I move—

It is necessary to ask the House to appropriate further funds for the administration of the country over and above the amounts made available by means of the Appropriation Act of 1960. Details are available in the Additional Estimates tabled last week. We have succeeded in keeping the additional amount required, viz. R16,853,196 down to more or less the amount which was included in the Additional Estimates for the previous financial year. Expressed as a percentage, the amount represents 1.8 per cent of the sum originally appropriated, which is considered most reasonable when cognizance is taken of the circumstances necessitating additional provision.

Most of the provision is being requested on the Revenue Account (R14,368,833). On Loan Account an amount of R2,476,763 is required, while an amount of R7,600 is included under the Bantu Education Account Estimates in order to obtain parliamentary approval for certain ex gratia payments which I am precluded from authorizing in spite of the fact that savings are available from which such payments could be made. My colleagues will give full particulars of the provision requested in the Votes falling under their portfolios, but I would like to touch on some of the larger or more important items.

Vote 45—Defence: For defence it is necessary to seek approval for a further amount of R5,555,400. A young, developing country cannot devote the same percentage of its budgetary expenditure to the building up of a modem army, air force and navy as can be expected of a world power, and for some years past our Defence Force has been unable, with the funds at its disposal, to keep pace with modern developments in the form of weapons and equipment. In view, however, of the uncertain conditions prevailing in the political world in which we are living, it has become imperative that our Defence Force be equipped with more up-to-date weapons to enable it to fulfil its primary task—the defence of the country. The greater portion of the R5,500,000 now requested is required to purchase the necessary modem equipment for this purpose.

Vote 31—Social Welfare and Pensions: Contributions to Pension and Provident Funds have been under-estimated, as it has been most difficult in recent years to determine the growth in expediture resulting from the consolidation of salary scales of public servants. A further R688,000 is necessary for this purpose. Child welfare reflects an increase of R464,000 as a result of the increase in the number of approved cases for benefits under the Children’s Act of 1960.

Votes 40 and 41—Health (Union): The health services are responsible for an amount of R1,600,000. Due to the intensification of the campaign against tuberculosis and other diseases, supplementation is necessary and in the public interest. The creation and filling of additional posts at state hospitals and institutions is also a contributory factor.

Votes 22 and 23—Prisons and Police: The disturbances in the various parts of the country during the current financial year were not anticipated when the original Estimates were compiled, and it is therefore necessary to supplement the provision under these two Votes to meet the resulting extra costs.

Vote 25—Interior: The main reason for further provision under this Vote is the fact that no provision was made in the original Estimates for the expenses in connection with the referendum held in October 1960.

Loan Vote Q—Bantu Education: Accelerated building programmes, and the fact that insufficient provision was made for the payment of compensation for hostel buildings taken over from certain churches at Fort Hare are mainly responsible for the increased provision on this Vote.

Loan Vote M—Education, Arts and Science: It was originally the intention to finance the erection of certain technical college buildings by means of private loans. In view of the fact that these colleges will in the near future be taken over and the bonds redeemed by the state, it has been decided as a matter of policy to make state loans available to the colleges for the erection of the buildings. This accounts for the considerable amounts requested for the five new services included in the Estimates, which incidentally have been initiated by means of special warrants in anticipation of parliamentary approval.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to go any further into the various services included in the Additional Estimates. Hon. members can obtain further particulars when the House goes into Committee of Supply. I would, however, like to explain to the House the purpose of the inclusion of nominal amounts of R1 against certain items. Generally speaking, the purpose is not to obtain an appropriation of an amount of R1, but to bring some item of expenditure to the notice of the House and to obtain the necessary covering parliamentary approval, or to obtain approval for a new service, the expenditure on which could have been met from savings on other services by means of the powers vested in me in terms of Section 5 of the Appropriation Act. For example, this procedure is followed in cases where the total approved cost of a service is of such magnitude that parliamentary approval is considered necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he appropriation for the relative financial year does not require supplementation. If this procedure were not followed it would result in unnecessary appropriation and consequent surrender of voted money.

The hon. the Minister has said that the details will be available in the Committee Stage in respect of all these amounts being asked for, and that his colleagues will be present to give particulars of them. I hope that the Minister will not be disappointed in his colleagues. On previous occasions when we had to deal with Votes of this sort we had reason to complain that Ministers were liable to leave it to the hon. the Minister of Finance to give all the answers. However, the Minister says that that will not be the position this year and we look forward to the presence of his colleagues in dealing with the Votes where they are asking for extra appropriations.

The hon. the Minister has very briefly referred to some of the amounts which have been asked for, but in no case has he given the particulars, which we shall ask for in the Committee Stage, and I therefore do not think that there is much point in my dealing with the individual Vote to which he has briefly referred. I think the system of showing amounts of only R1 is a sound one, and I think the intention is good. It clearly is that the House should more readily have information timeously, and I think the presentation of the Estimates this year is an improvement on what we had before, from that point of view. The total amount is not unduly large, but the spread of the appropriation is larger than usual and more Departments than usual are involved in substantial amounts, and there are quite a number of amounts which are not additional to monies which have already been voted by Parliament, but they are items on their own. Some of them of course are small and unimportant and will not ben contentious, but there are one or two which are quite substantial, and there are one or two which seem to indicate a completely new policy which of course we shall have to discuss later. The Minister has pointed out that two of the major increases are for police and for defence. The police are asking for another R650,000. And of course these Estimates look a little more formidable than they used to because we have not all got used to talking about rand instead of pounds yet. Defence is asking for another R5,500,000. The thing that strikes one is that the Police Vote in this country is rapidly becoming as big as the Defence Vote. I wonder whether there is any country in the world except this one where the Police Vote is almost as big as the Defence Vote. I think there is a moral lesson in it which we will have to discuss in the course of the debate.

There is another point which interests one, and that is the number of Departments in which there is a substantial increase in the postal charges. I do not know why. I can imagine that in one Department I can think of, External Affairs, there has been a great deal more activity than formerly. If the Minister would look through the Estimates he would find that in a large number of cases there is a substantial increase in postal charges. Now whether that is due to the increased work of the Department, or whether it is another example of the rapacity of the hon. the Minister who sits behind the Minister of Finance, I do not know, but we shall ask questions on that.

Another thing is the proportion of the increased expenditure which is coverable by savings under other heads. That amounts to some R6,000,000, which is quite considerable and makes one wonder whether the actual budgeting in the Budget proper has been quite as careful and accurate as it might have been. Of course when we come to the Loan Votes we find that there are savings of some R30,000,000, and we are entitled to say that we wonder whether proper control and supervision have been exercised in framing the Estimates for the year. But I do not want to go into detail on these matters now. We shall discuss them in more detail in the Committee Stage.

I would like some information as to these increased costs. I take it this represents the expenses of the Prime Minister’s journey abroad, but I notice in the Press that the hon. the Prime Minister is being the guest of the British Government whilst in London. I am just wondering why there is an estimated amount of R39,000 in respect of salaries and wages and transport and subsistence.

There are two items of importance. The first is in regard to the Economic Advisory Council which has been appointed, and that accounts for R19,200. The appointments have been made and it must now come on the Estimates. The second amount of R19,800 is made up by two representations at the Prime Ministers’ Conference. The first one was last year when the hon. the Prime Minister could not go and the Minister of External Affairs went with the Secretary for External Affairs and a staff of three others. The rest of it is made up by the Prime Ministers’ Conference which is being held now.

In regard to the first item of salaries, wages and allowances, I understand from what the Minister said that that was due to the Economic Advisory Council. Are the members of that Council being paid?

Yes. I can give the details. Dr. Steyn, the Chairman, receives R7,200 a year. Then there is Mr. Lombard, who only gets R120 a year. There is a typist who gets R1,350, and there are certain non-pensionable allowances. A technical officer gets R1,560, and there are two posts of assistant economic advisers, who together get R3,410, which brings the total up to R16,238. There is another small amount which makes up the difference, with regard to the war history. It was estimated that the people busy with the war history would have completed their labours but they have not and they are being kept on, and that makes up the difference up to R19,200.

This is the first time in which there is an increase in supply for posts, telegraphs and telegrams. But taking the Estimates as a whole, as the hon. member for Constantia has pointed out, there are eight Departments in which the overall increase in postal services amounts to R113,000, which seems quite a considerable increase.

But we are only dealing with one Vote now.

I appreciate that, but I want to make the point, because I cannot make it every time I come to a Vote. Although I appreciate that the hon. the Minister who is replying on behalf of the Prime Minister might not have this information, I hope either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will have it. We should like to know why this increase has taken place.

This increase is £220.

I admit it is very small.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question about the war histories. Do I understand that the Government is now completing that task?

The note that I have here says that it was considered that this work would not have been completed. It has now been decided that the four people engaged on the work will be retained until the 31 March 1961 in order to finalize their work. It is considered that they will then have finalized their work, and an additional amount has been put on the Estimates to cover that period.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 5.—“Lands”, R1,

We are pleased over the explanation of the hon. the Minister of Finance that this expenditure was not hidden and that it is being disclosed to us here in the House. We would be pleased if the hon. the Minister of Lands would explain the reason for this ex gratia remission of maintenance allowance and tell us at what particular settlements it was allocated.

All the settlers who go to the Orange River settlement are paid a maintenance allowance during their probationary period when they are still working as learners. They are then paid a subsistence allowance—all of them—and this allowance was repayable. It was added to the selling price of the farm when they eventually bought it and it was repayable. But many years ago in 1945, it was decided to make it not repayable. All those who settled there after 1945 receive the subsistence allowance and do not pay it back. Those who were settled there before 1945 have to pay it back. We are not remitting it in all those cases. The hon. member will remember that last year and the year before we had debates with regard to the smallholdings along the Orange River, and I then stated that we were now starting a new irrigation scheme known as the Gariep Irrigation Scheme on the northern side where the holdings would be larger. The holdings on the southern side are about six to eight morgen, and those on the northern side will be 12 morgen. We are now placing people from the southern side on to the larger farms on the northern side, and those people will have to incur considerable additional expenditure. They have farms which are really too small but they are developed, and they now have to start developing the farms on the northern side de novo. To help them it has been decided to ask Treasury to remit this payment which they have to make only because they occupied that ground before 1945. There are 20 farmers and the total amount, if Treasury does decide to remit it, will be £2,388—not rand.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 9.—“Public Works ”, R50,000,

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, under Item G, the grants in aid to approved societies for the care of war graves refers to all war graves in South Africa?

No, this refers to graves under the South African War Graves Board.

Is this amount to be controlled by the South African War Graves Board?

Yes.

Is the Minister satisfied that that Board is doing a good job of work?

That is completely out of order, but I might put my reply this way which would bring it into order. They first received R30,000 a year, and they requested me to increase this amount. I decided to increase the amount this year by R15,000 and to increase it to a total of R50,000 as from next financial year, because I was satisfied that the work they were doing was very good indeed, but they were not getting sufficient funds to do it as quickly as we all hoped they would be able to do it.

This item mentions “societies ”, but does it not go straight to the South African War Graves Board?

Yes.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what Item M, “Ex gratia payment to Messrs. Continental Engineering Co. (Pty.) Ltd.” refers to and why it should be accounted for by the Postmaster-General under his Vote, because note (a) says “to be accounted for by the Postmaster-General ”.

The reason for that is that the work is work on repeater stations for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The work was contracted for and carried out by the Department of Public Works.

And the nature of the ex gratia payment?

The position is this according to the statement I have here: In 1957 a contract for the manufacture of prefabricated semi-automatic farm line exchange buildings was awarded by the Postmaster-General to the lowest tender which was Continental Engineering Works, at a total price of R10,528. Due to an incorrect interpretation of the specifications the firm originally manufactured these buildings with single instead of double walls and consequently suffered a substantial financial loss on the contract. The firm accordingly applied for financial relief to the extent of R3,684, which it was stated will not even cover half the additional cost. After exhaustive inquiries Treasury approved of an ex gratia payment of R3,684 to be made to the firm. Notwithstanding this payment the total cost of R14,212, will still be lower than that of the next tender which was £15,840.

