I move—

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to ask Parliament to provide an additional amount of R81,320,016 to cover expenditure during the current financial year. Of this amount, R31,891,109 is in respect of revenue services and the balance of R49,428,907 in respect of loan services. The amount required on revenue services represents approximately 2.5 per cent of the amount voted in last year’s Appropriation Act. Hon. members will note that under various Votes, additional amounts are required for salaries, wages and allowances. These increases are mainly due to the fact that the full effect of the salary adjustments and the new post structure in the Public Service as from the 1st January, 1966, could not be foreseen when the 1966-’67 Estimates were compiled.

The amount of R49,428,907 required on loan services is just over 10 per cent of the amount of R478,214,000 provided in the main Estimates. I wish to admit that this is a substantial amount but hon. members will note that not less than R25,300,000—over 50 per cent of the amount required—is in respect of a new service, an interest-free loan to the External Procurements Fund. This money is required in connection with the Government’s stockpiling programme.

A further R8 million is required on Loan Vote A—Miscellaneous Loans and Services—for transfer to the Railways and Harbours Fund. The expenditure has already been approved by this House and the inclusion of this amount is merely to obtain parliamentary approval of the transfer of the money to that fund.

Sir, it is not customary for a Minister of Finance to go into detail at this stage. My colleagues are present and, as in the past, they will give full details of the amounts required under the Votes relating to their portfolios.

In conclusion I wish to give the House the assurance that I am satisfied that every rand asked for is essential and that I am convinced that the services for which the money is required cannot be postponed without harm to the country.

I was glad to hear the hon. the Minister say that his colleagues were all present and would be prepared to give full details as they have done in the past. I can only say that his experience has been happier than ours in the past because our experience has been, when it comes to the Additional Estimates, that the Minister of Finance is very often left in lonely state to answer for all his colleagues. I hope that all his colleagues have heard his words of wisdom this afternoon and that we shall have the benefit of their presence when we go into Committee on these Estimates.

The hon. the Minister has pointed out that we are being asked to vote what amounts to an extra 2½ per cent in addition to last year’s Revenue Estimates and some 10 per cent extra on last year’s Loan Estimates. Sir, that is a very considerable sum. The hon. the Minister dismissed the matter in a very few words and I hope that he will be able to give us further details when we are in Committee.

Hear, hear!

Sir, duly fortified by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) I have no doubt that we shall be able to conduct a very thorough investigation here this afternoon. I do not propose to go into any detail on these Estimates. But I think in the past there has been a tendency to deal with them as a mere formal matter, and I think that is a mistake, especially when you are dealing, as we are in this instance, with very considerable sums of money. These things should not be dealt with merely as formal matters. The hon. the Minister merely said that these were matters which could not be delayed without harming the affairs of the country. There are quite a number of things in these Estimates which, it seems to me, considering that we are within three weeks of the end of the financial year and within a fortnight of the introduction of the main budget, could have waited until the main budget without the affairs of the country suffering in the least. But there are certain features of a general nature which I think should be touched upon and on which the Minister should be prepared to give us his views.

In the first place, in the general budget which was introduced only in the middle of last August, five months ago, provision was made for spending some R1,275 million, and that was an increase of some 10 per cent over the previous year. We had been told by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor that he regarded an annual increase in the normal Government expenditure of 2 per cent per annum as normal. Having told us that, he then introduced the budget which provided for an increase five times the size of what he regarded as normal. Now we are being asked for a further increase of what the Minister’s predecessor regarded as the normal increase for the whole year. I think that gives us an idea of the way in which Government expenditure is going on increasing, not only year by year but on every opportunity the Government has of submitting Estimates to this House. After all, the feature which distinguishes these Estimates from most others is that the main budget was not introduced until half the year had gone. As a rule, the Estimates have to be prepared before the financial year has started and it can be well understood that it is extremely difficult to frame the Estimates accurately for 12 months ahead. But when the budget is not introduced until the financial year is half over, there does not seem to me to be any adequate reason for many of these increases. The Minister said this afternoon that the reason was that many of these increases could not be foreseen, but surely, with increases of this magnitude, to say that they could not be foreseen halfway through the year argues that something is very wrong somewhere. As I say, if it was done at the beginning of the year, there might be some reason for it and one would not be able to blame the present Minister of Finance for it because the mantle has fallen on his shoulders, and the fact that it is a rather uncomfortable mantle at the moment is most unfortunate for him. But I hope that the Estimates he is introducing to-day will be a lesson to him and will impress upon him the necessity for more accurate budgeting in the future, and that we shall not have to suffer, as we have for years past, from the grossly inaccurate budgeting we have had year after year.

There is another point to which the hon. the Minister referred. Of the extra funds being asked for, amounting to roughly R32 million, no less than R14 million, and possibly R16 million, if we include what is being paid to the provinces, is for increased salaries and wages. The Minister told us that it was quite impossible to foresee what would be required when the budget was framed. Sir, I do not think the House can accept that as the chief reason for the increase. It is true that there are new posts, but the chief reason for the increase was the general increases in salaries and wages which were announced in 1965, and not in 1966. They were not payable until 1966, but the increases were announced in 1965 and the budget was not introduced until nearly a year after that announcement. To say that it was not possible to foresee what the increases would cost is not an explanation that this House ought lightly to accept. The total salary and wage bill in the Estimates last August was some R325 million, and that made provision for an increase of some R34 million. When we asked the Minister’s predecessor what these increased wages and salaries would cost, I think he said it would be something like R40 million.

Anyway, provision was made for an increase of R34 million, but now, five months later, the hon. the Minister comes along and requires another R14 million. In other words, the Estimates laid before this House last August, as far as these increases were concerned, were wrong by over 30 per cent, because he is now asking for well over 30 per cent more than was asked for last August. One is completely at a loss to understand how there can be such a big discrepancy. Is it due to bad estimating? I find it rather difficult to think that, because if one looks at the Estimates one finds that they are spread all over the Departments. Some of them are much bigger than others. We can discuss that later on. But I cannot believe that every Department was so far out in its Estimates. The only reason one can imagine is that it was done deliberately and that the Government knew very well that they were under-estimating and decided to bring in the other Estimates now, in March, just before the end of the year. If that is so, I think it is very reprehensible of the Government, and I hope the Minister will do more than simply tell us that the reason for it is that the amount required could not be foreseen at the time the budget was drawn up. I think that if this is the nearest they could get to it, they ought to get a new computer in the Treasury, because this is extremely bad arithmetic.

The only other point I wish to make is the number of token amounts, the new items appearing on these Estimates, mostly in the Loan Account. It has been growing in recent years and it is becoming more and more frequent that very large amounts are being asked to be voted in the Additional Estimates, in principle, and then an amount of R40 or R50 or R100 is actually voted simply to get the item on the books.

I think that that is wrong as well. There are some very large items in these Loan Votes. There is for instance one item amounting to R16 million for which we are asked to vote R50 this year so as to agree in principle that it must be done. Mr. Speaker, you cannot tell me that between now and approximately the next month is going to make much difference as to whether or not Parliament has agreed in principle to this vast expenditure when we are only going to vote R50. I think that the Treasury should be much more careful in putting these amounts in the Estimates when it is only asking for a token amount to be voted. When they are important matters they should be put on the main Estimates and they should be available for discussion on the main Estimates and treated with the importance that they deserve. I do not intend to go into detail because we shall deal with this in the Committee but I hope that the Minister will be able to reply to some of the questions I have asked before we go into Committee.

Mr. Speaker, when one examines these Additional Estimates, I think what strikes one most is not the quantum asked for but the various heads under which the amounts appear under the particular Votes. One usually accepts that there will be Additional Estimates during the period between one Budget and another, but the Additional Estimates, one believes, are meant to provide for exigencies and matters that have arisen since the last Budget. What strikes one in these Additional Estimates is that in so many cases there is one item in the Estimates which has simply been increased throughout. The classic example is the one mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia, namely the question of salaries and wages. It is almost unbelievable that six months after the Budget, without there being any increase in salaries and wages, of which we are aware, apart from those which took place, as the hon. the Minister said, with effect from 1st January, 1966, and which were provided for in the last Budget, we should suddenly find ourselves facing an increase actually not of 30 per cent, because if you take virement into account the increase is R16 million on R34 million, an increase of 46 per cent. This is not over a period of 12 months because only six months have passed since the last Budget. I think that this House is certainly entitled to an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why when the Budget was framed in August, 1966, R34 million was asked for to cover salaries and wages, the Government being well aware at that stage of the increases that were granted, while the hon. the Minister comes to this House to-day and says that he needs another increase of R16 million or an increase of 46 per cent. Something has gone wrong somewhere. It is almost impossible for budgeting to be out to this extent.

The hon. the Minister has told us that the full effect of these increases was not known. I think that that statement requires elaborating. Surely the full effect should have been known in August, 1966, when the salary increases were made retrospective from 1st January, 1966. He had eight months to decide what the extra salaries were going to be. This pattern is followed throughout the rest of these Additional Estimates. If you take for example the Vote of Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services you will find that under one heading there is an increase of 100 per cent. Under another sub-head in Vote 10 you will find an increase of 30 per cent and under another you will find an increase of 20 per cent.

Order! Those matters may be discussed in Committee.

The point I am raising is that we do not object to an isolated increase under a particular Vote for a particular item. When one particular item such as salaries and wages or telephone expenditure has been increased throughout under all the Votes there seems to be something radically wrong in the original budgeting. We want to know from the hon. the Minister why the pattern flows through every single Vote. As the hon. member for Constantia said it is impossible for every department to make an error in its budgeting.

The hon. member said himself that the point has been made.

This flows into other items. Mr. Speaker, at your request I shall be brief. I think that what we want from the hon. the Minister of Finance is not so much an explanation for individual items which we will certainly ask of the individual Ministers. What we want to know from the hon. the Minister is the reason for this general increase in specific items of expenditure flowing right through the Additional Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, it is not customary to go into all these matters in detail. It is also clear that it will be of no use for us to hold a general discussion at this stage. The replies required by hon. members on the other side will be given to them when we discuss the Votes in detail and then we shall see the reason for the increase in that expenditure. However, I want to agree with the hon. member for Constantia on the general principle, namely that it is the task of a government and a Minister of Finance to submit Estimates which are as accurate as possible and, as far as it is humanly possible, to see to it that the amounts furnished in the Estimates are as accurate as possible. The hon. member for Constantia will agree with me that this is not always possible in a growing economy, in a country where conditions are liquid and where so many demands are made upon the State from time to time. It is impossible for any framer of Estimates to foresee a year in advance precisely what demands will be made upon the State. I want to tell the hon. member that I agree with him on the general principle and that we as a government will to the best of our ability always endeavour, as we have done in the past, to make the Estimates as accurate as possible. However, new circumstances have now arisen here, especially in respect of salaries. Hon. members on the other side apparently intend making great play of the Estimates in respect of salaries. When I took over this portfolio, I tried to investigate this matter personally, because it worried me too that there were such large increases in respect of salaries in general. I tried to ascertain the reasons for these increases. I was generally assured by the various departments that by as early as the middle of last year it had been impossible to form an accurate estimate of the additional amount the new salaries would cost the State. It was only towards the end of September, when the Estimates had already been printed, that we formed a more or less accurate idea of the additional expenditure in respect of salaries, because it was not merely an increase in salaries. It would not have been so difficult, but in this respect we had to deal with a new structure in the Public Service which had to be worked out. It was an entirely new structure and new posts which had been established. Added to that there was the fact that certain departments had been fortunate in that they had recruited new officials in the past year. In other words, additional officials were added to their establishment, and this could not have been foreseen. All these elements taken together made this matter a particularly complicated one. The various Ministers will be able to explain those items. In the third place, I also want to tell hon. members this: On the whole the hon. member for Constantia spoke of the tremendous increase in expenditure. I also mentioned it. We are concerned here with additional expenditure only. If hon. members look at these Estimates, they will find that tremendous savings have also been effected. You will find that under one item of Defence, for instance, there was a saving of more than R35 million. Not only was there expenditure which has to be accounted for, but there was also a considerable amount in extra savings, which has been recorded here. I think that it is not my duty to continue this general discussion any further, but that we should leave that to the individual Ministers.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, we should like to know more about the additional expenditure of R26,200.

