, that they had spearheaded the attack on public opinion and that they had roused public interest in this matter. I want to thank the hon. member for that. It is necessary that we continue talking about these matters, because it is also our task to keep on influencing people and to arouse their interest.

*The hon. member referred to committees which must serve as aesthetic watch-dogs so that the position cannot develop that a conflict must first arise which subsequently has to be rectified. One could perhaps try to eliminate in advance the conflicts which may subsequently arise.

I am now going to be rather brief because I should like to finish before the adjournment of this House. I do not consider all the other matters which hon. members raised to be matters of lesser importance. We made a note of them. In any case, many of these matters are receiving special attention on an administrative level.

The hon. member for Algoa is also one of those persons who has himself made a special contribution to conservation work, as the work which he did in regard to the Founders’ Institute testifies. We are grateful that there are persons who are able to speak with so much authority, as did all the other members, including the hon. member for Von Brandis, who said that he himself took a great interest in this conservation work which had already been done in his part of the world. I am also grateful to the hon. member for Algoa for having singled out the object and particularly the co-ordinating function of the council, as stated in clause 2, because these are particularly important. It is a pointer to a new course which we can adopt and a way in which we can involve many people.

The hon. member devoted a large part of his speech to financial matters. While the hon. member was speaking, one sometimes felt almost ashamed that there is so little money available for this council. We shall try to rid ourselves of that feeling. I see the hon. member for Johannesburg North is also shaking his head. Next time we shall try to come before hon. members with more pride and boast of having been able to divert more money to the council. I am not making any promises, but it goes without saying that as the functions of the council are expanded and as more buildings and other objects are declared, the scope of the functions will increase and consequently there will also have to be a larger staff. It is obvious that we will gradually have to see to the financial budget, the staff, and so on, of the council. Only we should not compare incomparable things with one another, for example museums, etc. That might create the wrong impression. Nevertheless these are matters which deserve our attention. We must put in a good word wherever we can to private individuals, organized associations, local authorities and provincial administrations. As far as provincial administrations are concerned, I should like to say that we are very grateful for the work that they are doing in this connection.

Having said that, I want to conclude by thanking hon. members once again for their support. It was a pleasant debate. These are important matters we have discussed and we trust that through our discussion and encouragement in this way we have really served this cause in an exceptional manner.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.