I want to refer back to Item G. Is the Minister satisfied that this additional amount which is being awarded will be sufficient for the job?

No.

I know from personal experience what work is being done, but I would like to know whether this is considered to be sufficient.

Not sufficient to complete the job, but to keep them going. They are now getting R15,000 more than they were getting previously. I may say that I have gone into the work that they are doing; they are doing it very thoroughly indeed. They are doing it extremely cheaply and very efficiently, but they are taking it place for place, and I think this will give them more enthusiasm for the work they are doing—not that I wish to suggest for a moment that they are not enthusiastic because they are, but this will make it much easier for them to complete the work.

Under Item N there are three items, one of R10,000 and one of R14,000 and one of R1,000, items which have been included, according to the statement, mainly for the extension of an ordnance workshop, a defence ordnance workshop and the purchase of a building from Messrs. Stewart and Lloyds to house a shell machine plant; then the R14,000 is quired for improvements to electricity supply at Lyttleton, R1,000. I should like to know what is actually covered by these items and what is the effect of this additional expenditure? Will there be improvement in the actual output?

In regard to the extension of the Lyttleton ordnance workshop, this building service which is to be executed at the request of the Secretary for Defence, is estimated at a cost of R280,000—that is an approximate estimate— and a Governor-General’s special warrant was obtained for the issue of R10,000 to meet the expenditure in connection with the service during the current financial year. With regard to the Lyttleton defence ordnance workshop, “purchase of building from Messrs. Stewart and Lloyds ”, including improvements for R14,000, the position is that in 1954-5 Messrs. Stewart and Lloyds erected a shell machining shop at Vereeniging at State cost on behalf of the Department of Defence on a site owned by the company. In terms of Clause 3 of an agreement with the Department of Defence, the company gave it notice of the termination of the agreement with effect from 1 June 1960. The result was that the building would have had to be removed from the site. The company, however, made an offer of R11,000 for the purchase of the building or alternatively suggested that with a view to saving time and preventing the disruption of the organization, the building on their property be left in situ in exchange for a new building to be erected by them at their own expense on a defence site at Lyttleton at a cost of R13,200. This Department informed the Department of Defence that the offer of R11,000 for a structure erected in 1954-5 at a cost of R26,000 and at present valued at R21,000 cannot be regarded as reasonable. The cost of dismantling and reerecting the structure with concrete floors at Lyttleton was estimated at R16,000 and with out the concrete floor at R14,000. This Department, however, considered the alternative offer by the company to erect a new building at Lyttleton at an estimated cost of R13,200 in exchange for the existing structure at Vereeniging to be advantageous to the Government and recommended its acceptance.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 10.—“External Affairs ”, R100,000.

Again one could point out to the hon. the Minister that here we have a very substantial increase of something like R24,000 in postal, telegraph and telephone services. Then with regard to the last item, “Famine relief ia the South Kasai province of the Congo ”, the Government offered and gave relief to the South Kasai province amounting to R12,000. I think the Committee will be interested to know what that relief was, what form the relief took; to whom it was handed over, and thirdly, how it got there and, fourthly, whether we have had any report at all as to what use is made of it and who benefited by it.

I have not got the particulars here, but I remember the case. This is relief which we were asked to give. The payments were made to the United Nations. The food was to be distributed by them. We did not pay anything direct.

Far be it for me to embarrass the Minister but I seem to remember the Minister of External Affairs announcing that actual quantities of goods had been sent.

I have the information here now. In response to an appeal made by the Secretary General of the United Nations to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations for famine relief in the form of seed and food for distressed refugees in South Kasai province of the Congo the Cabinet approved of an amount of up to R20,000 to be spent for this purpose. A consignment of powdered milk was thereupon offered to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations which was accepted by that organization. The consignment of powdered milk—39 short tons—has now been shipped to Matadi. The total cost of the shipment including rail and ocean freight will not exceed R12,000.

I notice that the increase under Item (B) “Subsistence and Transport” R67,000 is over 25 per cent of the original estimates. Could we have some idea what the reason for this large increase is?

This item is made up as follows: Transfer Costs. It is not possible to estimate the expenditure on this service with any degree of accuracy due to the various factors, such as unforeseeable commitments at the time of drawing up the estimates, approximately six months before the commencement of the financial year to which they relate. But it has nevertheless become the practice to base the annual estimates in this respect more or less on the average expenditure of previous years. Previous estimates made on this basis proved to be fair1y accurate. Factors which could not possibly be foreseen at the time had necessitated a chain of additional transfers and promotions involving considerable extra expenditure. The withdrawal of the Union’s representative from the Congo, the Government’s decision to elevate the status of a number of the Union’s missions abroad and the necessity to strengthen the establishment of certain missions, all in the current financial year, are examples of such factors. In the circumstances it is necessary to provide for an additional amount of R50,000. Then there is a matter of R10,000, which is for the purchase of official motor cars for our Minister at Rio de Janeiro, our ambassador at Cologne and our agent at Hamburg. Then there is additional provision in respect of the Union’s delegation to the 16th session of the C.C.T.A. at Lagos, R2,800. That covers practically the whole amount.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 11.—“South African Information Service”, R139,400,

There is a very large increase in this Vote and I think the acting responsible Minister should give us some explanation. The item “Postal, Telegraph and Telephone Services ”, has increased by R27,600. We then have “Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications ”, where there is an increase of R73,500. Then there is an increase of R7,600 for publicity, and R12,400 for miscellaneous expenses. Altogether there is an increase of R139,400 under this Vote, and I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether this includes amounts that were spent on advertising in a London paper, because reading the London Press it would seem that our Government has now gone over to advertising in London papers. I would like to know to what extent they have spent money on that.

I am not the responsible Minister. The responsible Minister is unfortunately in Another Place, but I am doing my best.

You are doing very well.

All I can say is “please do not shoot the pianist ”. Firstly, with regard to the increase under “Postal, Telegraph and Telephone Services ”, certain happenings here, including Sharpeville and Langa, necessitated a great increase in cables to be sent overseas. The Hel scriber apparatus, which is an apparatus for sending messages to our various embassies and ministries overseas at a much faster rate than they would otherwise arrive there, accounts for R14,000 of the R27,600. With regard to Item (D), “Publications” the increase here is accounted for by increased expenditure with regard to South African Panorama and also a large increase in the distribution of Panorama. The demand is continually increasing and that accounts for R73,500. [Interjections.] Quite a lot of people buy it but even where they do buy it it is still sold at a loss. It is a prestige publication. With regard to the increase of R7,600 under Item (F), R12,000 of the revised Estimates is required for an advertisement campaign in Great Britain and R3,600 for a news service to the South African Press Union. That would account for R15,600 but there have been savings of R7,600 on other posts.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us the amount paid to the London Sunday Times and other papers for advertising South Africa in papers that refuse to report our news?

I am afraid I have not got that information.

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister has disclosed that part of the large increase is due to the increased cost of Panorama. I think quite frankly the time has come when the Government in the interests of the taxpayer, should consider ceasing the publication of Panorama.

Order! The principle is not under discussion now.

I feel that the time has come to cut down increased expenditure as far as Panorama is concerned. The principle of discontinuing its publication is something that we can discuss later on, so I shall not deal with it now.

With regard to the question of advertising in the British Press, raised by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), I understand that that is an entirely new item which is covered by this amount. The hon. the Minister has told us that part of this increase includes the amounts spent on advertising in the British Press. I understand that this advertising is something new, and if that is so, I want to say that that is a complete waste of money. In fact, it has done our country more harm than good. The advertising was extremely badly drawn up. I think that the whole venture was wrong.

This is not a new item.

Well, I understand that we have never advertised in the British Press before, and the hon. the Minister has told us that part of this sum of money covers the cost of this special advertising. If that is not so then I shall not pursue the matter.

You can raise it under the main Estimates.

On a point of order, this is a new service. There is no precedent, as far as we know, of buying space in overseas newspapers. This is a new service, and surely one should be entitled to discuss the value of that service when PaR1iament is asked to vote the money for that service for the first time.

My information is that it is not a new service.

This is only part of publicity.

Would I be in order in moving a reduction of this amount equivalent to the cost of advertising in those newspapers overseas?

Yes.

I then move a reduction of R2,000 in this sum for advertising, as a token item so that I can discuss the matter. Would that be in order?

That would not widen the scope of the discussion. The motion is in order but it would not widen the field of discussion. This item can be discussed under the main Estimates.

Very well, Sir, I bow to your ruling. Then I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the cost of the news summaries that are distributed to embassies abroad, I believe, and also to Members of PaR1iament and others, is included in these Estimates, because if it is I also wish to lodge strong objections to those news summaries. Would that be in order?

No, you can only discuss the reasons for the increase.

The hon. member can ask for the reasons for the increase, but he cannot suggest reasons to the Minister or to the Chair.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 15.—“South Africa House, London (Administrative Services) ”, R7,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 16.—“South African Mint”, R237,240,

I notice that the increase under Item (F), “Stores, Materials and Purchase of Plant and Equipment ”, is of the order of 60 per cent over the original estimate. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister can tell us the reasons for this substantial increase. Is it part of the cost of decimalization?

The hon. member is now suggesting reasons; he can only ask for reasons.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but it seems to be a very good reason to suggest.

The real reason for the increase is this. Firstly, an additional amount is required in respect of the advance payment to be made for plant, equipment, tools and production manuals for the manufacture of two new calibres of ammunition, namely 7.62 mm. and 9 mm. parabellum required by the Department of Defence. That accounts for R80,000. Then the purchase of three grinding machines with equipment and one cartridge-loading machine accounts for another R38,000. Additional materials and consumable stores are required, firstly, for the production of an additional 2,000,000 rounds of .303 ammunition this financial year, in order to build up extra stocks so as to enable the ammunition branch to concentrate on the manufacture of 7.62 mm. and 9 mm. parabellum cartridges for the Department of Defence during the 1961-2 financial year and, further, additional non-ferrous metals are required for ammunition production as the percentage of non-ferrous metal scrap arisings is higher than originally estimated. Those two items account for R46,000. Then there are additional materials required for the production of approximately 3,000,000 commemorative medals for the republic celebrations. That accounts for R28,000. Those are to be issued to children on 31 May. Then additional consumable stores are required to meet the increased coinage programme. More than 30,000,000 cent and half-cent and several million silver decimal pieces will be coined during this financial year. That accounts for R7,000, making a total of R199,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 17.—“Inland Revenue ”, R41,830,

I shall be pleased if the Minister would explain the necessity for the last three items under (G): Transfer Duty— Smartt Irrigation Board, R8,828; Undistributed Profits Tax—L. H. Norton (Pty.) Ltd., R3,606, and Concrete Pipe and Allied Industries Ltd., R4,064. These are all new items and we shall be pleased if the Minister would give us the reasons for the items.

The first is the Smartt Irrigation Board: The Smartt Irrigation Syndicate was originally formed by some 30 persons, who were the joint owners of the dam, canals, roads, commonage and other public places in the Smartt Irrigation District, near Britstown. For the purpose of the proper administration of the property in question, it was decided that the assets should be transferred to a board consisting of six persons, who were also owners of land in the irrigation area. The syndicate thereupon went into voluntary liquidation and, after having sold some 2,000 morgen of irrigable land by public auction to various persons, the residue, being the dam and the commonage and some of the canals, were donated to the Smartt Irrigation Board. The Smartt Irrigation Board was duly registered with the Department of Water Affairs under the provisions of the Water Act of 1956. The board is, however, not an institution or body as contemplated in paragraph (6) of Section 85 of the South Africa Act and would consequently be liable for transfer duty in respect of the property acquired from the Smartt Irrigation Syndicate (in liquidation). The board thereupon applied for exemption from the payment of the transfer duty, but was advised that there is no provision in the Transfer Duty Act of 1949, in terms of which the acquisition of the property by the board could be exempted from the payment of duty—the Commissioner has no power to waive payment of statutory charges. Thereupon duty amounting to £4,413 1s. 7d. was paid. It was felt that this was a case in which—as the irrigation plots had been sold and the dam donated to the Irrigation Board and that really the water facilities there had been included in the purchase price of the irrigation plots—it would be fair and equitable to refund the amount as an act of grace. We could not do it in any other way, and this has been recommended, subject, of course, to prior paR1iamentary approval.