Mr. Chairman, under sub-head A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances, the anticipated saving is R4,500. That is attributable to the differences in salary adjustments, various staff changes, and so forth. The hon. member will notice that there is a decrease. Under sub-head C the amount is R1,300. This is a question of under-estimation. Nor do I think that that hon. member is interested in the R800 under sub-head D. [Interjections.] I am referring here to the amount of R800 in respect of printing, stationery, advertisements and publications. I am giving you full details of the amount, as you requested. The large amount which is responsible for this increase is R33,100. This amount is in respect of the expenditure incurred in connection with the State funeral of the late Prime Minister.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 7,—Provincial Administrations, R2,259,100:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why there is such a large increase of more than R2 million. What I particularly want to know from him is why this only applies to the Province of the Transvaal and not to the other provinces.

Mr. Chairman, this amount relates to the subsidies paid to the provinces each year. In actual fact it does not apply to the Province of the Transvaal only. It also applies to the Cape and to the Free State, but we are able to meet the subsidies paid to the Cape and the Free State from other savings. That is in fact the reason why the money is being voted in respect of the Transvaal only. This amount which is being voted in respect of the Transvaal is required because, just as in the case of the other provinces, there was a deficit owing to increased expenditure in respect of salaries, additional officials and allowances for pensioners and other services. This resulted mainly from an under-estimation by the Transvaal of their expenditure in respect of salaries. Unfortunately the expenditure was calculated wrongly because wrong figures had been supplied to the officials, and as a result the amounts required were under-estimated.

I think that the Minister of Finance has now made a very serious admission, namely that a major error was made in connection with the Estimates submitted to the Treasury by the Province of the Transvaal, an error to the extent of more than R2 million. That is something unheard of. I think that it is something which is so outrageous that the hon. the Minister ought to investigate the matter to ensure that something like this will never again happen in the future. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain to us how this happened. The provinces prepare their estimates and submit them to the Treasury. The Treasury has to examine those estimates. How then was it possible for the Treasury with all its staff not to have noticed this tremendous error amounting to more than R2 million—and it is more than that if the savings are included; I think it is almost R3Ɛ million—and for him as Minister not to have noticed it either? What went wrong there? Can he give us the assurance that steps will be taken in future to check these estimates which are submitted to him by the provinces and, of course, particularly those submitted by the Transvaal? As the hon. the Minister has admitted, the position is that one of the most important items, namely more than R3 million in respect of the salaries of teachers, was calculated wrongly. There are teachers whose salaries were not reflected in the estimates according to law, and who were nevertheless paid. Now, after the time, the province asks the Minister for more money and upsets his entire estimates as well as the entire estimates of the Province of the Transvaal.

Order! Where does the hon. member get the figure of R3 million in respect of teachers? It is not mentioned here.

the Minister said that it was in respect of salaries for teachers. The Minister said—in respect of salaries for teachers—that they had been calculated wrongly. I think I am right.

The hon. member may not suggest reasons. He may ask for reasons.

May I therefore ask the hon. the Minister through you, Mr. Chairman, whether it is in connection with those salaries? He said that, not so?

Yes.

Yes, the hon. the Minister did say that.

The hon. member may continue.

I want to conclude by saying that I hope that we shall receive a reply from the hon. the Minister, especially in connection with the salaries of teachers in the Transvaal. This is an unheard-of state of affairs.

I just want to tell the hon. member that that is a fact which I admit openly. There is no need for me to conceal it. A human error crept into the calculations of the provinces. It was a human error for which the Treasury was not responsible. Figures were compiled in respect of which the province made an erroneous calculation which was sent through to the Treasury. I can assure the hon. member that as far as I am concerned, I shall try to the best of my ability to eliminate, where possible, such errors in future.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 8,—South Africa House, London: Administrative Services, R22,000:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that this amount is almost double the original Estimates. Has the British Postmaster-General been following our Minister’s example? Why is this estimate in regard to telegraph and telephone services so far out?

This is mainly due to the fact that since February, 1966, provision has been made on this Vote for the cost of postal, telegraph and telephone services of all departments housed in South Africa House. Previously they were separated. Now the costs of all the departments have been pooled in one Vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 10,—Inland Revenue, R952,216:

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. The first is in regard to the increase in salaries and wages by R417,500. The second is in regard to the increase in respect of postal, telegraph and telephone services by an amount of R20,400.

The increase in salaries, wages and allowances is firstly due to the increase in the establishment of the department with effect from 1st January, 1966. Secondly it is due to salary adjustments, thirdly to the regrading of certain posts, fourthly, to advancement through efficiency in terms of Public Service Commission circular No. 5 of 1966, and fifthly to further salary adjustments in terms of a Public Service Commission circular. The increase is therefore in connection with regrading, higher salaries and wages and more employees.

In regard to the telephone services, there was an increase of R300 as a result of the exceptionally high number of detailed telegrams sent to all receivers of revenue in connection with amendments to the Transfer Duty Act, which came into immediate operation. A shortfall of approximately R300 is anticipated in respect of this item—a small amount. As regards telephone services, the increase is due to, firstly, a general expansion of the department and, secondly, salary adjustments with effect from 1st January, 1966, of telephone operators, and, thirdly, the increased tariff applicable to local calls with effect from 1st January, 1967.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Finance said that we could obtain full details from the Minister concerned when we came to his Vote. Here is one item in respect of the hon. the Minister. He said that one of the reasons why the salaries over-all had increased was that some departments had been fortunate enough to recruit increased staff. He said that we could obtain details from the various Ministers. Can the Minister tell us to what extent the staff of the Department of Inland Revenue has been increased in the course of this year? In what respects is the increase due to additional staff? The Minister gave a number of reasons, for instance regrading and the provision of funds therefor. He also mentioned extra staff. I ask the hon. the Minister this, Sir, because I am going to ask every Minister this question. I hope he will set a very good example to his colleagues by telling us to what extent the Inland Revenue Department has been successful in increasing its staff in the course of last year. The other question relates to posts and telegraphs. At the end of the reasons for increased costs of posts and telegraphs and telephone services the Minister in a rather small voice said, lastly, the increase in telephone charges. Could the Minister pluck up courage and tell us just what the increased cost to his department is as a result of increased telephone charges?

The increase in the establishment is as follows. In regard to permanent posts there was an increase from 2,091 to 2,298, and in the case of temporary posts the corresponding figures were 524 and 605. There was thus an increase of 288 on the establishment. The exact amount for telephone services is R20,000, including the three items referred to. I cannot say to what extent the increased tariff has increased the figures because that would be merely guess-work.

That is not the amount of the increase?

Yes. The total increase of telephone services.

How much is due to the increase in tariffs?

I cannot tell you that.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister explain to us what this last item, namely “Special Marriage Licence”, is? This is the first time that I have noticed anybody being so lucky as to get RIO back on his marriage licence.

On 18th May, 1966, Adam J. Kock and Elizabeth van der Westhuizen applied at the magistrate’s office at Postmasburg for a special marriage licence so that a marriaue ceremony could be performed over them. After all the documents had been completed it appeared that the consent to the marriage which had been handed in by Miss Van der Westhuizen, who was a minor, had been signed by a relative and her parents had actually refused to give their consent. Consequently the marriage ceremony was not conducted by the assistant magistrate, nor did he sign the marriage licence. He wanted to cancel the licence, but since the money which had been paid for it had already been entered in the books and banked, it was not possible to do so. So I can go on with the whole story.

In his reply to the hon. member for Parktown the hon. the Minister twice mentioned the readjustment of salaries as one of the reasons for the increased expenditure under sub-head A. We, however, were under the impression, however, that there had been an adjustment of salaries before the general Estimates. Can the Minister give us more information in regard to this readjustment of salaries since the Estimates? Did the previous adjustments not work out satisfactorily, or are these new adjustments? If so, can we be told what they were? Why is more money being requested at this stage for the adjustment of salaries?

These are still the same salary adjustments which extended over the period of one year, but the effect of which could not be calculated earlier on in the year.

Was it not possible to furnish us with full information at the time of the Main Estimates?

We could not obtain that information. As I have said, we could not, in the Estimates of August, 1966, foresee what the effect of the salary increases over the full year would be.

Mr. Chairman, there are quite a large number of items under sub-head H, “Refunds and Remissions of Grace or Favour”. I think the largest one is RƉ million, and I would be glad to have an explanation as to why this RƉ million was refunded in the case of Jayem (Pty.) Ltd.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member will forgive me for not going into this matter in detail. I can give the hon. member the assurance that this is a case of a company which had always met its obligations to the State. However. as a result of its bookkeeping system, it found itself in difficulties in regard to undistributed profits. The company entered into its books in one year the profits which it was only to receive in the next. They paid out those profits and therefore did not pay any undistributed profits tax because they had paid out everything they had received, which had been entered into its books. In the following year, the year in which the profits were actually made, they could not pay them out because they had already been paid out the previous year. The company was then assessed for undistributed profits. If its bookkeeping system had been correct, it would not have had to pay that amount. It was all-in-all a bona fide case which was only due to the fact that the company paid out its profits too soon instead of doing so in the year in which they had actually been received.

Order! I put the Vote. Agreed to. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman …

Order! But why does the hon. member not stand up when I put the Vote? It has happened before. [Interjections.] Order! Would the hon. member please resume his seat first. After I had clearly put the Vote I looked to see if anybody had stood up, and nobody had. I then stated that the Vote had been agreed to. I now put Revenue Vote 11.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, on a point of order, the hon. member for Transkei was standing while you put the Vote … [Interjections.]

No, he was not. The hon. member for Yeoville cannot see the hon. member for Transkei behind his back! I now put Revenue Vote 11. Are there any objections?

Revenue Vote 11,—Customs and Excise, R289,100:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to Sub-head G, “Refunds and Remissions of Grace or Favour.” Can the hon. the Minister give us further details of this Sub-head?

Does the hon. member want information about all the items?

I should like more details about item G, “Refunds and Remissions of Grace or Favour”, particularly in regard to the last amount of R11,488, and also in regard to the item of R25,942 in respect of Caltex.

The position in connection with the last item, “Gilbey-Santhagens (Pty.) Ltd.”, R11,488, is as follows: 832 gallons of cane spirit representing 800.41 gallons of absolute alcohol, was lost as the result of a leakage caused by a tear in the plastic packing surrounding the outlet of a storage tank in the company’s customs and excise storage warehouse. The loss occurred over the weekend 23 to 25 April, 1965. The excise duty on the 800.41 gallons of absolute alcohol amounted to R 11,488. This is just a repayment of excise on the alcohol that was lost.

The position pertaining to the ex gratia payment of customs duty to Caltex (Africa) Limited, Cape Town, is that on the 19th September, 1962, the Government gave, inter alia, the following assurance to Caltex in connection with the refinery at Cape Town—

The amount of R25,942 represents duty paid by Caltex up to and including the 25th December, 1966, and not yet refunded to them.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 13,—“Transport, R2.893,060”.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain why there is such a big difference of 25 per cent in item L, “Loss on Operation of Railway Bantu Passenger Services to and from Bantu Townships”. The hon. the Minister will notice that the original estimate was R8,800,000 and that an additional R2,400,000 is now to be voted—an increase of over 25 per cent.

The increase is owing to (1) the increased salaries and wages which were introduced with effect from 1st October, 1966, and (2) the acquisition of additional rolling stock for the transportation of Bantu passengers with the resultant increase in interest and value depreciation.

I should be very glad if the hon. the Minister could give us some information in regard to item A, “Salaries, Wages and Allowances”, where an additional amount of R381,500 is being requested. We had the Estimates about five or six months ago, and it is a little surprising that such a miscalculation took place months after the Department had already known what the increase would be. In the second instance I would like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Transkei said, i.e. that the reply of the hon. the Minister was not a very satisfactory one. Must we really assume that it is as a result of an increase of salaries and wages in the Department of Transport or the Railways …

It has nothing to do with Transport. It relates to the Railways.

But the item appears in this Vote.

Yes. The Central Government is compensating the Railways in the Transport Vote.

That is a very friendly gesture on the part of the Central Government, but the question is why we should vote the money. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that the additional amount is mainly attributable to the increase in salaries and wages.

Yes.

Must we really assume now that the increase in salaries and wages in the Railways by the Department of Transport …

Order! Surely the hon. member knows that the Department of Transport is not the Department of Railways. I just want to point out to the hon. member that we are dealing here with the Department of Transport. The subsidy for which provision is being made here has nothing to do with the Railways.

But the Deputy Minister said so.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, may I just draw your attention to item L, “Loss on Operation of Railway Bantu Passenger Services to and from Bantu Townships”?

That is the subsidy to which I referred.

Yes, it is the item I am discussing. We are being asked to vote this money.