Then the hon. member wanted information in regard to the Norton case: In terms of Section 49 of the Income Tax Act, the tax referred to as the “Undistributed Profits Tax ”, is levied on so much of the company’s distributable income as has not been distributed by way of dividends during a specified period. The “specified period” is defined in sub-paragraph (iii) of Section 50 of the Act, as “a period of 12 months, ending six months after the specified date for that year of assessment ”. The specified date is 30 June, or any other date to which the returns of the company are accepted. The specified date of L. H. Norton (Pty.), Ltd., is 30 June. The specified period is the calendar year. The company’s main asset is a substantial holding in another private company, and it has been the company’s practice to distribute any dividends received by it within a short time of receipt, with the result that, although such dividends are included in the total net profits, the dividends which it in turn distributes out of such income prior to the specified period, are not taken into account for undistributed profits tax purposes. The dividend which is taken into account is that distributed during the next year of assessment. Provided the rate of dividend is maintained, the company is not prejudiced by this, but due to adverse trading conditions no dividend was distributed by the subsidiary company, and L. H. Norton (Pty.), Ltd., was therefore unable to distribute a dividend commensurate with that included in its total net profits, within the specified period. Although the company distributed all its income by way of dividends, it nevertheless became liable for a tax of £1,802 15s. The remission of this amount is an act of grace which has been authorized by the Treasury, subject to parliamentary approval.

The third point is in regard to Concrete Pipe & Allied Industries Ltd. Here the facts are largely the same. It is a question of the actual allocation of the dividends not falling within the period under the Act. The company’s assets consist of the total shareholding of three private companies, and it has always been the company’s practice to distribute any dividends by it within a short time of receipt, with the result that, although such dividends are included in its total net profits, the dividends which it in turn distributes out of such income prior to the specified period, is not taken into account for undistributed profits tax purposes. Again, due to the fact that no interim dividend was distributed by the subsidiary companies, Concrete Pipe & Allied industries Ltd. was unable to distribute a dividend during the specified period commensurate with that included in its total net profits.

I wish to refer the hon. Minister to Item F—“Costs of recovering income tax ”. The estimated expenditure has gone up from R18,000 to R96,000, an increase of something over 500 per cent. Can the Minister please explain why there has been this sudden increase? Have the legal costs gone up, or has the cost of recovery become higher? An increase of more than 500 per cent on one single item seems a very high one.

May I ask the hon. Minister if he can explain the sudden rise in the refunds of transfer duty from an original estimate of R200 to R16,190?

In reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller), I may say that, as a result of an amendment to the Transfer Duty Act in 1959. an amount of £81,963 16s. 3d. was refunded during the financial year 1959-60. for which purpose a sum of £77,600 was voted on the Additional Estimates for 1959-60. As the parties concerned were allowed a period of 12 months from the date of the coming into operation of the amended legislation to submit their applications, a nominal provision of £100 was placed on the Main Estimates for 1960-1, in order to retain the item on the Estimates. From 1 April to 5 July 1960, that is 12 months after the amendment came into operation, further claims amounting to £8,095 11s. 3d. were received, with the result that an additional amount of £7,995 now has to be voted.

As far as the other question is concerned—the cost of recovering income tax—the amount of £9,000 included under this sub-head of the Main Estimates is really a nominal provision, as it is impossible to estimate 18 months in advance what cases are likely to be lost on appeal, and whether the Department will be required to pay interest on disputed income tax payments, or what estate duty will be disputed and submitted to arbitration. As a result of the judgment given in the South African Fire & Accident Insurance appeal case, refunds of interest to this company and various other insurance companies recently amount to £38,985. We could not anticipate that 18 months before the judgment. Together with interest paid in other appeal cases and expenditure on appraisements, disbursements under this sub-head stand at £50,060 5s. 9d., and it is expected that the final expenditure will be £51,000. Although an excess of £42,000 is, therefore, anticipated on this sub-head, savings will be available on sub-head A— “Salaries ”, which savings will be utilized in terms of Section 5 of the Appropriation Act, and will cover a portion of the excess under sub-head F, so that an amount of R9,121 needs to be voted here.

Under sub-head G there are some refunds in regard to temporary liquor licences. Under what circumstances are these refunds made?

These are special licences taken out for a particular day. Something occurs and the licence is not made use of. A race meeting may be contemplated and rain washes out the meeting, and no use is made of it. Let me take one case, that of the Majestic Hotel. An amount of £5 was paid for a temporary liquor licence to enable the hotel to sell liquor at a race meeting which was to be held at the AR1ington Race Course, Port Elizabeth, on 9 April 1960. The race meeting was cancelled on account of heavy rains and the licence was not used. The same applies in the other cases. That is the one case where we show some sympathy and do not take people’s money.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 18,—“Customs and Excise ”, R568,552,

May we have some further information in regard to the item “Payment of Customs Duty on the Effects of White Immigrants from African Territories ”, R300,000.

When the emergency developed in the Congo, the Government took immediate steps to assist the refugees. A committee comprising the heads of interested Government Departments considered the existing rebate provisions and proposed additional provisions in regard to rebates to assist these refugees. Firstly, the head of each household (including independent individuals) is permitted to import in his private capacity, as distinct from his business or industrial capacity, dutiable goods which may be necessary for his livelihood or maintenance of his household in the Union to the value of not exceeding £3,000 without payment of duty, or alternatively, duty on such an amount not exceeding £600 may be remitted, whichever is more beneficial to the settler. Over and above the concession mentioned for settlers in their individual capacity, businessmen and industrialists are permitted to import dutiable stocks, machinery and equipment owned by them to a value not exceding £3,000 without payment of duty. Thereafter, customs duty will be payable on each ensuing value of £2,000, with a maximum of £7,000, and that will be assessed to the extent of 30 per cent and 60 per cent respectively of the amounts payable. In other words, concessions are on the following lines: When the value of goods does not exceed £3,000, no duty; if between £3,001 and £5,000, 30 per cent of the amount payable; between £5,001 and £7,000, 60 per cent of the amount payable; and exceeding £7,000, the settler will have to pay full duty. Between 1 August and 31 December an amount of approximately R175,000 has been remitted, and it is estimated that the total amount to the end of the financial year will amount to R309,000.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether this applies only to people from the Belgian Congo? Has the hon. Minister any idea of the number of people to be expected?

It includes all the African territories. It includes Kenya. I cannot say how many individuals are concerned.

Also under G, I find refunds of excise duty to three tobacco companies. Could the hon. Minister give the reasons why these refunds of R27,450, R35,322 and R7,944 were made?

Item 40 (1) of Schedule No. II of the Excise Act provided for a refund of duty on tobacco destroyed under excise supervision on a manufacturer’s premises, subject to the general provision in Section 75 of the Act, that no person shall be granted a rebate or refund in respect of destruction for which he is able to recover full compensation from some other person. Refunds of duty were for a period, however, erroneously granted to cigarette manufacturers under this provision, the manufacturers not having been entitled to such refunds because tobacco was carried at railway risk. Cigarettes in the course of being carried by the railways were damaged and subsequently destroyed, and, for a period, refunds were paid out erroneously. When the position was realized, the Department lodged claims with the manufacturers for the amount erroneously refunded to them, and all refunds on damaged tobacco were discontinued. It transpired, however, that certain procedures concerning the handling of such damaged tobacco were disturbed by the changed circumstances, and representations were made for the matter to be readjusted. The Railway Administration supported the representations of the manufacturers, but adjustment of the matter depended on amendment of the Excise Act, in regard to which there were certain difficulties. The Railway Administration then decided to amend the Official Railway Tariff Book, to exclude excise duty from the value of the damaged cigarettes with effect from 29 June 1960. As full compensation thereafter could not be recovered from any person, the Department of Customs and Excise was enabled to refund the excise duty to the manufacturers on such damaged cigarettes. The status quo has thus been restored, but the amounts erroneously refunded are legally due to the State. It was decided to ask Par1iament to authorize the ex gratia refund of these amounts and of the amounts which the Department declined to refund before 29 June 1960, when the new procedure came into effect.

May I ask in regard to the amount of £300,000, whether “African Territories” would include the Federation or any part thereof?

All African territories. I think the Federation still forms part of Africa!

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 21—“Justice ”, R492,000,

I should like to direct the Minister’s attention to sub-head E “Miscellaneous Expenses ”, where an additional amount of R24,000 has to be voted. I would particulaR1y like to ask him whether this increased amount covers any expenditure incurred in the Government’s Civil Defence Planning. If not, would the hon. the Minister let the House know where in the Estimates the salary of the Director of Civil Defence is reflected, and also any expenditure incurred?

May I ask for further particulars in regard to sub-head J “Barristers’ Fees and Expenses ”, where an additional amount of R46,000 has to be voted, and under M where for legal expenses an additional amount of R109,000 is being asked. What are the reasons for these big increases in these two cases?

We estimated for £12,000 on account of the treason trial and this is now estimated at £31,000.

Under M “Legal Expenses” there is a very substantial increase of R109,000, part of which admitted includes the cost of the proceedings at the International Court of Justice?

I have read the relevant paragraph here, but quite frankly I do not know what it means.

Then in regard to the “Postal, Telegraph and Telephone Services ”, we here have the Department with the biggest increase of R32,000 under this sub-head. The explanation about external communications which applied to a previous Vote, does not apply here.

The additional amount is intended to cover considerable amounts in the Legal Advances Suspense Account. Additional accounting staff has been appointed in the office of the State Attorney, and it is expected that an appreciable proportion of these amounts will be accounted for before the books are closed.

Then in regard to C, “Postal, Telegraphic and Telephone Services ”, the Estimates were calculated on the present level of expenditure. The increase is ascribed to the fact that the original estimate was too low, because it was based on the figures for the first three months of 1959-60. These figures evidently did not include all the telephone accounts of the Department, a fact which was not known at that time and which could not be ascertained without extensive reconciliations being made. That resulted in the Estimates for 1960-61 already being £5,000 less than the expenditure for that year. A further increase is ascribed to the steadily increasing number of services rendered by the Department. During the present financial year we had the state of emergency, and a population census and a referendum were held, all matters which resulted in appreciable additional work for the officials of the Department of Justice, so that there was also an appreciable increase in the use of telephones and telegraphic services.

In regard to Item A, it is not a large increase that is being asked for, approximately 3 per cent.

208 new posts.

I would like to come back to Item M, Legal Expenses, and the increase of R109,000. Does that include the costs of the Sharpeville and Langa judicial commissions? If so, what were the costs of those commissions?

I am sorry, but I cannot give those figures here.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 22.—“Prisons ”, R744,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for further information regarding the sum of R584,000 under Item F, a very substantial increase in supplies and services. We would like some information on that point.

The original provision was R1,158,00. It was based on the daily average of 50,000 prisoners. Largely as a result of the declaration of the state of emergency and the ever-increasing penal population, the estimate of expenditure will be R1,330,000. Up to the end of December 1960, however, the daily average for the period April 1960 to December 1960 amounted to 54,826, which is based on the above mentioned annual cost of approximately R23.26 per unit, which will bring the estimated expenditure to R1,280,000, in round figures.

Then there was the increase of R106,800 in medical, dental and hospital services. Due to the unpredictable character of these services it is hardly possible to estimate the expenditure to any degree of accuracy. The ever-increasing costs of these services, however, may be ascribed to the following main reasons: the increase in personnel and their dependants and the increase in the large number of prisoners in custody, as well as a marked tendency for medical officers to prescribe modern expensive drugs which, no doubt, are essential in preventing the spread of disease. The large numbers detained under the emergency regulations also contributed to these increased costs. Based on the expenditure up to 31 January 1961, it would appear that these services have been underestimated to the extent of R106,800.

Uniforms and equipment, increase, R56,000. It became necessary to replace obsolete and worn-out rifles and revolvers. The necessity for this action was emphasized by the recent state of emergency. Then there was also the issue of new uniforms for 200 trainees. Clothing and bedding for prisoners, an increase of R178,000. Has the hon. member any objection to that? I do not think he has. Equipment, plant and material, a necessary increase of R80,000. This is again a steep rise in the prison population. They required extra soap and disinfectant for the increased number of prisoners, as I think will be obvious. Those are the details.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 23.—“Police ”, R654,000,

Mr. Chairman, I should like some information in regard to item B, the purchase of motor vehicles for an amount of R202,000. And then the item “other” R167,000. Could the hon. the Minister tell me what kind of vehicles are these that have been purchased for the police? Are they for the use of various police stations or are they for the use of certain senior police officials, or what are they?

Subsistence allowances amount to R84,000 and motor vehicles to R111,000. Transport costs, including storage costs, the packing and transport of furniture and personal possessions in the case of transfers, amount to R8,000. Originally provision was made in column two for the purchase of 430 vehicles to comply with the annual normal requirements of the Department. As the result, however, firstly of the Bantu disturbances towards the end of the last financial year, and the subsequent difficulties in the Transkei and in Sekukuniland, it soon became apparent that this provision would be quite insufficient. New police stations were opened and certain special divisions were established, which together with the mechanization of police stations in the Transkei made it necessary to purchase more vehicles. The greater use made of vehicles resulted in greater depreciation, and the bad conditions of the roads in some areas where the riots resulted in large-scale operations and where work had to be done, contributed to the fact that a large number of vehicles did not last as long as usual, but had to be withdrawn from service long before the usual time. The new sub-division of the Union and South West Africa into 16 police districts also resulted in additional transport being supplied. Under those circumstances it became necessary during September 1960 to apply for a special warrant for R50,000 to supplement the available funds in order to purchase at least another 115 vehicles. That did not prove to be sufficient. Then another R50,000 was asked for to purchase an additional 64 vehicles. I cannot tell the hon. member what type of motor vehicles were purchased.

Could I ask the hon. the Minister some questions on this Vote? I would prefer to be able to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice these questions if he were here to deal with his Vote.

No, I do not nately occupied in the Other Place.

But surely he should be here when his Vote comes up.

They are dealing with the hon. the Minister in the Other Place. It is difficult to divide him into two.

That is rather a habit of absenting themselves very conveniently when these Votes come up. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he can give us some information with regard to item F, equipment, arms and ammunition, an increase of R130,000. Then there is the item E, miscellaneous expenses, under general, the amount of R65,000. It is true that we have had a general explanation from the hon. the Minister of Finance when introducing these Votes, in which he said that the reason for the increase was the disturbances in different parts of the country. But we should like to have some more specific information, particulaR1y when we compare the statement of the hon. the Minister of Finance with the rosy picture of peace given us by his colleague the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Order, order! That has nothing to do with this Vote.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister, in explaining these items, may throw a little more light on the position.

On item F, the chief amount is R29,800 for ammunition and R20,000 for technical requirements. The second matter was chiefly for radios for the police and photographic requirements. The ammunition requirements were also due, largely, to the abnormal conditions and also as a result of the increase in personnel who had to be armed. There were also rifles and automatic weapons which had to be bought for training the police recruits. In all, this amounted to R25,300. Then another R4,500 was spent on buying automatic weapons for the South African Police.

And the R65,000 under miscellaneous?

The main amount here is item 1, the payments made in respect of civil claims against the Department resulting from accidents in which police vehicles were concerned, assaults by police officials on members of the public, etc. Already on 31 December this amounted to R38,000, as compared with the estimated R20,000. Further claims amounting to approximately R20,000 were received, and over the remaining period appreciably more will still be received. The increase resulting mainly from claims in regard to road accidents was not foreseen when the Estimates were drafted. It seems that there was a big increase in the number of accidents.

Under Item D, printing, stationery, advertisements and publications, I wonder if the hon. the Minister will give us some information. The increase seems to be about 25 per cent.

The reason for this is that an order was placed with the Government Printer which could not be carried out in the financial year. The delivery was late so it had to come into this financial year.

I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his reply on Item E. But I think that his reply really proves the point that I made with regard to the necessity of the responsible Minister being here himself to deal with items like this so that we can get some more detailed information from him. It is quite obvious that the hon. the Minister who is giving these replies on his behalf is not in a position to give that information which we require.

In his reply dealing with Item B, the hon. the Minister said that new police stations had been erected in the Transkei.

No, I do not think I said that. I do not think I said where they were.

The hon. the Minister said in the Transkei a couple of times. And I think he also dealt with our roads. The hon. the Minister read out a long reply and mentioned police stations in the Transkei.

No, I said that as a result of the troubles in the Transkei and Sekukuniland motors were used more than they would have been otherwise. I also said more police stations had been erected but I did not say in the Transkei. I do not know where they have been erected.

The hon. the Minister said that because of the troubles in the Transkei and Sekukuniland new police stations had been erected.

No, I did not say that. I said more motor-cars had to be used on account of those troubles. That was one reason for the increased expenses. The second reason was that more police stations were put up and had to be equipped with motor-cars.

May I ask whether Item K refers to the increase in the number of detentions of persons in Pondoland?

Apart from the fact that there was an increase in the cost of the meals supplied to detained persons, police activities in connection with the suppression of riots contributed to a slight degree, and the consequent investigation contributed largely to the increase in the numbers of persons detained and the increase in the cost of their maintenance.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 25.—“Interior ”, R685,400,

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us details of this huge increase in Item D. The figure of R160,600 is more than double the original estimate. Then, under Item L, Union Festival, the original estimate was R78,000 but they have spent R93,400 more. That seems to me a very bad estimate.

I should like a little information from the hon. the Minister on Items M and N. Firstly, M refers to immigration. That is a new item by way of grants to organizations in respect of approved immigrants. I should like some information, if possible, on the basis of financial assistance given and the basis on which the Minister intends to help such organizations. Secondly, I should like some information of Item M, the basis of relief of distress in relation to refugees from the Belgian Congo.

There is a third item. The hon. the Minister of Finance, in introducing these votes, said that the increase in this Vote was very largely due to expenses concerned with the referendum. Would it be possible to get some idea from the hon. the Minister of what portion of this overall increase went towards referendum expenses? The hon. the Minister of Finance referred to this whole Vote of R685,000. He said that that large increase was due to expenses concerned with the referendum. Would it be possible to get an overall picture of what portion of this extra expense was concerned with the referendum?

On Item D, the increase is accounted for as follows: the printing of voters’ lists; the printing of passports and pass books; the unforeseen increase in applications for identity cards, and the rest is in connection with stock forms used in connection with the registration of births, costs of census forms and covering instructions in connection with the Population Census, which was under-estimated; and also as a result of the Department’s increased activities during the year, certain items of stationery had to be obtained in excess of the original requisition. That accounts for R160,600.

On Item L, the Union Festival, the increase of R93,400 represents an estimated amount required by the Union Festival Committee to wind up the final expenses in connection with the festivals held at various places in the Union. Although the contribution by the Government to the Union Festival was made available on this Department’s Vote, the Department was not called upon to control the finances of the Festival Committee. It is understood that a statement of accounts explaining the financial position was rendered by the Festival Committee to the Treasury direct.

I have now received details as to the cost of the referendum. Salaries, etc., R56,000. Monies paid to election officials R60,000; transport R32,000; telephone and telegraph services R900; printing and stationery requirements R72,000; hire of polling booths R9,000; making a total of R229,900.

On Item M, Immigration, the reply is as follows: As a result of representations made to the Minister of the Interior by two immigration organizations, namely, Transa and the South African Immigration Organization, the Cabinet decided to assist these two organizations financially in their efforts to bring immigrants to the Union. The subsidy is payable on the basis of R30 per immigrant above the age of 12 years, and R15 in respect of children of 12 years and younger. The scheme came into operation on 1 November 1960. Only as far as these two organizations are concerned subsidies were paid out.

Item N relates to relief of distress of refugees from the Belgian Congo. I am told that about 2,500 people entered the Union from the Congo, and 750 have applied for permanent residence here. That R80,000 is accounted for as follows: A Governor-General’s special warrant was obtained for the service. During the emergency in the Congo large numbers of refugees escaped into the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and other African territories and applied to Union representatives in those territories to proceed to the Union. The Right Honourable the Prime Minister, in a public statement concerning assistance to such refugees, mentioned that the Government would assist those refugees financially who wanted to proceed to the Union but were not in possession of sufficient means to do so. In this connection he gave the assurance that the Government would make adequate funds available for the assistance of these persons. Many refugees fled from the Congo at very short notice and were forced to leave all their possessions behind them, and arrived in the Federation and other territories in a state of virtual destitution. In order to implement the Government’s decision to, assist refugees, Union representatives were authorized to pay, in full or in part, the transportation costs of those who required financial aid to reach the Union. Further expenditure was incurred on the cost of transportation to ports of embarkation of those who wished to return to Belgium, and for those who wished to remain in the Union, costs of accommodation until they could be placed in employment; cost of their transfer to centres where employment had been obtained for them through the agency of the Department of Labour, cost of food and, in certain instances cost of blankets and clothing supplied.

I may mention that an appeal to the public for donations met with a generous response and many charitable organizations also assisted voluntarily in the handling of the refugees. The sum of approximately R11,600 was received in the form of donations from the public.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in regard to Item M, why Transa and the South African Immigration Organization were selected for assistance. Other organizations such as the 1820 Settlers are bringing immigrants into the country all the time. Why was preference given to these two organizations?

These other organizations did not apply for Government assistance. Those two organizations had approached the State for assistance, and they are responsible organizations. If these other organizations, if they are responsible organizations, approach the Government, the Government will be prepared to consider their case and will assist any responsible organizations.

The hon. the Minister in reply to my query on Item L, the excess of R93,400 on an estimated expenditure of R78,000, said that this amount was incurred by the Festival Committee and that there was no control over it by the Government. In other words, what the hon. the Minister implied that there was no control. I should like to know whether that is so.

Mr. Chairman, there was control by the Treasury itself. The preparations for the Union Festival were made at the time when I was still Minister or the Interior. It was felt desirable that I should continue, so that actually there was very full control by the Treasury over the expenditure. It may perhaps be of interest if I were to give the overall picture, of which this is only a partial picture. We are now asking for a further appropriation of R93,400. That brings the total appropriation by the Government for the Union Festival to R391,400, because R220,000 had been appropriated in previous years. This amount was utilized by the Director, with my approval, to aid the Festival committees in Johannesburg and Bloemfontein in the carrying out of their official duties. Apart from these funds which were appropriated by Par1iament, the Director also had an amount of R218,000 from Provincial and Municipal sources, and out of this total amount of R671,400, an amount of R268,000 was placed at the disposal of the Johannesburg Festival Committee. R60,000 of this amount was used for the greater Rand Show last year as the display window for South African industries. The rest was used by the Johannesburg Festival Committee for the carnival and the building of that little carnival town, Unika.

The amount that was provided for the Bantu, and which was not spent for that purpose has, I believe, with the concurrence of the Treasury, now been ear-marked for purposes which will be in the interests of the Bantu. The Johannesburg Committee have also used a certain amount for Coloured people there, by providing a stadium for Coloured people in lieu of what would have been spent on the carnival.