I was under the impression that the hon. member was discussing item A, “Salaries, Wages and Allowances”. The hon. member may continue.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; we now understand each other. We are a little confused here. Mr. Chairman, any man with normal intelligence who is brought face to face with such a state of affairs by an incompetent Government can only be confused and at a loss. It is inexplicable that we are being called upon to believe that an increase of salaries and wages means an increase of more than R2 million on an item of R8 million.

It is attributable to the acquisition of additional rolling stock.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister take us into his confidence then and indicate to us what percentage is attributable to an increase in wages and what percentage is attributable to the acquisition of rolling stock?

I am not at all surprised that the hon. member for Yeoville is confused; he is often very confused as far as Railway matters are concerned. The position is that the Central Government is compensating the Railways for these losses which have been suffered. The hon. member knows that as well as I do; it is an old principle. We cannot argue about it.

We can.

No, we cannot, the Chairman would rule us out of order. The position is that the Department of Transport has absolutely nothing to do with it. Provision is made in the Transport Vote for the compensation which is being paid by the Central Government to the S.A. Railways. We must accept the reason the S.A. Railways have given to the Department of Transport for an additional R190,000 being required. I have already given the hon. member the explanation the S.A. Railways gave for this increase of R 190,000.

R 190,000?

Excuse me, not R 190,000, but R2,400,000.

Who is confused now?

I have already furnished the hon. member with the reasons. The first reason is the increased salaries and wages payable to railway staff with effect from 1st October, 1966, and the second reason I gave is the acquisition of additional rolling stock for the conveyance of Bantu passengers, with the resultant increase in interest and value depreciation.

What percentage is attributable to the acquisition of rolling stock and what percentage is attributable to the increased salaries and wages?

No, that I do not know; the Railways Administration did not furnish the Department of Transport with details.

I should like to ascertain from the hon. the Minister of Finance whether this amount is being paid blindly? We should like to know what precautionary measures are being taken by the Treasury, what inquiries the Treasury made and to what extent the Treasury itself is satisfied that this amount has in fact been spent. I must now understand from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Railways that the Railways submits an account to the Treasury in respect of losses on the transportation of Bantu passengers which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education is evicting from the cities. The Railways receive a subsidy on the loss on railway operation costs in respect of Bantu passenger services. The subsidy has increased by more than R2 million and the hon. the Deputy Minister says that in the first instance the increase is attributable to an increase in salaries and wages, an increase which was well known when the main Estimates were submitted. No additional amount ought to be requested. He says that the increase is attributable in the second place to the purchase of additional rolling stock, but the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot tell us what amount represents increases in salaries and wages and what amount additional rolling stock. In other words, the Treasury has apparently not been informed. Could the hon. the Minister of Finance give us more information? Does the Ministry of Transport merely call upon the Treasury for the payment of so many millions, and does the Treasury simply pay up? Is there any control? [Interjections.] No, I do not want to ask the hon. the Minister of Railways for an explanation; I want this information from the hon. the Minister of Finance. Was this amount of R2,400,000 voted by the Treasury without the details having been submitted to the Treasury? If the details were furnished, could the hon. the Minister tell me how much of this increase is attributable to additional rolling stock and how much is attributable to increased salaries and wages? I would be grateful to ascertain that from him.

I just want to say that it is obvious of course that the Department of Finance, or the Treasury, goes into all the amounts which are submitted by the relevant Ministers very thoroughly. The Auditor-General is also there to go into these things, but it is for the Department in question to furnish those details.

I think the hon. the Minister of Finance has strengthened our case considerably. As a Parliament we are not prepared to vote money when the Deputy Minister concerned is unable to give any details. Perhaps the Minister himself could give us the details, and I would ask him specifically to deal with this aspect. The increase is approximately 25 per cent. We are told by the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is due to increased salaries, which were certainly not 25 per cent, but only about 7½ per cent, and also to an increase in rolling stock, whereas the figures available indicate that the figures for the increase in third-class railway passenger traffic which is covered by this item do not even get near 25 per cent. If I remember rightly, it was 8 per cent or 9 per cent. So with the increase in traffic being not even half the percentage increase asked for here, and the increase in salaries and wages being only a fraction of this, there must be some other reason for this increase which we believe we are entitled to obtain from the Department. We are not to be bulldozed into voting money where there is no explanation whatsoever of why that money is required. That is our task here, and although the Government may think that it can do as it likes, it cannot do as it likes.

May I just explain again? It is a question of the Central Government having compensated the Railways under the Transport Vote, and the Department of Transport as such has nothing to do with it. It is a matter between the Railways Administration and the Treasury. The Railways Administration has furnished the reasons for this increase. How would it help hon. members now to know what amount was for salaries and wages, and what amount for traffic? [Interjection.] Next week they have the opportunity of discussing it in full under the Railway Estimates.

Next week the money has been voted and then it is an accomplished fact. We as members of the House of Assembly are being asked to vote money and keep a watchful eye over the spending of the nation’s money. Here we have a case where the Department of Transport came to the Treasury and requested millions of rand, and when we ask why the money is necessary, we are shown two heads, but no details are given. We then turn to the Minister of Finance, and he says we must ask the Department. Why must we ask the Department? Surely the Treasury votes the money; the Treasury gives the money to the Department of Transport. The least we can expect from a Government which does its business properly is that the Treasury will say: “Good, you can get the money if you need it, but what do you need it for?” But here a blank cheque is being made out. It is being said here that they want it to cover losses, but not the slightest interest is taken in what the losses are and whether it is justified or not, or whether it is something on which the nation’s money can, in fact, be spent. Unless we can get a reply to the fair question which we are asking, and that is, in respect of what losses are these millions of rand being requested from Parliament, we will be obliged to oppose this item and call for a division of the House of Assembly. We would not like to do so. We want to afford the Deputy Minister an opportunity of telling us what, we want to know, or we want to ask the Minister or the Minister of Finance: As guardian of the nation’s purse, what did you find out in regard to this tremendous amount which is being requested? If we cannot get this information we will be obliged to refuse this amount.

One almost gets the impression that this is the first time an item such as this has appeared on the Estimates. Every construction bill which has been submitted to this House, where a new railway-line has been constructed, contains an agreement, a guarantee agreement to the effect that the Treasury will compensate the Railways for any losses, and this House has approved it every time. The House is aware of the guarantee agreement. In addition it provides that the Railways will submit certified accounts to the Treasury and that everything will be settled once every five years. If too little or too much has been paid the account will be rectified, but each year provision is made for an estimated loss—not an actual loss but an estimated loss. Anybody who knows anything about railways will surely know that it is impossible to say at the end of February or the beginning of March precisely what the loss on a specific service for the following 12 months is going to be. Nobody is that allknowing. That hon. member will not be able to say within 50 per cent, never mind 25 per cent. He does not have the least knowledge in that regard, and will never have it either. It is impossible to calculate precisely what the loss is going to be for the 12 months which lie ahead when you do not know what the increase in passengers is going to be, and you do not know precisely when your new rolling stock is going to be delivered and when the depreciation and interest on that capital will have to be calculated, and when you do not know precisely what the increase in wages for specific staff will be. It is quite impossible to determine all those things at the beginning of the year. It is only at the end of the year that it is more or less possible for you to determine what the real loss was. and that is what has happened in this case. It was calculated in the beginning of the year that the loss would amount to approximately R8 million. It has now been found that that loss will apparently be R2.4 million more. The Department of Transport is merely the bookkeeping department in regard to this matter. All that the Department of Transport has to do with it is see that this amount comes on the Estimates Vote instead of on the Estimates Vote Treasury, just as in the case of the next Item 11. But if the hon. member is so curious to know what the real reasons for that increase were, he must ask Railways and not the Department of Transport. He has ample opportunity to ascertain all the details in the debate next week. But these accounts are certified and handed over to the Treasury, after that the Auditor General also comes into the picture and he goes into those accounts. After these have been properly taken care of, and after it has been ascertained that unnecessary money is not being taken from the public’s pocket this amount is voted. I think the hon. member is quite out of order to want to know from the Department of Transport what the details are of an account which the Railways have submitted to them. He must ask the Railways.

I want to point out to the hon. member that the hon. the Minister has explained this matter very well now, i.e. that this matter falls under the Railways, and I am not going to allow a general discussion on this matter under this Vote.

Mr. Chairman. I want your advice please because these two Ministers are contradicting one another completely now. It is all good and well to say here that I must accept the word of the Minister of Transport, but what about the Minister of Finance. A moment ago he told me I must not ask him about this amount, although he is the man who is asking us to vote the money. He said I must ask the Department of Transport. Now the hon. the Minister of Transport comes along and says that I must not ask the Department of Transport. Where do we stand as members of this House? [Interjections.] He has just said that.

Mr. Chairman, I shall explain to the hon. member again what I have just said. I told him that the Department of Transport is the bookkeeping department. The excess amount paid to the Railways appears under the Transport Vote. That is the extent to which the Department of Transport is concerned in the matter. The reasons given by the Railways to the Treasury for this amount having been needed have been explained by the Deputy Minister of Transport. It has been explained that there were increases in salaries. It has been explained that more rolling stock was taken into service.

How much additional rolling stock?

Does the hon. member want to know what happened to each penny of that R2 million? Surely it is foolish to ask questions like that. Mr. Chairman, I find this a nonsensical debate: the questions which are being asked are foolish too. The hon. member ought to know better. I am not saying that he knows better but that he ought to know better and that he ought also to know that one cannot account for every penny of R2.400.000 in this House. It is not done, nor can it be done, nor will it be done. What is done is that the broad general reasons are explained. If the hon. member wishes I can have the details worked out for him to give him an account of each cent and each rand in respect of this amount.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister can become personal if he likes but it will not help him to do so. There is a very simple point before this House. We are being asked now, not next week, to vote a further amount of more than R2 million of the taxpayer’s money in respect of losses which were suffered by the Railways. The Minister has informed this House that we should merely go ahead and vote this amount: then, next week, when it is an accomplished fact, we may discuss this matter. What restitution is there then for this House? The amount has been voted and it is a thing of the past. I cannot understand how an experienced Parliamentarian such as the hon. Minister of Transport can suggest in the Parliament of South Africa that we must vote the money and discuss it later when it is an accomplished fact. It is also difficult to understand why the Minister should suggest that we are so stupid that we are asking him to give a separate account of every cent spent. Surely it is ridiculous to say that. Nobody is asking for that. I am asking a very simple question. I say that the Department of Transport and the Depart ment of Finance should be able to tell us how much of this amount of more than R2 million was needed for increased salaries and how much was needed for the purchase of rolling stock. I am asking for two figures. I am not interested in cents. What I am interested in are two amounts and two heads which were mentioned not by me but by the Deputy Minister of Transport. What is to become of Parliament if we conduct our business in such a way? What becomes of Parliamentary control over finances? What kind of nonsense is this on the part of the Ministry? It is an impossible state of affairs and I am asking once again, courteously but urgently. “Before we vote this amount we want to know why we are voting it”. The increase in salaries amounted to approximately 7 per cent. An increase of more than 25 per cent is being asked for here. What is going to happen to the balance?’

The hon. member must stop repeating himself. Each member who rises asks the same question. Perhaps there is no reply. That is no concern of mine.

Mr. Chairman, it is our concern. We as members of the House of Assembly are entitled to an answer to a fair question which is within the scope of the knowledge of the Ministers of this House. I am asking you to allow me to insist on a reply; otherwise you would be siding with the Cabinet, and that you would never do.

I am not taking any sides. It is merely that I do not want repetition.

Mr. Chairman, you are not getting a repetition. All you are getting from me is one question and I am only asking for one reply; then the matter is closed. Until I receive the reply you cannot say that I am repeating myself. If the question is replied to and I then come forward with the same question you may say that I am repeating. Until such time as I have received a reply there is no question of repetition. I am asking very politely, but urgently that the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Minister of Finance should tell us for what purpose the House of Assembly must vote this money—either that or they must say they do not know.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said clearly that there were certified accounts rendered and that this money was paid against certified accounts submitted by the Railways Administration to the Department of Transport. Where are those accounts? Who has those accounts—the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Finance? Or do the Minister of Transport and the Department of Transport simply pay out money without knowing what they are paying for? The hon. the Prime Minister interjected that this was a statutory amount. Of course he is quite incorrect. The fact that money is paid is a statutory decision but the amount to be paid is a matter for calculation. It is a matter for calculation based on the cost of running the services and the revenue received from those services.

On certificate.