While we gave a specific amount to the Johannesburg Committee as a result of an agreement between the Johannesburg Committee and the Treasury, in the case of the Bloemfontein Committee the case was different. There we undertook to provide all the funds necessary, under close Treasury supervision. After receipts, by way of admission money, the Committee at Bloemfontein received—the amount which the Government had to pay to the Bloemfontein Committee—is R370,000. In other words, R268,000 to the Johannesburg Festival Committee and now R370,000 to the Bloemfontein Festival Committee, to recoup the expenses which they had after deducting any income received from the festivities. In other words, the total amount as far as the Government is concerned now amounts to about R391,400. That is under £200,000, which was more or less the amount which we anticipated and which is less than the amount the Government had to appropriate in regard to the Van Riebeeck Festival in 1952. I may add that apart from the amounts received from the Government and Provincial and. Municipal sources, there were also a number of very generous donations of monies and of services by individuals and by municipalities. I need not give the details of those but I can say that the original municipal and provincial contributions to this central fund was, from Cape Province, R50,000, from the Transvaal, R50,000 and from the Free State R60,000—by reason of the fact that the festivity was held at Bloemfontein. From Natal, R20,000, from South West Africa, R10,000, Johannesburg Municipality, R60,000 and Bloemfontein Municipality, R30,000. That brings the amount at our disposal to about R671,400, apart from the individual donations. That includes the amount received from municipalities, as well as from Provincial Administrations.

I want to ask one or two questions in regard to Item “M ”, but before doing so may I ask the Minister of Finance whether these accounts for the Union Festival will be audited by the Auditor-General?

Yes, they will be. There is special provision for it.

I want to turn to Item “M ”, which is a new item on the Estimates. As far as I understood the Minister of the Interior, he said that these items are grants made by the Government in the form of State aid or subsidy to two bodies, the S.A. Immigration Trust and Transa. If I recall correctly, this Immigration Trust was a voluntary organization formed by a private individual with the aid of certain businessmen, which was then turned into a trust by raising money from private persons to bring immigrants into the country. The Minister, in answer to a question, went a bit further and said that the only reason why these two amounts appear on the Additional Estimates was that despite other organizations existing for a similar purpose, they did not ask the Government for any assistance in bringing immigrants to our country. Sir, this is the first time that the House has been called upon to vote money as a form of subsidy for the bringing of immigrants to the country. I would therefore like to ascertain from the Minister what his policy is now, in regard to this form of subsidy. Are we to understand that if the House approves these amounts, the Government accepts the principle of State-aided immigration, and where will the distinction be drawn as to what organizations will get this subsidy, or will private firms who bring out thirty or forty artisans to the country be able to apply to the Government for a subsidy on the same basis on which it was granted to these two organizations? This raises a very broad question which I would like to have the Minister clarify, because as was pointed out by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) other organizations which have existed for years and which brought many thousands of immigrants to the country have not received a penny in the way of a subsidy, yet here are two organizations, which have only very recently been set up by private individuals, getting a subsidy of some R36,000 from the Government on a mere application. I think that the Minister should clarify his policy. He stated a moment ago that he would give financial aid to any bodies which applied for it. What bodies will get it? Will private companies who bring immigrants to the country be able to apply to the Government for a subsidy on the same basis? I would be glad if the Minister would give us a clear statement of his policy in this regard before we are called upon to approve these amounts.

I do not think this is the place to give a clear statement of policy. All I am required to do is to explain the different items on the Estimates, and I would like to explain as follows. Perhaps I was not very clear and misunderstood the hon. member for Albany as far as the 1820 Settlers are concerned. They are included in the S.A. Immigration Trust. The grant-in-aid to the S.A. Immigration Trust is R10,000. That Trust was founded by the heads of three active and well-known immigration organizations. The first one was Mr. J. G. Foggitt, the Chairman of the S.A. Immigration Organization. The next was Mr. A. B. v. N. Herbst, the Secretary for the Maatschappy voor Europeese Immigratie, and the third was Mr. I. MacKenzie, the Deputy National Chairman of the 1820 Settlers Association. The objects of the Trust are to encourage and assist and promote and expedite and facilitate in any manner possible the immigration of refugees and other persons from the Continent to the Union, and to assist any persons so immigrating to find employment and accommodation in the Union. An opportunity to recruit immigrants for the Union presented itself during the recent emergency in the Congo and an urgent appeal was made to the Government by the Trust for financial assistance to enable it to expand its organization to such an extent that it could cope successfully with the prospective immigrants from the African territories. The sum of R10,000 was placed at the disposal of the Trust and utilized to further its cause. The Trust also rendered invaluable assistance towards coping with the rehabilitation of refugees from the Congo. Working in close collaboration with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and the Department of Labour, loans to the extent of R50,000 were arranged with one of the commercial banks and placed at the disposal of destitute refugees after they had been placed in employment. That accounts for the R10,000 there. I have already explained in regard to the R26,000 that we paid a subsidy on the basis of R30 per immigrant above the age of 12 years, and R15 in respect of children of 12 years or younger.

These immigrants who were subsidized, did they stay in the country?

Yes, I think so.

There is an appreciable increase under Item B of R36,000 in connection with subsistence and transport costs. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether this amount bears any relation to an overseas visit by his predecessor …

Order! The hon. member should not make a statement; he should put a question. He cannot state something positively.

May I ask the Minister what it is.

The increase is due to the cost of transporting ballot boxes to polling stations in South West Africa. In some cases air transport was used. This is the cost of transporting polling officers and pilots to and from the various polling stations during the referendum. In cases where public servants and private persons used their own motor cars, the prescribed tariffs were paid. That amounted to R32,000. The railage on census forms was R7,700. Additional provisions also had to be made for the costs connected to the transportation of refugees who were brought to the Union by the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie ”, R1,200, making it R40,900, and then there was a small saving of R4,900, which makes the total amount R36,000.

I want to revert to this Item M. This is a new item and therefore, in my submission, the Committee is entitled to fuller information than it would receive merely in regard to an additional amount voted on an existing item. I want to ask the Minister whether the appearance of these two amounts under M now amounts to the reversal of a reversal of a previous policy, because it is quite clear and it is well known that the present Government reversed the immigration policy of the previous Government.

Order! I wish to remind the hon. member that the debate is confined to subjects contained in the Estimates, and the hon. member cannot go beyond that.

I am doing my best to confine myself to the subjects contained in the Estimates. The heading is “Immigration” and it talks about a grant-in-aid to the SA. Immigration Trust. That represents a new policy. I think the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) was perfectly correct in asking the Minister whether it is now the new policy of this Government to subsidize immigrants. Is State-aided immigration now the policy of this Government? I want to know, because for the past 12 years this side of the House has been pressing the Government to carry out a State-aided immigration scheme, because this Government killed the immigration scheme of the Smuts Government.

The hon. member must confine himself to the two associations mentioned.

I am doing my best to confine myself to the items, but I want an explanation of the change of policy.

A change of policy is not under discussion. I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the items.

Do these grants-in-aid represent moneys spent on an existing policy, or a new policy? What are these amounts for? Are they to implement an existing policy or a new policy? Surely I am entitled to ask that.

I am not entirely satisfied with the reply of the Minister. He gave us the background of the S.A. Immigration Trust and substantiated what I claimed, that it was originated by a private individual, Mr. Foggitt, whose name I did not mention, who ran a one-man campaign to bring immigrants to the country, and the Minister said that this Trust was set up. But the Minister did not answer the other part of my question. The Minister appears highly amused, but this is a very serious matter to us. The Minister mentioned that the R26,000 was paid to another organization, Transa. I do not know what that organization is and I hope the Minister will give us some details about who the persons are behind it and what is its full title. The Minister indicated that this R26,000 was being paid on the basis of an allocation of R30 for persons over the age of 12 and R15 in respect of children under 12. How was that allocation arrived at, and on what basis? If these approved immigrants were brought here from overseas, on what basis is this grant of R30 determined? It seems a very negligible amount. It does not even represent 10 per cent of the tourist-class passage on a ship. Another matter I want to know about is this. It says that this is a subsidy to organizations, in the plural, in respect of approved immigrants. Are we to understand that before this organization, Transa, to which the R26,000 is being paid, bring in immigrants, they have to submit the names of the proposed immigrants for proper approval before the subsidy is paid out? We would like some detail. This is a completely new item and I think the Minister should give the country further enlightenment before we vote this amount of money.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is looking for something which is not there. Instead of being thankful that more people are entering the country and that immigrants are being attracted to South Africa, he says the subsidy is too low. I explained the matter, and I can add very little to it. There are certain organizations which exerted themselves in this direction. There is the organization of Mr. Foggitt, which did wonderful work and brought in immigrants, particularly from Britain. He brought them here by air, and the undertaking became too big for him and his associates. He was able to obtain quite a number of them, also from Kenya, which he visited. He asked the Government for assistance and the Government said that, for every immigrant approved according to the present system by which immigrants are approved, it would pay a certain subsidy. In the one case it pays R30 and in the other R15, and that does not by far even cover the travelling costs. The assistance given by the Government made it possible for that organization to carry on. This scheme has just been approved until 30 June this year, as an experiment, to see how it works and whether it will help us. It has nothing to do with a change in policy or a statement of policy. I made a statement of policy in regard to immigration in the Other Place and it was published in all the newspapers, and at the opportune time when the whole question of immigration is discussed here it will be done again. But I am interested at present in one matter only, and that is to explain how these items came on the Additional Estimates. When these refugees came from the Congo the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie, of which Mr. Herbst is the secretary, also approached us, and my predecessor said: “Let us form a South African Immigration Trust, so that we shall not have to deal with individuals.” The existing associations, including the 1820 Settlers, then formed a Trust, and I hope that these people will assist us for many years to come, even though it is only to care for the immigrants who have already arrived here.

What is Transa?

That was Mr. Muller’s own undertaking. He got immigrants principally from Germany, Mr. Foggitt from Britain and later from Kenya, and the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie got immigrants mainly from Holland, but later concentrated their activities on the Congo and Kenya.

The Minister has said that the Trust consists of these four organizations and that R10,000 was voted for it. But the Minister went on to say that Transa, which appears to consist of one man only, had received R26,000.

But that is not what they received. That is what they got as a subsidy for the immigrants they brought in at R30 and R15 per head. That is what the R26,000 was voted to. I have explained that the R10,000 was given to the Trust for assistance to Congo refugees, and the R26,000 was paid as the result of the agreement between the Government and these few associations which brought in immigrants, to assist in meeting transportation costs.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 26.—” Public Service Commission ”, R8,951,

Could I have an explanation of how this over-payment came to be made in respect of this amount?

As the result of an error in Treasury Circular No. 4 of 1958 conveying authority for salary adjustments following from the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowances payable to temporary employees, over-payments of personal non-pensionable allowances totalling R8,951 were made to 279 temporary employees; for Defence R870, for Public Works R6,900, and for Agricultural Technical Services R1,181. As all the over-payments occurred in the lower-paid groups of employees where recovery could have caused definite hardship, the Public Service Commission recommended, and the Treasury approved, that the over-payments should not be recovered from the employees concerned. The Treasury further directed that provision for the total sum be included in the Additional Estimates, and as the over-payments by the different Departments had a common origin, such provision should be made in the Vote of this Department.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 27.—“Printing and Stationery ”, R148,000,

I would like to ask the Minister for some information on this item. Has it anything to do with decimalization?

The explanation is that the provision requested on the Additional Estimates, R148,000, consists of the additional estimated expenditure in connection firstly with over-time, R110,000, and the over-time was in respect of the referendum, voters’ rolls, decimalization, R42,000; decimalization security works, R32,000, and census forms, R6,000. That accounts for the R110,000. Transfer of the laboratory and six posts of the Department of Agriculture to this establishment for testing metal, paper, ink, etc., R9,000; the filling of a number of vacant posts, both in the factory and the office, and the appointment of 14 apprentices as journeymen on completion of their apprenticeship, R29,000. That makes a total of R148,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 28.—“Coloured Affairs ”, R94,000,

I would appreciate it if the Minister would give some information in regard to Item F, Child Welfare, capitation allowances, and the maintenance of children and their parents, guardians or custodians, where there is a difference between the original Estimate and the revised Estimates of R73,400, which is the additional amount. This is a considerable increase and one would have thought that in terms of the provisions of the Children’s Act there would have been a decrease rather than an increase in this item. I would also appreciate further information in regard to (c), special grants-in-aid, where there is an additional amount of R7,000. I would like to know what these grants-in-aid are payable to, to which organizations, and why they are being paid.

Since September 1959, when the original Estimates were framed, there has been an extraordinary increase in the number of cases where the Department had to pay grants for the maintenance of children and their parents or guardians in terms of the Children’s Act, 1960. There were also some cases in the past where maintenance grants were paid at rates much lower than those allowed by the regulations. With a view to raising the standard of living of the Coloured families, the Department adopted the policy of increasing the maintenance grants where justified. These cases come to light during the usual annual review. The deficit on this item was estimated at the beginning of the year as being R88,000, but it now appears that an amount of R80,400 would suffice to meet the additional expenditure, by the utilization of savings on other sub-heads of the Vote. It will be possible further to reduce the actual amount required to meet the expenditure under this sub-head to R73,400, the amount applied for in the Additional Estimates.

The hon. member also referred to (c). An additional amount of R7,000 is required for special grants-in-aid for the following two institutions which have both been registered in terms of the Children’s Act. Nanny House, a home for expectant Coloured giR1s. This institution had to vacate its old premises, and the management, without any Government assistance, built a modern building with a maternity ward. For the necessary equipment they applied to the Department for a grant-in-aid. No other institution exists for the care of these gir1s, and as it is considered necessary the Department feels obliged to subsidize the equipment to the extent of R4,000. Then there is a children’s home at Tulbagh, which is the only institution in the Western Cape for the care of Coloured children. The management of the institution was only informed in January 1960, that funds had been allocated to it by the National Housing Commission and it was then too late to include the sum of R3,000 required for equipping the home in this Department’s Estimates for the current financial year. The institution will cater for 60 Coloured children in need of care, for whom no other provision is available at present. The home will start to function on 1 March 1961.

I thank the hon. the Minister for giving the information. I wonder whether he has the figures available to differentiate between the capitation allowances for committed children and maintenance grants?

I am sorry I do not have the figures.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 29.—“Education, Arts and Science ”, R202,400,

I see that there is an amount of R700 additional to be spent on the William Humphreys Art Gallery. What is that for?

There is an increased grant to the National Museum in Bloemfontein for the design and construction of display cabinets. The position was very serious in Bloemfontein, and provision had to be made to preserve the exhibits in the museum. That accounts for a portion of the item. The other one is an additional grant to the William Humphreys Art Gallery for the employment of a secretary-director in the William Humphreys branch at Kimberley.

The item R60,000 for the university college for Indians, Durban, appears to be a new item. I wonder whether, in the circumstances, the Minister will give a fuller explanation of the purposes for which this money is being used?

This is a new item in connection with the establishment of the Indian University College at Durban. As I announced in this House ear1y last year, this college was opened on 1 March. It is housed on Salisbury Island. We went to a lot of trouble, as the hon. member probably knows, to find accommodation there, and eventually we found temporary accommodation there. I am awaiting the full information but I have been informed that the college started off with 150 students. The rector is Professor Olivier, former1y of the University of Cape Town, and the staff appointed are people who come, just as in the case of the Coloured University College, from the best institutions in the country. As soon as I have the full facts, I shall give that information to the House.

I should also like to refer to an item under G, “Financial assistance to Fort Hare University College for training of non-White persons other than Bantu students ”. I presume this is to make provision for those Indian and Coloured students for whom no provision is made in their own colleges. If that is the case, surely it was possible to make provision for this in the ordinary Estimates. This is not a special provision; it appears here as a new item, but surely provision has to be made every year for those Indian and Coloured students at Fort Hare to complete their courses or for those who are awaiting admission to their own college. That is the first item I should like the Minister to explain. The second one is under K “Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee ”. I see provision is being made here for R2,806, presumably for bursaries under the Commonwealth plan for the interchange of students. It seems a very small item. I should like the Minister to tell us how many bursaries we are offering and for whom we are offering them.

Let me reply first to the last question put by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). As a result of the participation of the Union in the Commonwealth Education scheme—this is a new service—this R2,806 is required for the expenses of the liaison committee. We have to pay part of the cost of the liaison committee. Under the scheme bursaries are awarded to deserving students of Commonwealth countries to study in South Africa and similar bursaries are awarded to South African students to study abroad. This particular item is for the expenses of the liaison committee.

Not for bursaries?

No.

In regard to the item “Financial Assistance to Fort Hare University College ”, the hon. member is correct. There are still Indian and Coloured students who were at Fort Hare and who have to complete their courses there. Students who were attending a particular university are completing their courses there. In this case they must complete their courses there, and therefore we came to an agreement with the Department of Bantu Education to pay this amount to them to defray the costs of the Indian and Coloured students who have to complete their courses there. That is the reason for this item.

The question I put was this: Was it not possible to make provision for that R53,088 in the ordinary Estimates last year?

Last year we were in a transitional period. We did not know precisely how many students would remain there and how many would want to go to other institutions. Certain students might have chosen to go to another institution, although they were already taking their courses there.

May I ask the hon. the Minister how many non-White students other than Bantu students are still at Fort Hare to-day?

My information is that 65 Indian students and 46 Coloured students are still studying at Fort Hare.

The Minister has given some information under G in connection with the university college for Indians at Durban. Is it possible for the Minister to tell us whether the residences are going to be constructed for Indians there, and whether any special arrangements are going to be made by way of subsidy for day students? This university is situated in a very awkward place. It is extremely difficult to make transport arrangements to and from Salisbury Island.

I can tell the hon. member that it is the intention to make provision at a later stage for board and lodging for the students on Salisbury Island. The transport is being subsidized at the present moment. There is boat transport from Durban central to Salisbury Island and there is also transport by rail or road. These are matters which are still under consideration but everything possible is being done to assist the students to enable them to attend the university.

Under Item F, “Special Departmental Services ”, is this sum of R63,706 for additional services or is this an underestimate in respect of services which are at present being provided?

This increase is mainly due to the fact that provision had to be made for pennants and commemoration medals which will be issued to school children all over South Africa to commemorate the establishment of the republic. These medals and pennants will be issued to all school children, European and non-European. It is estimated that this subhead will be exceeded by an amount of R244,000 but it will only be necessary to make provision for an amount of R163,000, the balance will be found from savings under other sub-heads.

Is this an amount which is being voted in addition to any amounts which are being voted by the provinces for the same purpose?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 31.—“Social Welfare and Pensions ”, R1,544,000,

Under Item K “War Veterans, Blind persons and old age pensions and disability grants ”, I wonder whether the Minister can give me the separate amount for the different classes of pensioners.

The information requested by the hon. member is as follows: Pensions for blind persons: an increase of R4,000. Old age pensions, an increase of R40,000; disability grants, R304,000. War veterans, a decrease of R166,000.

Under Item L, Child Welfare, there is an increase of R464,000, which is an appreciable increase if one takes into consideration the fact that in the case of the previous item there was an increase of R182,000. It is an appreciable increase as compared with the amount originally asked for. Can the Minister give me any information in this regard?

The particulars are as follows: Places of safety and detention (private), R20,000; institutions (registered) R4,000; certified institutions, R72,000; per capita grants, i.e. the maintenance of children and their parents, guardians and custodians, R368,000.

In connection with the amount of R368,000, can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us how many children were involve?

The only information available to me at the moment and which I can give the hon. member is that although at the time the first revised Estimates were prepared sufficient allowance was made for an increase in the number of approved cases, the list now shows a bigger increase than was originally expected. Increased benefits payable as the result of the regrouping of areas is also a contributory factor. Unfortunately I cannot now give the hon. member the other information.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 34.—“Bantu Administration and Development ”, R120,000,

May I ask the hon. the Minister for particulars in regard to this item of R120,000. I would like to know what the nature is of the undertakings and where they are situated, and what Bantu communities they serve. I see the Minister has no representative in the House. Will I be able to get this information?

My hon. friend has put a perfectly reasonable question to the Government and the Government does not seem prepared to reply to it. I do not know whether the Acting Prime Minister, who is doing his best to-day, is in a position to supply that information?

No, I am not.

Well, I misjudged the Acting Prime Minister. I thought he was trying to get the information from his colleague behind him. The hon. member for East London (City) asked why this amount of R120,000 was being asked for. We have already voted R7,000,000 for this item in the ordinary Estimates, and it seems rather strange that a little amount of R120,000 should be asked for at this late stage.

This was for help to South West Africa, to the Bantu there who were suffering as a result of drought.

He also wanted to know the areas.

The areas are in South West Africa; Ovamboland, Kaokoveld, Okavango and the eastern reservation.

Can the Minister tell us whether that water has been provided as a permanent provision or was it just a question of carting water to these areas?

This is a grant in aid paid to the South African Native Trust.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 35.—“Agricultural Technical Services (Administration and National Services)”, R430,600,

I should like to have some information in regard to Item B, subsistence and transport.

I shall be pleased if the Minister will give us some information in regard to Item H, crops and pastures, where there is an increase of R52,800 on an original estimate of R33,200.

In regard to Item B, the explanation is as follows: Ear1y in the present financial year foot and mouth disease broke out in the Letaba district and Newcastle disease on the Rand, respectively. Further outbreaks of foot and mouth disease took place in Bechuanaland, Western Transvaal, Ingwavuma, Barberton and Komatipoort. Then further outbreaks of foot and mouth disease involving 30,000 head of cattle took place in the Barberton and Komatipoort areas in the beginning of January 1961. It was essential to take immediate and effective steps to bring these outbreaks under control.

In regard to Item H, the position is as follows: An amount of R50,300 was required in connection with C, equipment, fuel, fertilizer and a debarking machine, etc., in connection with fibre production and research. The rest of the amount is required in connection with the purchase of a special speed micro-balance, R1,000, which was ordered during July 1959 and a Cambridge type glass house at a price of R1,500 which was ordered during the financial year 1959-60 and was only delivered during 1960-1. Savings in respect of these items were shown in the financial year 1959-60.

Will the hon. the Minister please give us some information on Item G, “Veterinary ”, R62,800. Is that money paid out to private veterinarians or is it for development inside the Department?

The increase is made up as follows: R38,000 for equipment such as tents, camp beds, etc., in connection with the combating of outbreaks of foot and mouth disease; R50,000 in respect of equipment and material for the 160-mile long Marico-Mafeking (Bechuanaland) boundary fence in order to combat the spread of foot and mouth disease. R6,000 is the estimated cost of the dipping, the inoculation and the slaughtering of cattle in order to prevent the disease from spreading. The above amounts can be partially reduced by a saving of R26,250 in connection with the manufacture and sale of cattle remedies and vaccines. The hon. member will notice from my reply that the increase is mainly due to outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in various parts of the country.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 36.—“Agricultural Technical Services (Regional Services and Education),” R110,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 37.—“Water Affairs,”

R12,958,

Can the hon. the Minister give us any information in regard to the Item under E, “Ex Gratia Remission of Loan”, R4,238?

The explanation for this item is as follows: The Rietspruit State Dam was built in the years 1939-40, at a cost of R32,696.98 and transferred to the Schoonspruit Irrigation Board for its use and administration. In contrast with the present policy in cases where a State water works is transferred to an irrigation board for administration and use, namely, to levy a certain tax per morgen per annum for an indefinite period, reviewable from year to year, it was the practice at that time to capitalize the contributions of the Irrigation Board in respect of the use of the dam and to recover it over a fixed period, together with interest. In this case the capitalized sum amounted to R6,893.8, which had to be repaid with interest, over a period of 30 years as from 1 January 1944. In order to do this the board had to levy a tax of 21 cents per morgen per annum on the scheduled area of 2,000 morgen. Since 1944 an amount of R6,602 has been paid by the board, namely, R2,824 in reduction capital and R3,777 representing interest up to 31 March 1961. At that date the following amounts will therefore still be due to the State: Capital R4,068.57, arrear interest, R126.75, current interest, R81.37, late interest, R6.04, making a total of R4,282.73.