Yes, now where is this certificate? Who has got this certificate? What is on it? The Minister of Railways must have given the Minister of Transport a certificate and on it he must state that the cost is X, the revenue is Y and he requires the difference. It appears now that the Minister of Transport is simply signing a cheque without any backing for the account against which he is paying it. He is merely being told, “I want another R21 million”. He does not ask any questions and he cannot give any answers to the questions we ask. If there are certificates somebody has got them. Who is sitting on those certificates? In whose file are they? Are they in the file of the Department of Railways, the Department of Transport or the Minister of Finance or is the Department of Bantu Administration sitting on it? We state that there is not a 25 per cent increase in wages nor in the traffic. Therefore Unless we know what makes up the actual increase in traffic and therefore the actual costs which are likely to have been incurred and the differences between the increase in wages and what is actually being charged, there must be some hidden factor in this increase. There are to my knowledge no new lines which have been opened up in the course of this year which could account for this amount.

There is a Bantu in the woodpile.

I think that the hon. member may have something there. They do not have woodpiles but coal stacks and we want to know what is behind that coal stack or the electric stack which accounts for this increase. To our knowledge there is no new major line which could account for it and no new major service and no increase relative to this percentage on any of the new lines or of the existing lines anywhere in South Africa. It is quite clear that if there is a certificate that certificate must indicate the facts. This House is entitled to those facts. I submit that we are entitled to go on pressing until we get that information from the Government.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be accused again of being personal, but when one has to deal with a debate such as this, one sometimes cannot help it. This amount has been voted all these years. It is an accepted thing.

And you got away with it.

Does the hon. member think that I have put the money in my pocket? That is the kind of stupid remark one is used to hearing from that side of the House. It has nothing to do with getting away with it. What happens is this. We have not even reached the end of the current financial year. The current financial year ends at the end of March. What happens here is that we say to the Treasury at the beginning of the year: “This is what the estimated loss over the year is on these services.” That was done at the beginning of the year, and it is now found that the losses are going to be greater. The Railways are now asking for an additional R2,400,400. The Treasury must accept it in terms of the guarantee agreement. They must pay it. The Treasury has no option, but from time to time the accounts are properly audited. If there was any excess payment by the Treasury to the Railways, then it is rectified. If there were any underpayments, these are also rectified. The actual losses are determined when those accounts are audited. If the hon. member displays no interest in this, then it is just an indication of how useless this debate is. He sits and converses with members behind him while I am replying. That proves that they are not serious about this. They are merely talking.

I am still waiting for the reply.

If the hon. member would open his ears and listen he would hear the reply. The reply is simply that the Railways is submitting an account to the Treasury in which they say: Our estimated loss for the entire year is so much.

What does the account state?

The account states: This is the amount which must be paid. In broad, general terms it is being stated, as my colleague said, that it is mainly attributable to, say, three factors, i.e. salary increases, additional rolling stock on which interest and value depreciation must be calculated, and additional passengers who have to be transported. It is not stated on any certificate that these are the actual losses. No certified account, with all the details of this amount of R2,400,400, is sent to the Treasury. It is the estimated loss for the entire year. When the accounts are drawn up and when it is being determined what the actual loss by the Treasury and the Railways was, the Treasury is compensated if there were any excess payments. If there were any underpayments on the other hand, they have to reimburse the amount. It has happened in the past that there were underpayments and that additional payments had to take place. Whether hon. members like it or not, that is the procedure which is followed. They can argue as long as they wish, but that is the procedure which was followed, which is being followed and which will be followed in the future.

Are private guaranteed lines treated on exactly the same basis?

No, agreements are entered into. That is done on another basis.

Mr. Chairman, although the Minister has now intervened himself, the position still remains as unsatisfactory as it was when we started. I should like to remind the Minister of this. He said that whether we liked it or not, this is the procedure and this is the practice and this is the way it has been done and will continue to be done. I submit that we should not be told that whether we like it or not, this is the way it is going to be done. The Minister would not run his private affairs in this manner. I should like to remind the Minister that at this particular time there is a cry from the Treasury and from the Governor of the Reserve Bank that we must save money to avoid inflation. When a call is made on the small man to watch his finances and to see that he does not waste his money, I submit that it is quite unreasonable to come to this House and to ask us to give money in this manner, without being able to tell us how it is arrived at. On every other vote and in regard to all the other expenditure here, we are entitled to get up and ask as we have got up and we have received exact information as to how the money is spent. The Minister of Finance himself has said that the Minister responsible must give us the information. It is not for the Minister to say that they are merely bookkeepers. If they are bookkeepers, we are the people who are going to pay. They are our bookkeepers and we as the employers are entitled to say: You are our bookkeepers. Tell us how this amount is arrived at. I shall tell you why, Sir. The Deputy Minister said that it was for an increase in salaries and for rolling stock. Now it is quite obvious that that cannot be all. Those two items cannot make up more than 25 per cent. The Minister himself has said that there is an additional amount. The Minister has introduced something more. He says that there is a loss because of carrying additional passengers. The Deputy Minister did not give us that information. He never mentioned that. Now we want to know how many additional passengers have been carried. It must be an infinitesimal number.

This is an estimated amount.

Will the Minister tell me why he gives a different answer from what the Deputy Minister gave us? I do not know whether the Minister was listening. The Deputy Minister only mentioned two items. Now the Minister himself has given more information. We are certain that the Minister’s reply is the correct one, and not the Deputy Minister’s reply. That is why we want more information. You see, Sir, it is so unreasonable. We are told that less Natives are being employed in the towns. Less Natives will therefore have to be conveyed. We are told that there is to be a general reduction of 5 per cent. Are we to understand that with a 5 per cent reduction of Natives, the cost goes up by 25 per cent?

That has not yet started.

It has not even started yet! That makes us more worried than ever. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must come back to this amount of R2,400,000. If the hon. member wants to discuss Native policy, I must rule him out of order.

I am not discussing Native policy, Sir.

Yes, the hon. member is.

I am discussing this subsidy and pointing out that with the reduced number of Natives it is costing more to carry them. I am discussing the subsidy which we have to pay. It seems that these Ministers are not able to give us the information. I therefore move—

There is an old saying which goes: You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. That is what is happening with the Opposition now. One can explain as much as you like, but they cannot understand it, either that or they do not want to understand it. It astonishes me that so-called sensible people can adopt this kind of attitude. I am quite flabbergasted. If they had the least understanding of business, they ought to know that when money is appropriated for a year, one merely needs an estimated amount. After the end of the financial year, and when the accounts are drawn up, then only are the final figures calculated. Now the hon. member has that foolish smile on his face, I cannot believe it. Let me now try to explain, like a school teacher to his pupils, how the matter works. Perhaps they will then understand it. Even the Leader of the Opposition cannot understand it. It is no wonder they are sitting there. Let me once again try to explain. An estimate is made of the estimated losses which will be suffered during the year. Accounts cannot be drawn up before the end of the financial year.

When are these estimates made?

It is properly drawn up when we have all the details in regard to expenditure and income. They are then audited and the estimates are made. At the beginning of the year estimates are made of the losses for the year on these specific services. At the end of the year it is found that the losses are going to be greater than the original estimate.

When were these estimates made?

The estimates were made in February of last year, as usual. Is the hon. member not aware when estimates are made for the following year? Then why does he ask such a stupid question? When I introduce my estimate on Wednesday all my expenditure and income for the next year are estimates which have been made. Is the hon. member aware of that, or is he not aware of that? Does he realize that these are estimates which are being made? [Interjections.]

The estimates were originally made at the beginning of the year. As I have said, I must now try and teach them. In any case, estimates are made for the coming year. Provision is made in the estimates for the possible losses which may be suffered on a specific service in that year. At the end of the year it is found, as in the case of all additional amounts, that the estimated losses are going to be greater than the amount which was estimated. Now the Railways says to the Treasury: We originally estimated that the losses would amount to R8,800,000. We now find that for the current year the apparent losses are going to be R2,400,000. We can as yet not say what the precise amount will be. That is impossible. The financial year only ends in March. Unless one is a soothsayer or somebody who can see into the future, one cannot say what the actual loss will be until the end of March. That is the estimated loss—an amount of R 11,200,000 for this current year. The Railways informed the Treasury what the apparent reasons for that loss were. There are, after all hundreds of different small reasons why an amount larger than the originally estimated amount is required. Amongst other things there were salary increases. If overtime has to be paid, additional payments have to be made. It cannot be said at the beginning of the year how much overtime will have to be worked. Surely that is impossible.

You estimate that?

Yes.

Every item?

Everything is estimated, but one can never say precisely what it will be. We are a business undertaking; is the hon. member not aware of that? We are not a penny-ha’penny shop in one of the small country towns. Estimates are made for the year ahead and it is estimated what the deficit is going to be in respect of losses on those specific services. The actual loss will not be known before two or three months have elapsed, until such time as the accounts have been checked by the Auditor-General. Then only will we know what the actual position is. In terms of the guarantee agreement is it the case that when the accounts are finally audited and there has been an excess payment, it must be paid to the Treasury or carried over into the following year. If there has been an underpayment, it must be settled by the Treasury. All that the Railways are doing at this stage, before the accounts have been properly audited, is to give the general, the main reasons why the additional amount was necessary. There have been additional salaries. That also includes overtime, as well as Sunday time. That expenditure may be even greater than was originally estimated. It includes additional interest, and value depreciation of new stock purchased. It also includes the fact that additional trains were operated and that there were more passengers. A hundred and one different items are included, which all contributed to making the expenditure greater. It is quite simple. I hope hon. members will understand it now. That gentleman will never understand anything—it does not help explaining anything to him. I will not get it into his head even though I use a sledge hammer to din it into his head.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Transport has attempted to address us as a school master. I want to suggest, however, that he should rather act school master to the Deputy Minister, because the Deputy Minister indicated initially that this additional loss was due to …

Order! That point has been made over and over again. The Deputy Minister gave three reasons and the Minister gave additional reasons.

He has not made his point yet.

Mr. Chairman, the point was that the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that this was due to two heads. Then the Minister himself indicated that it was impossible to say what the precise amount was, and that one could only make an estimate. We on this side were merely asking for the estimates under these various subheads. Because, Sir, presumably it was not just a lump sum. Presumably, more particularly because of the original explanation given by the Deputy Minister, as enlarged upon by the Minister, there were various heads. Were they certified accounts? Were they wild guesses, just one lump sum, or were different items attributed to the different heads? We on this side were attempting to find out what the actual estimates were in respect of the various heads. It is a perfectly simple question.

At this stage a detailed account is not submitted to Treasury. These are merely estimates.

Only one figure, or were there four or five heads?

There were dozens of heads.

More than we know about?

Yes.

You see, Mr. Chairman, we are gradually getting to the bottom of this.

The accounts are not certified.

But this has been paid on certified accounts.

Merely the lump sum, yes.

It is becoming all the more necessary that the Minister play school master rather to his own Deputy. We can only feel that where there is such reluctance to give us clarity in this matter, there must be something which they are attempting to hide. One is not happy about this yet.

Before I sit down I want to go on to Subhead N, which reads “Mozambique Convention: Payment to the South African Railway Administration”, which shows an increase of R 190,000, and ask the reason for the considerable increase as regards that item.

The increase of R 190,000 is attributable to the following reasons. But before going on to that I just want to say that the hon. member stated that the hon. the Minister treaed me as a schoolmaster would. Well, I took it—apparently I over-estimated the intelligence of the Opposition—that the hon. members on the opposite side were aware that we are now dealing with revised Estimates. Why does the hon. member look so astonished now? Why does he not say a word? We have been dealing with revised Estimates all along. We are not dealing with actual figures which have already been dealt with. I want to say again that this case is precisely the same as the previous one. The Railways attribute the increase to, in the first place, an expected lower percentage of commercial goods traffic which will be imported through the harbour of Lourenco Marques to the competitive area. Chiefly as a result of an import of mealies through the abovementioned harbour which was less than expected. The hon. member must not ask me now how many fewer bags of mealies will be imported through the harbour of Lourenço Marques. I cannot supply that information. The second reason is the unforeseen sudden increase in the world demand for chrome-iron ore and the resultant increased exports through Lourenço Marques. Hon. members must not ask me now how much chrome-iron ore will be exported, because I do not know.

We do not ask things like that.

That is precisely what was asked on the previous Vote. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, we are glad in this last case to have been given a greater indication of the position, and we certainly are not pressing to know the precise amounts. We have been given an estimated amount … [Interjections.] We have an estimated amount in respect of various items.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—29: Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Emdin, S.; Graaff, De V.; Hourque-bie, R. G. L.: Jacobs, G. F.: Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.: Radford, A.: Raw, W. V.; Smith. W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.: Timoney, H. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—106: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J, C.; Key ter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D.

K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Wath, J. G. H.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter. W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo. W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and B. J. van der Walt.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Revenue Vote No. 13.—“Transport”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 14,—“Education, Arts and Science, R2,076,400”:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister for some information in connection with the increase of R 144,500 in respect of item M, “Financial Assistance in respect of Buildings, Ground, Equipment and Furniture”.

The hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science is engaged in the Other Place, but I shall read his notes in this connection to the hon. member:

The increase is set out as follows: The name of the institution, the service, and the increase asked for: University of Natal: R45.000 for repairs and extra facilities for Wentworth Non-White Medical School; University of the Witwatersrand: a speech, voice and ear clinic; University of Stellenbosch: equipment of engineering faculty; University of Stellenbosch: equipment of medical faculty; University of Pretoria: equipment of engineering faculty; Cape Technical College: erection of hostel; Pretoria Technical College: equipment for Vaal Triangle Technical College; Fulton School for the deaf: erection of wing for nursery school classrooms, etc.; Trans-Oranje Institute: erection of wash-rooms in South African Commercial Fleet Academy General Botha, and purchase of equipment.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has details of how much money was voted for the Wentworth Medical School?

R45,000.

And how much for the School for the Deaf?

R 1,530.

Is there any staff in the Wentworth Medical School?

No, it is the hostel.

I should like some information on Item H, in regard to financial assistance and bursaries for vocational and technical colleges. Could the Minister give details in regard to the bursaries for technical colleges?

The reply of the hon. the Minister is as follows: Basic subsidy, R 142,758; interest and redemption of college for college purposes, R 19,270; language teaching to immigrants, R20,000; orientation course for operators, R2,708; salary adjustments, R178,000; vacation savings bonus, R30.059; financial aid for training courses, R 10,450.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 16,—“ Information, R 1,180”:

It is actually a pity that the requisition is not accompanied by an explanation so that one may decide whether any questions are necessary, but in view of the fact that we have no other way of judging whether the extra expenditure js justified, I shall be grateful to hear what are the particulars of the case of Mr. Van Rooy.

During the period Mr. J. C. van Rooy served as information attaché in Washington he incurred exceptionally heavy medical expenses as a result of the fact that his wife was admitted to hospital five times in one year because of grave illness. Furthermore, one of his sons died during this period and the official had to meet the high funeral charges. His total expenditure on hospital charges and doctors’ and nurses’ fees amounted to R4,734. This amount did not include the charges for the son’s funeral or the ordinary medical expenses which all families incur, such as expenses in respect of dental or specialist services. A medical benefit scheme of which the officer was a member and to which he contributed more than R14 a month paid about 50 per cent of the expenses. Had he been in the Republic, his medical benefit scheme would have paid three-quarters of his expenses. The current allowances paid to officers abroad are considered adequate to meet normal medical expenses, but not extraordinary expenditure caused by grave illness. In this case it was consequently decided to make a contribution to this official’s heavy medical expenses by paying roughly a quarter of the total costs. With the addition of the contribution made by the medical benefit scheme in the U.S.A., approximately three-quarters of his expenses will be met, which means that the official himself will pay a quarter of the expenses, which is the percentage he would have paid in the Republic as a member of the medical benefit association system.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 18,—“Public Service Commission, R91,000”.

Could the hon. the Minister give us details as to the reasons for the increase?

As the result of the increase in the number of members of the two medical benefit associations, an increase brought about by the institution of new conditions of service in accordance with which membership is compulsory for new appointees and optional for serving Government servants, and also by the acceptance of a large number of pensioners and widows of pensioners as members, it is necessary to provide for an additional amount of R91,000 to meet the Government’s per capita annual contribution.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 19,—“Government Printing Works, R484,000”.

I should like to ask the Minister under Item E, Miscellaneous Expenses, about the ex gratia remission to National Salvage of R7,000. As I understand the word “remission”, it is an exemption granted to somebody not to pay an amount, but in this case, as I read it, it is a payment by the Department of R7,000. Would the Minister please explain it?

A contract entered into with National Salvage was cancelled with effect from 1st November, 1966, because the contractor failed to pay within 30 days for waste-paper which he had received. New tenders were called for for the period ending 31st December, 1968, and only two tenders were received, namely from National Salvage and Cape Salvage. The first-mentioned tender quoted R4 a ton for unbaled wastepaper and R7 a ton for baled paper. The previous tender had been for R9 and R19 a ton, respectively. The last-mentioned tender quoted R8 a ton, but the tender applied only to paper available in Cape Town. It was decided to accept this tender as far as the Cape Province was concerned. As for the rest of the country, there was no alternative but to accept the tender of National Salvage, although there was no certainty that it would in fact be able to dispose of all the waste-paper at prices yielding a reasonable profit, even at the lower tender price. A guarantee is nevertheless required. On the recommendation of the Tender Board, Treasury approved that, in view of the difficult position in which National Salvage finds itself at present, the apparent loss incurred by the State as a result of the high tariffs of the cancelled contract as against the lower tariffs of the tender should not be recovered from the firm. The amount is estimated at R7,000; covering Parliamentary approval for the amount to be remitted is now requested.

May I ask the hon. the Minister for an explanation under “D”, relating to printing, stationery, advertisements and publications, which have risen by some 30 per cent?

With regard to Government Gazettes the provision for this year was estimated on the basis of that in respect of the previous year, but it appeared to be too low altogether. As a result of general expansion the number of Government Gazettes increased, with a consequently increase in the expenditure. As a result of the increase in salaries of factory staff, the printing costs increased. More publications, charts, etc., amounted to R55,000: (1) the expenditure was underestimated; (2) more publications, charts, etc., had to be kept available for resale due to general expansion of Government activities; (3) owing to the higher wages for factory staff the costs of publications, charts, etc., increased.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 20,—“Community Development, R113,000”.

Could the Minister give us some detail about Item “F”?

Mr. Chairman, the increase under Sub-head F is a result of the concessions made last year in connection with the scale of rents required from people in various income categories. The hon. member will remember that before the 5th August, people earning more than R80 had to pay the full economic rate. Now there is a sliding scale and as a result of that there is a greater loss on the part of the Department in connection with the collection of rents. That is the reason for the increase.

The total amount?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has any information as to how much of this loss applies to unoccupied property belonging to the Department. I am thinking for example of a block of flats in Durban where more than half of the flats are not occupied and of other houses which have been taken over by the Department but not re-let. To what extent does this amount cover occupied premises and to what extent unoccupied premises—if that breakdown is available?

Mr. Chairman, my Department regularly makes provision for unoccupied properties. The provision for this current year was quite sufficient. It is only normal.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Umlazi gave the reason for these figures. Does that apply to both the housing legislation and the community development legislation? Is the Minister able to divide the figures between housing and community development? Why is there an increase in the loss borne by the Department of Community Development? I will not press the hon. the Minister for these details but I think that it is most important that we should know why there is such a loss in respect of community development.

Mr. Chairman, these losses are all in respect of the national housing schemes. The additional expenditure was not incurred in respect of community development.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 21,—“Public Works, R50”:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us why this Vote is shown under Revenue and not Loan Account, as it is for a building?

Mr. Chairman, I think it is because it is a church building and not an ordinary building for housing purposes in respect of which one gets redemption and so forth.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister further whether this is one of a number of churches for other denominations? I see that this is a new item. Perhaps the Minister of Defence could give us information in this regard.

We are in the process of providing them.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 23,—“Commerce and Industries, R1,426”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have an explanation of the ex gratia remission to Mr. M. J. Els of R1,426.

Mr. Chairman, the amount being asked for here is to provide for an ex gratia payment to a certain Mr. Els. He was a senior professional officer who acted as trade secretary in Madrid. He was travelling from Madrid to Berne and on a frozen road the car in which he, his wife and his child were travelling skidded and they were very seriously injured in the accident. The car was a complete writeoff. They were taken back to Spain, where they were admitted to hospital. They spent a month in hospital. The estimated cost was initially R2,000, but in fact came to R2,119. After that he returned to South Africa and his wife received protracted treatment in hospital in Pretoria. At the time it was required that provision be made for a R2,000 loan to him. He was neither insured nor a member of the Medical Benefit Association. It was then decided to grant him a loan of R2,000 at 5 per cent interest to cover his medical expenses. His medical expenses in Madrid alone came to more than that. That does not include his hospital expenses here. In the accident his wife lost the use of both eyes permanently, which also gave rise to additional expenses for the care of his wife. He has paid off that loan in part and there is still a balance of R1,426. To date he has therefore paid off more than R570 plus interest, but he will not be able to resume his original employment. With regard to his wife there are also additional expenses. It is estimated that if he had had that accident in South Africa his expenses at an ordinary provincial hospital would have totalled no more than R210. It was therefore felt that under these circumstances we should meet him and grant him this ex gratia payment of a portion of the loan.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not the policy of his Department to cover officials of the Department when they are out of this country against injury or medical expenses. If they are leaving the country in the interests of South Africa and working for the country, it would appear the natural thing that they should be covered against these expenses rather than that it should be a matter of charity or a special ex gratia payment. It should be a matter of right that they should have protection as though they were in South Africa. Could the Minister tell us what the position is in respect of Government policy.

Mr. Chairman, officials are not covered by the State, but have to make their own provision out of the allowances they receive. You will understand that Public Service medical schemes normally will cover only medical expenses in this country and not abroad. They are now in fact urged to cover themselves by means of insurance, in order to avoid anything of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister replied that they have to cover themselves. I am most unhappy about the reply the hon. the Minister has given. If a person serves the Government and if he has to go overseas in consequence of a Government decision, the Government must cover him. [Interjection.] This is a new item, and I wish the hon. the Minister of Tourism would keep quiet for a moment.

Order! I shall maintain order. Will the hon. member please continue?

From the policy point of view it seems to me quite wrong that a person who serves his country and who enjoys cover against medical expenses inside South Africa should lose that protection and should have to pay for such cover from his own pocket if he wants it when he is sent overseas to make further possible sacrifices in the service of the country. We had exactly the same position in respect of another Vote we have dealt with. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not recommend to the Government, in consequence of this case, that proper and full cover against medical expenses be provided for any public servant as part of his remuneration and conditions of service.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the hon. member who has just sat down in his plea. If you go back to Vote 18 you will find that it is now a condition of service as recommended by the Public Service Commission that members serving the State should automatically have an opportunity of insuring themselves in terms of a comprehensive medical scheme. ’ I think that the same should apply to all posts outside the country. I think that it is up to the Government to make sure that these people are insured at the expense of the State. We must take into consideration that the cost of medical services overseas is much higher than in South Africa and out of proportion to the salaries earned by these people. We have just heard of the ex gratia payment that had to be made. I think that we on this side of the House would recommend to the Minister that those of our citizens who are working outside the country for the State should be insured by the Government against illness.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to officials serving abroad, provision has been made for the payment of additional funds to them with the very object of covering extra expenditure in such countries. There is no obligation with regard to insurance, not in the case of our local officials either. He was covered in Madrid under third party insurance. The advice from our Ambassador there was that Mr. Els would not benefit from lodging a claim in terms of the third party policy. He would not have succeeded in such a claim, because it did not cover such cases. With regard to third party he was therefore covered. He had covered himself, but it was not sufficient, or he could not have succeeded in any claim.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 24,—“Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services, R3,876,000”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have more information from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs with regard to some of the sub-heads under this Vote. My first question relates to salaries, wages and allowances, and to the reason for the increase of R2.5 million. I want to assure the Minister, of course, that we have no objection to the fact that there is an increase in the salaries of the Post Office staff. I should like to know from him what all this comprises, however, particularly now that we have the Post Office Staff Board.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he may only ask for the reasons for an increase. He is not allowed to make a speech about it.

That is what I am asking. I want to know the reasons for this, in view of the new Post Office Staff Board which has been established.

In this case the reasons are exactly the same as in the case of the entire Public Service in general, as the Minister of Finance explained. Those reasons are the increase in salaries and the change in the entire posts structure. Naturally the hon. member would like to know what effect that has had. Since we increased the salaries and changed the posts structure, there has been an increase of 795 in the number of posts, which now total 38,285.

Before coming to subhead D, in respect of which I also have some questions, I should like to know whether this increase includes an increase in the Minister’s salary or allowances. With regard to subhead D—Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications—which involve an increase of R466,000, I do not want more information than is furnished in the Main Estimates. In the Main Estimates this particular sub-head is subdivided into printing, stationery, advertisements and publications separately. Can the hon. the Minister tell us what portion of that amount is represented by printing, which is usually the highest item, and give us an indication of the printing and the reasons for the increase?