Some years ago an amount of R158,135 was spent on making improvements to and enlarging the dam, and it has become necessary to review the board’s contributions in respect of the use of the dam. Because of the enlargement of the dam, it has been possible to increase the scheduled area of the dam from 2,000 to 2,800 morgen.

In the circumstances it has been proposed that the method of taxation in this case should be brought into line with that which is applicable in other similar cases, namely, to levy a tax of 50 cents per morgen per annum for an indefinite period, reviewable from year to year. This tax is intended to include the old obligation in respect of the original dam. as well as the new obligation in respect of the improvement to and the enlargement of the dam, and consequently it is proposed that the balance of the old obligation, which amounts to R4,283 be written off. That can only be done in terms of the instructions contained in Treasury Circular No. 8 of 1960, viz. that PaR1iament should approve of the relevant account in the Estimates of the Department.

Can the Minister tell us in connection with sub-head K where the soil erosion took place and why the Department of Water Affairs had to undertake the work?

The increase is in connection with the repair of flood damage and the combating of soil-erosion in the Hout Bay River. The amount is payable to the Cape Divisional Council and it is one-third of the actual capital cost of the work, up to a maximum final cost of R21,000. In other words, we are only subsidizing this specific work.

Vote put and agree to.

On Vote No. 38.—“Commerce and Industries ”, R45,300,

May I refer the hon. the Minister to the item “Research projects for Government Departments” where an increase of R8,000 is reflected? Is the Minister in a position to state what these research projects are?

The item to which I want to refer is a small item under E, “official entertainment by and on behalf of the Chairman and Secretary of the Permanent Committee for the location of Industry and Development of border areas ”. We are being asked here to vote R100, which is a new item. Could I ask the Minister for what purpose this entertainment is to be given? Is it for the entertainment of Native chiefs in the border areas? This is a new principle. Hitherto this House has not made available amounts for entertainment by the chairmen of committees; only to heads of departments. We should like to know in what direction this money is going to be spent.

I shall reply to the last question first. The amount asked for here, R100 for an entertainment allowance, is intended for the chairman and the secretary of the Standing Committee for the Siting of Industries and the Development of Border Areas. The Standing Committee is a sub-committee of the recently established Economic Advisory Council. Both the chairman, Prof. S. P. Viljoen, who is deputy chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries, and the secretary, Dr. P. S. Rautenbach, who is the Planning Director of the Natural Resources Development Council, have been appointed by the Cabinet as chairman and secretary of this sub-committee of the Economic Advisory Council. Therefore both of them are officials in the service of the Department. In carrying out their functions they will necessarily have to build up and maintain wide and intensive contacts with existing and potential industrialists. The Department felt that selective entertainment could do much to foster a good spirit on the part of industrialists. The hon. member will realize that these men are only concerned with industrialists really. They will have to have discussions with industrialists, and just as in the case of other heads of departments it is necessary to set aside an amount of money for entertainment, because these people will also have to entertain in the course of their duties in connection with the decentralization of industries. For this part of 1960-1 R100 has been placed on the Additional Estimates, but for 1961-2 and subsequent years R200 per annum will be provided for by the Treasury in the main Estimates. As in the case of any other departmental head, they will have R200 available for entertainment in the performance of their official duties.

Do they not fall under the Secretary of the Department?

No, the one is the deputy chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries, but here he acts as chairman of this particular body which has special duties, over and above his duties as Deputy Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries. Dr. Rautenbach on the other hand is attached to the Natural Resources Development Council. But here they act in a different capacity. They have to make contacts with industrialists, and I felt therefore that it was necessary for them also to entertain industrialists from time to time in order to build up contacts. They themselves are entertained, and they have to reciprocate.

The other question was in connection with research projects for State Departments. The National Air Pollution Committee which was appointed by the Minister of Health in 1955 to investigate inter alia, the question of air pollution and to make recommendations recommended that the work at present being done by local authorities with the assistance of the C.S.I.R. in connection with the origin and scope of air pollution should be expanded; secondly, that a national study of the use of oil, including the economic and technical use of coal with an eye on the cause of smog, should be undertaken; thirdly, that the possibility of obviating air pollution should be investigated in co-operation with the C.S.I.R. The object is to tackle this problem on a national basis. This recommendation was referred by the Minister of Health to the Minister of Economic Affairs who, in consultation with the C.S.I.R., then agreed that this extended scheme should be tackled. The Minister of Finance agreed that for every R4 obtained from other bodies, the State would contribute R2, up to a maximum of R11,000 for 1960-1 and R8,000 per annum for the succeeding four years, making a total of R43,000 for this greater project.

May I refer to Item H, “Contributions and Grants-in-Aid ”. There is a contribution to the C.S.I.R., and an additional amount of R36,000 is being asked for capital expenditure. May we know for what purpose the R36,000 will be used? the proposed expedition to the Indian Ocean. The total cost of this expedition has been estimated at R64,500, of which R36,000 is intended for the purchase of apparatus and equipment during 1960-1. That is the amount being asked for here. Then R10,000 will be used in 1961-2 for equipment and grants to scientists, for the salaries of assistants, and R18,500 during 1962-3 for equipment as well as remuneration to assistants. After further representations from the C.S.I.R., the Department of Defence as well as the Fisheries Division of the Department of Trade and Industries, in which the value of marine research, particular1y along the east coast of South Africa, was stressed particular1y, this project was approved of. The Department of Defence particulaR1y emphasized the value of having a knowledge of the currents, magnetic deviations, the testing of samples of water at different depths, etc. The Fisheries Division on the other hand felt that research into marine biology would be promoted by the information gathered by this expedition.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 39.—“Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones” R1,

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain this new Head. The wording here is very ambiguous: “Ex gratia remission of interest on Savings Bank moneys stolen and outstanding.” If the money was stolen I do not understand how it can still be outstanding, and while the amount is only R1, an amount of R13,504 is needed of which the hon. the Minister has taken R13,503 from another Department. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister from which Department he took that money.

The hon. member may only ask for the reasons for the increase in any amount.

I can well understand why the hon. member finds this peculiar because it is peculiar. That happens now and then. Perhaps I should give the history of this item. During September 1947 up to March 1948, there was a number of officials in the Department who embezzled money in a peculiar manner to an amount of more or less R31,000. They were prosecuted and up to the end of last year they had paid back an amount of more or less R15,000. But the interest on the money which they owed had in the meantime accumulated to an amount of R13,000. The hon. member will realize therefore that the amount which has been refunded is infinitesimal. If the interest is added to the total amount which they have to refund it will take not only 160 years to refund the money which they have embezzled, but an eternity. We have to be realistic and the Department has therefore written the interest off. It does not, however, appear as additional expenditure because there have been savings under other Votes. The position is peculiar in that when something like this is brought to the notice of the House, it is calculated in this way and we are consequently only asking for R1.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us how many people were found guilty of embezzlement?

I think there were six or seven. They worked as a team in the Department and they succeeded for some time in leading the inspectors by the nose. This happened over a period of six months from September 1947 to March 1948.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 40.—“Health (Union)”, R1,100,000,

Under sub-head K “Medical Poor Relief ”, there is an increase of R110,000, which seems a very large increase in relation to the original estimate of R630,000. May I ask the hon. the Minister what is the reason for the increase?

Could I also ask the hon. the Minister in regard to Item O, why there is this increase of R80,000 and what percentage the local authorities pay towards the cost of the employment of health officers?

Under this Vote, on all the items there are considerable increases. May I ask in regard to sub-head A for instance, which shows an increase of R130,000 on Salaries, Wages and Allowances, whether that is attributable to the fact that he has got additional personnel …

Order! The hon. member may only ask what the reasons are for the increases. He may not suggest reasons.

There is a sub-head N “Other infectious diseases ”. I realize of course that it is difficult to foresee infectious diseases, but may I know what other infectious diseases have occurred? This is a very big item and I think it should have been propeR1y estimated, and I would like to know the reason for this large increase.

We cannot always foresee ailments or diseases, so essentially our estimate is a guess. One does not know beforehand what ailments may develop. But let me begin with sub-head A “Salaries, Wages and Allowances ”. The increase there is due to the following factors: Firstly, a revision of the salary scales of Government medical officers and the general upgrading of these posts; secondly, to an increase in the remuneration of part time medical officers; thirdly, the application to medical officers employed full time in a temporary capacity on contract; fourthly, the improvement in salaries payable to part time district surgeons; and fifthly, to the revision of wages of non-European employees, now remunerated on the basis of the ruling local rates of pay. So there are quite a number of reasons.

I now come to K “Medical Poor Relief”. The excess appears to be due to medicines and dressings and surgical appliances, and it is attributable to the fact that the use of modern and more expensive drugs in the treatment of indigent patients continues to increase and that the cost of replacing expensive drugs, not covered by the drug allowance payable to part time district surgeons, also increases continually. As far as surgical appliances are concerned, a further increase is due to the fact that the charges for dentures and dental services have been raised and that the number of applications for surgical appliances has increased considerably during the current year.

I come to N “Other Infectious Diseases ”. The increase is mainly due to the subsidy payable on the 2,200,000 doses of the live polio virus vaccine issued to local authorities towards the end of last year. The last item is the Item O “Health Officers Employed by Local Authorities ”. In terms of Treasury authority, local authorities are permitted to effect changes and improvements in the salary-grading of medical officers and other health personnel, as from 1 March 1960, in order to conform with similar improvements effected in the salary-gradings of other medical officers in the Public Service. In view of the fact that all the larger local authorities are applying the improved salary grading, it is now expected that an additional amount of R80,000 will be required.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he can explain to us under L “Tuberculosis: General Expenses” why it is that whilst the revised estimate has been increased from R8,000,000 to R8,604,000, we are now being asked to vote an additional R611,000?

The increase is due to the campaign against tuberculosis as a result of which we are continually discovering more people who suffer from tuberculosis.

I shall certainly not object to increased expenditure if it is a matter of combating tuberculosis, but the point I am getting at is this that while the amount in the revised Estimates is R604,000 more than the amount in the original Estimates we are not being asked to vote an additional R604,000 but R611,000.

Perhaps I should explain that there was a saving of R7,000 under an item in col. 2. It is not shown here but the figure which appears here is correct. There was a saving of R7,000.

I do not wish to waste the time of the House, but if it is true what the hon. the Minister says then this amount should have been less, namely R597,000 and not R611,000.

I think we went about things rather superficially here. The hon. member for Maitland is quite right in saying that we are being asked to vote R7,000 more than the Government requires. There must be something wrong with the figures. I move therefore—

Agreed to.

On Vote No. 41.—“Health (Union): Hospitals and Institutions ”, R500,000,

May I know why this additional amount of R500,000 has to be voted?

I move—

Agreed to.

On Vote No. 44.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing (General) ”, R735,800,

There are three questions I want to put to the hon. the Minister under this Vote. Under A (2) there is an item “Transport of Water in Drought-stricken Areas ”. Is the R30,000 the whole amount that was required and was it used for the cartage of water, and if the water was transported by the Department of Defence, is this the whole cost; does it cover wear and tear and maintenance? Then going on to D, a higher amount is being asked for. It is a considerable increase. Is this due to higher railway rates, in part or in whole, or is it due to a larger amount of manure and fertilizer having been transported, or, if both these factors have contributed to the higher amount, what proportion is due to the two separate factors? Then under H we come to a new item of R90,000. Was this a loss on the food vans which came under the Department of Nutrition or is it due to the subsidization of food of the lower income groups? How did this loss come about?