The reasons for the increase are in particular the increased expenditure on the printing of the telephone directory and the printing and provision of forms used by the Post Office. According to the latest information and on the basis of current expenditure, an amount of R466,000 will be necessary to meet those requirements. In the main it arises from the continual increase in prices and the increased demand for forms and telephone directories.

The hon. the Minister said that a portion of this increase was attributable to the increased printing costs of telephone directories. Is that in respect of all telephone directories throughout the country? Could he furnish particulars in this regard? I presume tenders were called for. Were the tenders for a higher amount, or were they simply for a reprint of a previous edition of a telephone directory? Was the Minister told at the time how that it would cost more? Could we have an explanation of how the higher costs arose?

The hon. member will remember that the printing of telephone directories is always put out to tender. The hon. member insinuated that a Minister’s salary was also involved. The hon. member knows that the salaries and allowances of Ministers have not been increased. The increase is due to printing costs and also to an increased demand.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 25,—“Health, R801,136”:

Mr. Chairman, could the Minister please let us have details about the ex gratia payment, under subhead H, to the Kimberley Health Board?

The additional amount is required on account of the considerable increase in the number of children attending day work centres of the National Council for Mental Health. The original amount of R20.000 per annum was Calculated on a per capita contribution of 25c. per child per school day and was based on a maximum of 400 children. According to the latest information, attendances have increased to 530. That accounts for the increased amount. Instead of 400 children, it has now increased to 530 children.

Did the Minister say that they were mentally ill children who were attending this centre.

No, they are mentally retarded children attending day work centres of the National Council for Mental Health.

In regard to subhead A, does it merely mean that the Minister has increased the salaries of the staff?

As a result of the increase in salaries and also as a result of the changed post structure we have succeeded in increasing our posts by 893, so that the posts at present totals 12,160.

Can the hon. the Minister give us some information as to the reasons for the increase under subhead K—Medical Poor Relief, which is an increase of R95,000?

The increase is due firstly to the increase in the cost of medicines and dressings, to an extent of R80,000. Secondly it is due to the increase in the tariffs chargeable by dental surgeons for dentures and extractions, which were increased by 75 per cent and 300 per cent, respectively. That amounts to R 15,000. The two amounts add up to R95,000.

There is a large amount of R400,000 which is asked for in addition to the R13½ million for general expenses for tuberculosis. “General expenses” is a very vague term. Can the Minister give me some detail in regard to this item?

Experience has taught us that over the last few years, on an average the increase has been in the vicinity of R400,000. That has been the automatic increase. It is in the expectancy that that increase will again result this year that this amount has been provided for.

Does this mean that tuberculosis is increasing every year and that it has not been arrested?

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 26,—“Health: Hospitals and Institutions, R800,000”:

Mr. Chairman, I notice that under Sub-head F under Vote No. 26, namely “Supplies and Services”, there has been an increase of R437,000. Will the hon. the Minister please indicate what has been allocated to “Services” and what has been allocated to “Supplies”?

The increase has been mostly in respect of provisions. There the increase if R340,000. It is in respect of the three new hospitals. Provision has to be made for an increase in the provisions for the three new hospitals. There has also been an increase in the prices of three provisions as a consequence of the drought. Furthermore, for medical, dental, opthalmolo-gical and surgical expenses an additional amount of R82,000 has been budgeted for, also in respect of the three new hospitals. That, I think, accounts for the whole amount.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 27,—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: Administration, R113,000”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this increase of R113,000 is attributable only to an increase in his establishment, or whether it is attributable to an increase in salaries and wages?

Mr. Chairman, it is due to the increase in salaries. The explanation is the same as that given by the Minister of Finance.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 28,—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing: General, R5,776,000”.

Mr. Chairman, under sub-head B, “Dairy products,” an amount of R360,000 is noted as “Assistance to the Dairy Industry”. Will the hon. the Minister please furnish an explanation of that amount?

Mr. Chairman, as a result of the protracted drought the Dairy Board decided to continue paying the winter premium after it had lapsed. The Government approved that and it was decided that half of the costs would be met by the Government and the other half by the Board’s stabilization fund. That represents the amount under discussion.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 29,—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, R2,000”:

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister please tell us what this item E—Ex gratia payment: H. S. Potgieter, R2,000—represents?

Mr. Chairman, while on duty, one of the members of the Land Board was involved in a motor car accident together with one of the officials of the Board. Unfortunately he was killed in the accident. At the time of the accident, as a member of the Board, he was in the service of the State. It was decided to make an ex gratia payment to his widow.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 34,—“Water Affairs, R194.505”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about sub-head E—Control of evaporation, R190,000. There is no need for me to emphasize that this is a new item, an item for which no provision was made previously in the Estimates. Consequently I shall be able to discuss this matter in greater detail. This is a sizeable amount, but if the results were favourable, this side of the House would have no objection. As I understood, evaporation from the Vaal Dam alone comes to approximately 200 million gallons a day. In any case, it is some fantastic figure. In other words, the evaporation from our dams is one of the major problems to be combated. Until now the only method to combat it has seemed to be spraying these dams with chemicals so that a thin layer spreads over the entire surface of the dam, with the result that evaporation may then be reduced by approximately 50 per cent. The hon. the Minister told us that he would have the Vaal Dam sprayed, and we have already had some information in that regard. I should now like to know some more. Will the hon. the Minister tell us how successful the spraying has been? Will it be worthwhile—and I think it will quite likely be worthwhile—to have further investigations carried out and experiments made in this regard, in order that if a crisis situation similar to that of last year arose, we might have made somewhat more progress in this regard and might be able to employ new methods? I am thinking, for example, of the fact that some of the aircraft were involved in accidents in this case. Those were unfortunate incidents for which no-one is to blame. I now want to ask the Minister whether some other method of spraying is not possible. It has been said that the alcohol wax may be sprayed from boats, and also by means of buoys floating on the dams. If all these methods are investigated—which, I presume, is being done at Pienaars-rivier—I am convinced that the resourcefulness of our Department of Water Affairs and Department of Agriculture would have the result that sound methods will yet be discovered, methods through which we might show the rest of the world how to counter the grave problem of evaporation.

The Minister said that he did not intend spraying only the Vaal Dam, but that he also had plans for spraying the Allemanskraal Dam and the Erfenis Dam. I presume that after the recent rain these measures are no longer necessary. I should nonetheless like to hear whether the steps taken in respect of those two dams had favourable results; that is, if steps were in fact taken. I do not know what the position is in respect of the water in those two dams. We should like to know more about that. This is an important method of preventing evaporation. We know that malaria has been wiped out partially by spraying oil on the water. I wonder whether one cannot perhaps in the same way spray cheaper oil on water and thus also prevent evaporation. Water cannot evaporate through a layer of oil, of course. I shall not talk about this any further. I should like to hear the views of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the question of spraying water with alcohol to prevent evaporation is something new to us here in South Africa, of course. At the time of the crisis I asked my Department what could be done on a short-term basis to conserve more water. One of the proposals submitted to me was that the water be sprayed with an alcohol mixture. The very afternoon I received this report I gave instructions that the chemicals should be ordered the next day. Someone had to make the experiment, and I considered that nobody would be in a better position to make this experiment than the State itself. The reports I have received on the results of this spraying are most favourable. The spraying of the Vaal Dam—I am speaking under correction, because I do not have the exact figures before me—saved 15 million gallons of water a day. That represents approximately 30 per cent of the water used by the Pretoria complex. That was effected at a cost of approximately 9c per 1,000 gallons of water. That is very reasonable, of course. The hon. member also asked me for information about the spraying of two dams in the Free State. Well, they have not been sprayed. They are now overflowing, so that it will be somewhat naïve to spray them. The order is nevertheless being executed, the chemicals are stored, and we are prepared to start spraying immediately we come up against such a problem again.

The hon. member asked me whether we could not use a safer method. I think the safest method of spraying is by means of aircraft. There has been an accident, but accidents occur wherever aircraft is used. I deeply regret that. Nevertheless, I think it is still the best way of spraying water.

The hon. member also asked whether further research was being carried out. The reply is, yes, further research is certainly being carried out. Not only in our country, but also in other countries research into the prevention of evaporation is being carried out continually. It is not always necessary for a country to incur high expenditure in connection with research of its own account. We should follow the example of our businessmen to some extent and let other countries do the research. We may then watch what happens. If their methods are fruitful, we move in too and share in the results. In any event, research is still being undertaken with regard to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that research is still continuing. I am also pleased to hear that supplies are in fact being stockpiled in order that we may not again find ourselves in the position that no chemicals are available and have to be ordered first. These are important matters. I hope this will be continued with to the benefit of water conservation in South Africa. There has been mention of the cost per gallon involved in spraying. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has the figures. I do not expect him to have the figures, but I thought the figure was somewhat high and that it may perhaps be possible to reduce it in due course.

The cost was 9c per 1,000 gallons.

In reply to a question the hon. the Minister told me that the chemicals were not manufactured in South Africa because the manufacturers felt that they did not want to manufacture this alcohol wax on such a small scale here; it then had to be imported from Holland and Germany. Is there not some way in which South African firms may in fact be persuaded to manufacture these chemicals?

When something is abundantly available at a competitive price, it does not always pay to have it manufactured locally on a small scale. If it was going to cost the country a great deal in foreign exchange it would be profitable to subsidize the manufacture in this country, but if one is dealing with an item such as this, which can be obtained abroad without any trouble and which is not used on a large scale, it is not worthwhile subsidizing the manufacture in this country.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether in the experience which his Department has had with this spray, any knowledge has been gained as to any harmful effects on the fish-life in the water?

The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about oil. If we spray the water with oil, it will be harmful to fish-life. Spraying with alcohol is not harmful to fish-life. I asked for a guarantee in this regard before we began spraying.

Could the hon. the Minister give us the details with regard to the ex gratia remissions of loans in respect of boring services to P. C. Terblanche and C. J. Korff?

The position with regard to the second item is as follows: Mr. C. J. Korff, owner of the farm Pampoenepan, Hopetown Division, applied on 16th June, 1965, for a subsidy on a borehole which he wanted to have sunk by a private boring contractor. The application was considered in terms of Government Notice No. 1016 of July, 1963, and on 14th July, 1965, the applicant was informed that his application had been approved. On 28th October, 1965, the applicant submitted a statement together with a completion report form in respect of ten boreholes which he had sunk at a cost of R4,750. Only the first borehole was successful, with a yield of 400 gallons per hour, while the other nine were unsuccessful. In terms of Government Notice No. 1016 of 1963, which was substituted by Government Notice No. 74 of 1966 on 14th January, 1966, with retrospective effect as from 1st April, 1965, it is a requirement that an applicant shall apply in advance and may not commence boring until the Department has informed him that his application had been approved. As the last nine boreholes had been sunk without prior approval, the applicant was informed that a subsidy could not be granted on those boreholes. Mr. Korff made further representations to the Department. He had incurred high expenses in an attempt to find water and he submitted plausible proof that he had in fact spent the money. All the boreholes comply with the provisions of Government Notice No. 1016 of 1963, and if he had applied in advance, the Department would have approved his application. It is my wish that the customary subsidy shall be paid in all cases where during the drought applicants were compelled by circumstances beyond their control to sink boreholes in order to provide water for stock drinking purposes. The subsidy which may be granted amounts to R3,167. With Treasury approval it was decided to pay an ex gratia subsidy to the amount of R3,167 to Mr. Korff, and in view of the fact that it exceeds R 1.000, the approval of Parliament has to be obtained in respect of it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 35.—“Immigration, R226.600”.

Here we have an under-estimate of more than R250.000 in respect of assistance to immigrants. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would tell us the reason. Could it be that he is getting more immigrants than his party supporters like?

The reason for the increase is that we received many more immigrants than we budgeted for. I think we received three or four thousand more immigrants than we expected.

May I ask the hon. the Minister what the figure is for last year? I understood him to say last year that he was expecting 40.000. I take it that the Estimates were based on that figure. How many immigrants actually came?

The figure was based on an estimate of about 43,000 and actually 48,000 came.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 37,—“Defence, R2.918”:

Will the hon. the Minister please give us details of the two ex gratia payments under items F and L?