In regard to the carting of water to drought-stricken areas I just want to say that the Cabinet decided in 1959 to cart water in the district of Gordonia so that the farmers in drought-stricken areas could water their stock. The farmers contributed 1s. 3d. per mile in respect of the actual distance covered. The Department of Defence was responsible for the carting but the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing had to pay the difference between the 1s. 3d. per mile and the actual costs. The difference of R30,000 is in respect of the outstanding amount which still has to be paid. A large amount was already voted the previous year under the Part Appropriation Bill. The increase under D “Fertilizer” is solely due to the fact that more fertilizer was used with the result that a greater amount had to be paid in the form of subsidies on railage.

As far as H is concerned, this scheme was transferred from the defunct Department of Nutrition and this amount is required to compensate the Food Control Funds for the loss sustained. This loss is mainly due to ex gratia payments to employees and secondly to the sale of equipment at a price lower than its book value at the time the scheme was abolished.

The reply given by the hon. the Minister in respect of Item A (2) is not quite clear to me. It appears to be a new item to me because no figure is given under the original Estimates. The hon. the Minister says that an amount has already been paid out under the ordinary Estimates but that is not shown here. Then I should also like to know from the Minister how many farmers were supplied with water in the district of Gordonia.

The water was carted during the previous financial year and the payments appeared in the previous Estimates but certain further amounts still had to be paid after the scheme had ceased to operate. The water was carted during January, February and March of 1960 and provision was made for those amounts in the additional Estimates last year. I gave the House the figures last year as to the number of people who received assistance under this scheme. The hon. member will find it in Hansard.

I want to come back to Item H: “State Food Distribution Scheme.” The hon. Minister’s explanation is that the food distribution scheme ceased and that it ceased trading. The item here is a liquidation loss, apparently. The capital assets of the scheme were liquidated at a loss. It is a bad debt. There were also certain payments to staff in the form of gratuities. If that is the explanation, then obviously, the description given in the Estimates is incorrect. It cannot be a “net trading loss ”. It is either a bad debt, or a loss on liquidation of assets. Will the hon. Minister please enlighten me?

May I ask in relation to the Minister’s reply, whether it is normal for the Government to give a gratuity to officials who show a loss on the works they are doing?

The food distribution scheme was discontinued and the Department done away with. All the revenue was originally paid into a Food Control Fund and the money to launch the scheme and to operate it was paid out of that fund. The scheme was then discontinued and the Department done away with and my Department attended to the winding up. After the scheme had been discontinued there were still officials in the employ of the Department of Nutrition and there was also certain equipment such as lorries, etc., which the Department has used and which had to be disposed of. Most officials had been employed on a temporary basis, but some of them had been employed on the food distribution scheme for a comparatively long period. Those whom the Department of Labour could not place in other employment received an ex gratia payment on dismissal. The vehicles were sold but at a lower price than their book value. This amount of R90,000 comprises the amount of ex gratia payments and the difference between the book value of those vehicles and the actual amount received for them.

But that is not a trade loss.

I am sorry but I am not satisfied with the reply given by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister says that an amount has already been voted under the main Estimates and that he gave the details last year. But here we are asked to vote an additional amount of R30,000 for the carting of water. The hon. the Minister says that an amount has already been paid out under the main Estimates. Very well, that amount does not appear here. An additional amount of R30,000 appears here and the hon. the Minister says that there were additional farmers to whom payments had to be made. But at the same time in answer to my question he says that I should look it up in Hansard. But I will be unable to learn anything from Hansard in respect of this R30,000 because this is a new item which has not appeared on the Estimates before. I cannot understand the hon. the Minister. How can he tell me to refer to Hansard in regard to an amount which does not appear here? Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s reply to the reasonable question I have put to him. I want to know the number of farmers to whom this amount of R30,000 has been paid and in which area they are. I cannot understand the hon. the Minister’s reply in referring me to Hansard.

I have already replied to the hon. member. The amount of R30,000 is in respect of outstanding debits which could not be provided for in the previous financial year, expenditure incurred during 1960-1 under this scheme in connection with travelling and accommodation, railage and transport. It is not a question of how many farmers received water under this item of R30,000. A great many received water for their stock. These debits were outstanding at the time. These are payments that had to be made. It was a big scheme and some accounts were submitted late. There were accounts from people who said that they had travelled so many miles; they had to be paid 1s. 3d. per mile and the Department had to pay the difference. Last year I gave the House the number of farmers who had received water and that was why I said that the hon. member should refer to Hansard if she wanted to know what the number was.

The hon. the Minister has given me an explanation in regard to the question I put to him. But, of course, that is not good enough. We are not voting money here according to some explanation given by the Minister which differs from the wording of the Estimates themselves. What we are being asked to do here is to provide money to cover the net trading loss for the financial year. But there was no trading during the year. The amount we are asked to vote is not, therefore, a trading loss. It might be quite true that we have to vote a certain amount of money, but we must vote it for the correct purpose on the Estimates. Par1iament must not vote money for any purpose other than that for which it is going to be used. I therefore suggest to the hon. the Minister that this Vote should also stand over so that the Estimate can be corrected and we can know precisely what PaR1iament is providing this money for on the Estimates presented to us.

There were various expense items under the food distribution scheme, and I shall again try to explain the position. Those expense items comprised, inter alia, maintenance of vehicles, transport and other expenditure, purchase of supplies and the cost of transporting it. The scheme was in operation and whenever there was a deficit all the factors were considered to ascertain whether the deficit was due to interest on capital investments, or whether it was due to trade activities or anything like that. The expenditure was given in a lump sum. The position consequently was that after the discontinuation of the scheme, although there was no more buying and selling of vegetables and things of that nature, the maintenance of the vehicles still formed part of the scheme. The purchase price of the vehicles was part of the costs incurred under the scheme. Those vehicles have now been sold. In other words, the loss is debited to the scheme.

It was not part of the scheme to sell those articles.

The scheme was not only for the buying and selling of vegetables and fruit, it also had assets in the forms of vehicles, etc. The scheme had assets in the form of lorries by means of which it distributed the articles. The officials employed under the scheme also had to be paid. The vegetables and fruit did not descend from the heavens and were not distributed by fairies. People had to handle it, there had to be means of distribution—all that was part of the scheme. That is why a loss was sustained under the scheme.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) is not objecting to the amount but to the explanation given for the amount. If a certain vehicle was purchased for a certain amount and sold at a loss, you cannot, with the best will in the world, describe that as a trading loss. That is capital loss. That is our objection, namely, that the reason given for this item is incorrect.

Following on the remarks made by the hon. member for Florida (Mr. H. G. Swart), it appears that the hon. the Minister shows a trading loss on a trading undertaking that does not exist, and transport costs on a transport scheme that is not longer operating and was not operating during the course of the year under review. We have a sum voted under Item A (2) for transport of water, but he has explained that no water has been transported. And we have a trading loss for an undertaking which no longer exists. The hon. the Minister now wants us to vote money for two undertakings; an undertaking for food distribution which ceased to exist before this financial year and which now shows a loss on this non-existent scheme—a capital loss which is shown as a net trading loss; and secondly transport costs payable to the Department of Defence for a transport scheme that also does not exist. We cannot be expected to merely accept the fact as presented to us. We are not quibbling about the fact that money will have to be voted, but we are not prepared to vote money for non-existent schemes. According to the hon. the Minister there is no food distribution scheme. It did not trade therefore, how can it have a trading loss? Other costs can be tied to it, but it cannot have trading losses if it did not trade. Our objection is to the wording of this item. The request of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) was that this item should stand over while the hon. the Minister investigated and came back to this Committee with the correct terminology and a correct description of the items for which he requires the money. That is a perfectly reasonable request. If the hon. the Minister wants the money he should be prepared to give this House a proper description of the purpose for which that money is required. That is the objection we have made and to which the hon. the Minister has not even attempted to reply. He has told us why the money is needed. He has told us that he needs it because he lost money on the sale of vehicles. He has told us that, unlike many Government Departments that I know of, officials who made a mess of a particular scheme and who showed a loss were sacked, but were given a gratuity as a reward. He has told us what the money has been spent on. But now when we ask that it be properly described in the request made to this Committee for funds, we get no reply.

It is not good enough that the hon. the Minister merely sits there and allows the Vote to go through while he sits there silent. We are being asked to approve of additional Estimates which are described, but the description is false, on the Minister’s own showing. This is no light matter. What is going to be the value of any item in additional Estimates, or in Estimates for that matter, if the description is wrong? How is the Auditor-General going to carry out an audit in respect of these matters when they are described in language which no longer applies, language which is not applicable to the item at all, on the showing of the hon. the Minister? And then the Minister does not attempt to reply to the points raised.

I stated quite clearly that the food distribution scheme which was established under the Department of Nutrition incurred certain expenditure in connection with the distribution of food. They did not only have expenditure in connection with the buying of vegetables and fruit but there were other costs as well connected with the distribution. For example, they bought lorries in order to distribute the goods. They also employed people to drive the lorries. When they stopped buying and selling vegetables, etc., the scheme was not left suspended in mid-air. The scheme had to be finally wound-up. Certain assets and certain liabilities were acquired and incurred under the scheme. Those assets were then sold. They had a certain book value but they were sold below that book value—all this took place under the scheme. I cannot understand why hon. members want us to word it differently from the way it is worded here. All this happened in the ordinary course of the trading activities under the scheme. This forms part of it. If the hon. member farms and he ceases to farm, sells his implements and machinery, he may perhaps show a trading loss on his farming activities if he sells his machinery at a loss.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Was there a trading account which was operated in terms of the food scheme? Was there a profit and loss account, in fact, in the books? And if so, was it audited? What was the difference between the gross income and gross expenditure on that trading and profit and loss account? The point is, was there such a trading and profit and loss account; it so, what was the deficiency? Did the gross income include anything in the way of sales of food which had been purchased under the distribution scheme?

Mr. Chairman, I have repeatedly explained that certain assets were acquired under this food distribution scheme and those assets had a certain book value. Those assets were acquired and used in connection with the activities under the scheme. The scheme then had to be discontinued and those assets had to be sold. They were sold for less than their book value with the result that a loss was sustained. In order to make good that loss, these costs must now be paid.

I confess to a certain sympathy with the hon. the Minister because about the only good thing he has ever done in his Department was to do away with this State feeding scheme. I give him full marks for that. But I would suggest to him that he is on the wrong foot here because he himself told us that he closed the scheme down, that it had finished trading. Then he had to get rid of the assets and he also had to get rid of some of the liabilities—he gave some of the liabilities a gratuity for going but, still, he had to get rid of them. In other words, he was liquidating the business. But that is not trading. Now hon. members on this side have not criticized the hon. the Minister for closing down this food scheme, they have merely pointed out that from the point of view of accuracy this should not be called a net trading loss. I do not think there is any need for the hon. the Minister to get excited or hot under the collar over the matter. It is simply a fact that when we have Estimates before us we are entitled to ask that those Estimates should be accurately phrased. All that we suggest is that the word “trading” should be removed. Call it a loss and take out the word “net trading ”.

I am prepared to accept that.

I want to move the deletion of the words “net trading ”, if I am permitted to do so.

Order, I am afraid that that is not under discussion.

With due respect, Mr. Chairman, it is the description of what Parliament is voting. The amount we accept, but the hon. the Minister has conceded that the description is wrong. Surely it must be put right?

I have already said I am prepared to accept it.

That procedure is not correct. The hon. the Minister will have to withdraw it and then substitute another item in lieu thereof.

That is precisely what the hon. the Minister has, in fact, indicated he will do. He has indicated that he will set the matter right and I now suggest to the hon. the Minister that he withdraw the item and rephrase it. In the circumstances, if you would permit it, I would move that the item be deleted in order that the Minister can substitute it with the correct item.

In order to put the matter right, if there is something wrong, I suggest that we report progress and ask for leave to sit again. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 8 March.