In the case of item F, the contract was awarded by the Tender Board to Messrs. Tolken Butcheries, Saldanha Bay, for the supply of meat to the S and T Depot for the period 1st July, 1964, to 30th June, 1965. The firm cancelled the contract on 31st December, 1964, and maintained that as a result of the increase in the price of meat since the contract was entered into, it has incurred a loss already of R1,365. The Tender Board, after investigation, recommended to the Treasury that an ex gratia payment of R 1,350 be made to the firm, and the Treasury concurred. Then I come to item L: A quotation for aircraft spares was obtained from the local agents, Messrs. Commercial Air Services (Pty.) Ltd., and a firm order placed. Subsequently the firm advised the Department that the principals had made a mistake when the prices were furnished. Both the Tender Board and the Treasury agreed to an ex gratia adjustment.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 38,—“Justice, R275,000”:

Will the hon. the Minister be good enough to give the Committee some explanation for the increase of R70.000 under item J?

The increase is due to the introduction of higher tariffs as from 21st January, 1966, and also to the special provision for the Parity affair.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 39,—“Police, R6,880,438”:

We have had increases in the Estimates in respect of salaries, wages and allowances in most of the previous Votes, but here we have a much greater increase in the amount and also percentagewise than in the previous Votes. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would explain why there is such a large increase under this Vote?

Here the circumstances differ somewhat from those in respect of the other Votes. I should like to explain the details under item A, to which the hon. member referred. That amount should be sub-divided into several subsections. The main reason for the increase is of course salary adjustments. The amount that provides specifically for that is an amount of R4.541.000 for ordinary salary adjustments and R600.000 for salary adjustments for special constables. In other words, a total of R5,100,000 comes specifically under salary adjustments. I should like to mention that it was only in October, 1966, that Treasury approved. on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, the salary adjustments in respect of ranks from constable to lieutenant. Treasury also approved the recommendation that the adjustments come into effect as from 1st January, 1966. Consequently these salary adjustments could not be provided for when the Estimates were framed. There is a further factor which bears on this position, and that is that the retirement age was extended from 58 to 60 years. As a result of that there were fewer retirements from the service. In this regard, too, there was therefore additional expenditure which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were framed.

The reasons I have just mentioned are also of application in respect of the special constables to whom I referred a moment ago. In this case the amount is R600,000. But there are further factors which contributed to the increase. On 10th January, 1967, Treasury granted approval for certain adjustments based on the promotion qualifications. For example, provision was made in the case of constables and other ranks up to sergeant, in which the personnel do not have a Std. 8 certificate but have gained the required promotion qualifications, that adjustments may be made as though they are in the possession of a Std. 8 certificate. The same applies in the case of sergeant to lieutenant, if the staff member does not have a Std. 10 certificate but has completed the promotion examinations. This was approved only on 10th January, 1967, with retrospective effect as from 1st January, 1966. It also contributed to the increase of R5.950.000. I do not know whether the hon. member wants further particulars in respect of this particular item. I have actually only referred to the ordinary salary increases and the salary increases in respect of special constables. There are some other minor items which are responsible for this increase. I may perhaps just mention that there was also a decrease under this Vote. There was a saving of R 192,000 on the personal non-pensionable allowance.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has given the House a very detailed explanation and I do not require any further information, but perhaps I could suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he might give a few lessons …

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

I should like to ask some information on Item G, the medical services, which shows an increase of R’625,000.

It is an amount which, as the hon. member himself knows, is very hard to predict because one cannot tell at the beginning of the year how many illnesses will occur in the course of the year. I should like to give the details—

I should like to know something about the amount in respect of Detective Services under “J”. It is double that of the original Estimate. I should like to know why it was so far out?

I asked the Department the same question the hon. member is now asking. These amounts are not in respect of the ordinary detective services, according to the concept of the man in the street. This amount is much too small for that. The detective services provided for here do not relate to officials of the Department but to outside officials who are appointed for specific purposes to obtain certain information for the police. That is the reason why it is hard to predict. It is paid to certain people outside in order to obtain certain information for which the Department then has to pay. It is very difficult to estimate the amount in advance. It seems to be a large increase, but in actual fact it is not.

It seems as though the hon. the Deputy Minister himself is surprised at the increase. My curiosity has been aroused by the bit he has told us, and I want to do some more detective work and ask him to give us some details of that, if it is in the public interest to furnish the information. I understand this to be a question of detective services, not secret services.

I should like the Deputy Minister to explain the item under “E”, miscellaneous expenses, and I am more particularly interested to have an explanation in regard to the item of R9,688, being payment to George Mackeurtan, Son and Cro-soer.

In addition to the questions that have been asked, I should like the Minister to explain to us what has caused the increase of R31,000 for telegraph and telephone services, and further, the increase of nearly R50.000 in regard to the expenses for detained persons.

Referring to the question of the hon. member for Pinelands, I should like to reply to him as follows. There is no need to hide the information. In addition to payment regarding information in serious criminal cases, payment is made in advance for scientific investigations, for example to the Bureau of Standards, for analyses, and to accountants in respect of expert examinations of accounts in fraud cases, and also medico-legal costs.

As regards the question asked by the hon. member for Musgrave, he referred specifically to the amount of R9,688. I do not know whether he wants me to deal with the amount of R2,500 as well. As you will appreciate, Sir, the police frequently have to appoint firms of accountants to carry out certain extensive inquiries in connection with fraud cases and other criminal offences. Thus it has been necessary for the police to appoint such accountants from time to time to perform the work. In some cases the work assumes very large proportions and demands a good deal of time. It has also been the experience of the police that when a firm is appointed the work is frequently not completed within a reasonable period of time. A penal provision was therefore laid down to the effect that if the work was not completed within a specific period, the amount in remuneration would be reduced. As background I should first mention that if the work is not completed within the stipulated period the amount of the remuneration is reduced, and if it takes even longer the amount is reduced even further. Thus the firm mentioned here was appointed to carry out a certain investigation with regard to the liquidation of certain companies. It was agreed that the work was to be completed within two years, at a remuneration of R 2,000. If the work was not completed within two years but was in fact completed within three years, the amount was to be reduced to R 1,000, and if it was not completed within three years there would be no payment. This work was undertaken and commenced on 14th December, 1960, and was completed only in January, 1966. In other words, the work occupied more than five years. It appeared, to the satisfaction of the Department, that the scope of the work had been vastly underestimated and that the work involved more than was originally anticipated. As a result of that it was felt that there had actually been no delay on the part of the firm and that they were not to blame for the fact that the work was not completed within the stipulated period, but that it was due solely to the fact that both the firm and the Deparment had completely underestimated the scope of the work. The value of the work at the ordinary tariff was then calculated at R9,688. As you will appreciate, their claim against the Government in respect of the R2,000 for which the original contract was entered into had superannuated, and they could then no longer lodge a claim for R2,000 and it was necessary to include the R2,000 in the R9,688. That is, an inclusive fee of R9,688 was decided upon, and under the circumstances it was considered equitable to pay them the amount.

What company was that?

Order! The hon. member has had three turns.

May I ask what companies were involved?

The investigation related to Leonard Constructions (Pty.) Ltd., T. Daw (Pty.) Ltd., and Irvine Holdings (Pty.) Ltd.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) also asked for particulars regarding item “C”. There are two reasons. One is the increase in tariffs. The other reason is the expansion of the work performed by the police. Because the police are compelled in many cases to provide home telephones for their officials, particularly in the smaller rural police stations, the scope of the telephone services expanded and consequently the amount required was underestimated.

The hon. member also asked for particulars regarding “K”. Here it appears that there has been a systematic expansion of 10 per cent per annum in the course of the past three years. It also appears that the expansion which took place during the past year was underestimated in respect of this expenditure, and it is indeed in excess of the original estimate.

Arising out of the Minister’s reply, firstly in regard to his reply to the hon. member for Pinelands in regard to detective services, am I correct that perhaps a more appropriate head here would have been professional services?

Order! The hon. member must raise that under the Main Estimates. He cannot discuss it here.

I am still asking for clarity.

Order! The only thing the hon. member can ask here is the reason for an increase.

May I put it this way then? Was the reason for this increase of R55,000 professional services or detective services? That is the one point. The other point is this. In regard to detained persons, are we to assume that as this is an increase of 10 per cent there is an increase of 10 per cent in the number of persons detained also, or is it due to increased costs?

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

As regards the first question my reply is, both, partly professional but partly also non-professional. I cannot define it more closely. It relates to detective services.

As regards “K”, we cannot necessarily conclude that the number of detained persons increased by the same percentage. These persons must be supplied with clothes and ablution facilities, etc. In view of the circumstances which arose in recent times, I think the hon. member will be aware of the fact that such detentions are essential, and there have been expansions in the past. I hope there will be no need for those expansions to continue in future, but it all depends on circumstances which are forced onto us and which we do not choose ourselves.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 40,—“Prisons, R1,628,000”:

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell us the nature of the ex gratia payment made to the Johannesburg Tanning Company?

Mr. Chairman, the ex gratia payment was approved by the Treasury subject to the prior approval of Parliament to compensate the firm for additional costs which were incurred as a result of an unprecedented and unforeseen increase in the price of hides from 8c to 16c. The details are as follows. The Johannesburg Tanning Company applied to the State Buyer on the 28th April, 1966, for compensation for the additional cost of R9,592 on hides in respect of 130,000 sq. ft. of footwear leather which was outstanding in December, 1965, on a contract of 245,375 sq. ft. awarded to the firm on 27th July, 1965, on a firm tender price. The additional cost was due to an unprecedented and unforeseen increase in the price of hides from 8c per lb. when the contract started to 12c in November, 1965, to an average of 15¾c per lb. in March, 1966. The State Buyer, being aware of the increase in the price of raw hide and in view of the fact that the increase could not have been foreseen by the firm at the time of tendering, recommended that an increase of 5.287c per sq. ft. be allowed.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 42,—“Forestry, R62,000”:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could elucidate sub-head G which concerns an amount of R8,000 to the University of Stellenbosch. I wonder particularly whether this is in relation to research work being done with veneers at that university and whether particularly it is the result of any new …

The hon. member may not suggest reasons. He may only ask for reasons. The Minister will give the reasons.

Mr. Chairman, I then ask the Minister for the reasons for this.

Mr. Chairman, the additional amount of R8,000 is required to augment the grant-in-aid payable to the University of Stellenbosch. When the amount of the grant-in-aid was determined an amount of R6,000 was provided for the purchase of specialized equipment with the proviso that should this amount prove to be inadequate to cover the purchases of specialized equipment during any one year representations from the university for the increase of the amount for that specific year would be considered. The university approached my department for an additional amount of R20,500 to cover purchases of specialized equipment required for research purposes. The application was considered by the Departmental Coordinating Research Committee and after consultation with the university it was decided that only one of the items required, a D. Mac Pencil Follower could be purchased during the 1966-’67 financial year. The cost of the item is R 10,000. An amount of R2,000 could be found out of the original amount of R6,000 included in the grant-in-aid to cover the purchase of specialized equipment. Approval was therefore sought to increase the grant-in-aid in respect of 1966-’67 only by an amount of R8,000 to cover the balance on the price of the D. Mac Pencil Follower.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 45,—“Foreign Affairs, R 158,000”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to sub-heads E and G, which relate to, inter alia, the gift to the Parliament of Lesotho. When the gift was presented, there was a demonstration of hostility. Members of Lesotho’s Opposition even threatened to remove the chair if they should come into power. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister can inform us whether prior negotiations or discussions were held with the Speaker of that Parliament before that gift was decided upon, and, if not, why not? I shall also be pleased if the Minister can tell us what the cost of the chair was and whether the present position is that the gift may be deemed to have been accepted. As regards sub-head G, I shall be grateful if the Minister can inform us where the large extension of office premises took place.

I may say that the Government of Lesotho was in fact consulted about the nature of the gift. The idea of making such a gift occurred to us, and the form which that gift took was warmly welcomed. I have the figures relating to the cost of that gift as well as of the gift made to the other State, but I wonder whether the hon. member will press me to separate the two amounts?

If the Minister prefers not to do so, I am satisfied.

As regards sub-head G, these costs relate to the extension of office premises firstly as a result of our increasing activities, which oblige us to rent additional office accommodation and to furnish such offices. The increased activities are particularly in the spheres of immigration and economic affairs. The amount involved is R14,540. Secondly, this additional expenditure is the result of expansion in the form of two new missions, the one in Geneva, where we established a second mission at the U.N., and the other in Munich, where we established a Consulate-General. In the case of the mission in Geneva we did prepare an estimate of the costs, but the estimated amount was too low. In the other case we did not realize a year ago that we would establish this Consulate-General there, with the result that in that case we did not prepare an estimate of the costs. Thirdly, this additional expenditure is due to moving into larger offices in Wellington, New Zealand. The rented offices we occupied were not satisfactory, particularly as regards security. As a result of moving into the new premises which we rent at present, certain alterations had to be made. The total amount involved was R21,000.

The Minister said that the Government of Lesotho had been consulted before the gift was presented. Would it not have been wiser, in view of the fact that this matter concerned a gift to a parliament, to have consulted the Speaker of that Parliament, who would then have consulted all the parties? Would it not have been better to have done that, seeing that what happened did us considerable harm?

This was a gift from one Government to another. Discussions were held. I myself also had discussions with the Speaker of Lesotho’s Parliament. At that stage it was not anticipated at all that there would be any trouble. As a matter of fact, the gift which we suggested, was warmly welcomed by the Government of Lesotho.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 46,—“Mines, R86,000”.

Will the hon. the Minister please be good enough to give us further information in respect of the ex gratia remission to the Bellsbank Mine?

On behalf of the Minister of Mines I supply the following information. The Bellsbank Company applied for the return of a diamond which had been used as evidence in the case of the State versus one Anthony Thatsama. The case had been heard. He was convicted of being in possession of a diamond illegally and in terms of the Act under which he was convicted, the diamond was confiscated and came into the possession of the State. It was subsequently proved that that diamond had in fact been mined by the Bellsbank Company, and the State was satisfied that the company had been able to prove that the diamond had had its origin with it. Consequently application was made for the return of that diamond to the Bellsbank Company, the original owners. In terms of the regulations, Parliament’s approval has to be obtained for the return of any amount which exceeds R1,000. That explains why this item appears here.

Did the hon. the Minister say that the diamond or an amount equivalent to the value of the diamond was given back?

The diamond was given back.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 50,—“Coloured Affairs, R246.000”.

I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an explanation of the increase in salaries, wages and allowances, which in this case represents 37½ per cent.

Mr. Chairman, in order to defray expenditure an additional amount of R246,000 is asked for under this sub-head for wages and allowances. The Secretary for Finance reduced the amount asked for under this subhead in the Department’s original draft estimates by R1 million. It now appears that as a result of this reduction the appropriation of R23,637,000 will be exceeded by approximately R888,400. However, the anticipated excess will partially be met from savings on other sub-heads of the Vote and consequently only R246,000 is being asked for in the Additional Estimates.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote B,—“Public Works, R1,700,000”.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in connection with this Vote: Why have all these new items been put on the Additional Estimates—they total altogether R 1,356,000. Why could they not have been catered for at the time when the Main Estimates were being discussed? I am referring to sub-head (3).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to items 16 and 19 on page 26. In connection with item 16 I only want to ask the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether he could give us an explanation of this ex gratia payment to a certain firm in connection with the new automatic telephone exchange building at Kimberley, and whether he could also give us some information concerning the increase in the cost of the Barrack Street automatic telephone exchange, particularly as Barrack Street is very near this House and might affect us. We shall be very happy to know the extent of the increase in respect of this telephone exchange.

But the most important matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is this new item under sub-head 19 on page 26—Kempton Park: Jan Smuts Airport: New terminal building. For this it is estimated that R16 million will be spent and the magnificent sum of only R50 is being asked this year. I realize that it is a token amount, because if we were to spend this amount every year, the period between to-day and the time we shall have Jan Smuts Airport will be the same as the period between to-day and the time of the extinction of the dinosaur. But Sir, I am glad that at last this new item has appeared on the Estimates and I think that the country should recognize that it is largely owing to the unrelenting efforts on the part of members on this side of the House, who have been insisting for the past eight, nine years that the facilities at Jan Smuts Airport were totally inadequate. I am glad that now, at last, this item has appeared on the Estimates. It is too late, and again too little is being granted this year, but as long as the item is on the Estimates, there is an indication that at last the Government has come to listen to this side of the House. The hon. the Minister can go through Hansard for the past five, six years and he will find that on nearly every possible occasion we demanded this new terminal building. We pointed to the overcrowding at Jan Smuts, how the space was becoming insufficient, how the passengers were crowded, how the freight facilities were so bad that the delivery of goods was delayed for a long time. At last, in November, 1964, as late as that, planning of this new airport was started. We waited and expected that something would be done about it in subsequent years. 1965 passed and nothing was done. 1966 passed and nothing was done. Now at last, we have this item on the Estimates of R50.

The hon. the Minister told me, when I asked him in the past when this terminal was going to be started and when it would be completed, that he could not tell me, because no money has as yet been voted on the Estimates for this new terminal at Jan Smuts. Now at last, we have this global amount being voted. I ask the hon. the Minister of Transport to fulfil his promise and to tell us, now that this item does appear on the Estimates, when does he expect they will start building this new air terminal and when will it be completed. As I said, Mr. Chairman, the Estimates were compiled, a plan was started 24 years ago and now at last we have this R50 on the Estimates. I want to know whether these plans have not gone out of date in the meantime. After all, there has been expansion. There have been new developments. There is a distinct possibility that supersonic planes might come to South Africa in spite of the denial of the hon. the Minister of Transport to me some time ago. There is the possibility that much of the work that has been done during the past years to expand the present facilities there, will now have to be broken down. I think we should know how much of that expenditure was actually wasted owing to the delays in starting this big project. I can only say that, now that this item is on the Estimates, we shall watch it extremely closely. We cannot ask the hon. the Minister what will appear on the Main Budget. We shall wait until the Main Budget does appear. But this is an item that we, particularly the members of Parliament for Johannesburg and the Reef, will watch with the closest interest and I trust that there will not be a long delay before we do have this new air terminal.

Mr. Chairman, when we are embarking on this very important new public building, I do want to address a plea to the hon. the Minister to be certain that this is a worthy terminal building. I am doing so particularly because I do not think that the existing building really was designed as an air terminal. It seems as if it was designed by, you might say, people who remembered rather the days of the Railways. We have moved, as far as this is concerned, into the time of air travel and all modern airport buildings have been designed entirely on their own. I do not think that such a design would be at all appropriate. Therefore I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could tell us what the plans are in so far as the architectural design of that building is concerned. Are the designers going to be absolutely au fait with air terminal buildings, and above all, will there be a sufficiently strong architectural team to ensure that it has the very latest ideas in air terminal buildings, and that aesthetically the building will be thoroughly satisfactory. It really will not be sufficient if we do it on the basis of the present terminal building which conjures up the wrong type of memory in an air age.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say something about Sub-head (3), “Coloured Affairs—New Services”. I trust that the hon. the Minister of Public Works will reply to me. These are all new services in respect of coloured schools. I see there are items in respect of Windermere and also Ida’s Valley, Stellenbosch, which is in my area. I see that in respect of each of these schools an amount of R50 is put down. This is merely a token amount. Will the Minister please tell me what stage of development these schools have reached? When will it be possible for them to start? Obviously architects’ fees will be very much more than R50. Can the Minister give me any idea when teaching will commence in these schools?

Mr. Chairman, I should first like to deal with the schools for Coloureds. The reason for the inclusion of several new items in the Estimates—items in respect of which only small amounts are asked for—is the fact that it is necessary, according to particulars supplied to us by the Department of Coloured Affairs, to have these schools ready at the beginning of the next school year. Therefore it is essential to invite tenders at this stage already. So as to authorize us to write out tenders at this stage, Parliament first has to sanction these amounts. That is the reason for the inclusion of these items in the Estimates.

The same applies in respect of the terminal building at Jan Smuts Airport. I may just say that it is not on account of representations from hon. members opposite that it is deemed necessary to build the terminal. It has become necessary to do so because this Government has used its common sense. As a result of this Government’s sound policy such a large number of visitors come to South Africa and such a large number of people travel from South Africa, seeing that we do not isolate ourselves from countries abroad, that this building has become too small to cope with the heavy flow of passengers. In any event, the need for the new terminal building arose long ago but as a result of more essential services to which attention had to be given, this matter had to be held in abeyance for years. The plans of the new terminal building are being drawn up and have already reached the final stage. Several firms of architects are working on them. Initially the contract was awarded to one firm, but the services of other firms were subsequently called in. People who have knowledge of the culture and character of South Africa were called in to give the terminal building, particularly as regards its interior decoration, a truly South African character. Provision has also been made for several of the officials who are concerned with supervisory work, officials employed in the Department of Public Works who are concerned with supervising the working drawings, the plans, the finish, the air conditioning and electrical installations, to pay special visits of observation to different modern airports in the world. They will then be able to give guidance to the architects, engineers and others who are engaged in these matters.

Do they still have to pay these visits, or have they done so?

Some of them have been on those visits of observation. The architects have already been away. The persons who are concerned with the electrical installation are, I think, abroad at the present time. Therefore it is clear that this entire project is being planned most thoroughly.

Did they visit Los Angeles?

I do not know all the places they visited. The architects paid visits of observation to all places worth visiting. They visited various places. The hon. member asked me when we expected the terminal building to be completed. The target is 1972. I think hon. members will agree with me that in view of the magnitude of this project, 1972 is an early date for the completion of this work. We want these amounts to be voted now for the very reason that we want to be able to award certain tenders at this stage already. We want to advertise for certain tenders.

Are you now referring to the terminals for external or internal services?

For all services.

There are two buildings, one for external services and one for internal services.

It will be one large complex. It will be the international part.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked questions concerning the automatic telephone exchange in Cape Town. As a result of the fact that the South Atlantic Cable proposals were approved, it has become necessary to install the Cape Town microwave and national subscriber dialling equipment at an earlier date. The equipment will be installed in the Barrack Street automatic telephone exchange building, and the accommodation for such equipment is required early in 1967, in order to ensure that it will be possible to complete the installation of the equipment by the end of 1967. The equipment concerned forms part and parcel of the national telecommunications system and its installation cannot be delayed without that having adverse effects. Provision was not made in the Estimates which are in force at the present time; consequently a Special Warrant was obtained and therefore it is necessary to sanction the service now.

The hon. member also asked a question in connection with the ex gratia payment to Hubert Davies and Co. This company’s tender of R20,200 for the electrical work in the new automatic telephone exchange at Kimberley was accepted on 21st June. 1962. In terms of this contract the period allowed for the completion of the electrical work was the same as the period specified for the completion of the building in the building contract. Originally the building had to be completed 15 months after 28th August, 1962, i.e. in November, 1963, but because the building contractor went bankrupt in the interim period, the building was only completed by the guarantors on 10th December, 1965. As a result of this delay, Messrs. Hubert Davies and Co. put in a claim for R6,520 as compensation for the interim increase in costs. Without any prejudice to the State’s rights under the contract, the firm was requested to submit a statement certified by auditors to show how the amount of R6,520 had been arrived at. According to that figure the firm suffered a net loss of R2.568. The following clause was incorporated in the specifications relating to the electrical installation which form part of the contract document (translation)—

In a similar case the State Attorney of the Cape ruled that an ex gratia payment to the persons concerned was justified, and it was subsequently decided, with the approval of the Treasury, to pay R2.568, the actual amount of the loss incurred as a result of an interim increase in costs, by way of an ex gratia payment to the firm.

May I revert to the item which relates to the Jan Smuts Airport? I think the general public and persons who use airlines, especially for commercial purposes and for overseas journeys, will be more disappointed than satisfied to find that this terminal at Jan Smuts Airport will be put into service only in 1972. Surely it ought to be possible to complete this important work before that time.

It will be completed in various stages. The first stage will be completed within two years.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN; I am-so glad that the hon. the Minister of Transport is now able to give me a reply to a question which I asked him last year because when I inquired from him last year what the reason for the delay was and when the terminal would be completed, he replied, “That is not my concern; ask the Minister of Public Works”.

Order! The vein in which the hon. member is now speaking makes me think that this is an old item.

No, this is a new item.

Then the hon. member must not refer to what happened last year.

The hon. member is now mentioning something which he never said in the past.

No, I can show my Hansard to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister said that it was their common sense which prevailed upon them to make these plans and not the United Party. Well, the United Party displayed common sense but the Government delayed these plans for four years and in addition nearly five years will elapse before the completion of this terminal. Under these circumstances I fear what we are going to discover when this terminal is eventually completed, because by 1972 there will yet again have been new developments, for example, in connection with supersonic aircraft. In Australia there is already talk of sending those aircraft to South Africa; the hon. the Minister of Transport does not know about that. There will be developments in future and I hope that plans are also being made for such future developments. Common sense is required now, but I doubt very much whether this Government does have common sense.

I am far more concerned about our having got the right architects for this building than the hon. the Minister seems to be. The hon. the Minister did say that originally one architect was engaged and that others were then brought in. I do hope very much that he himself gave his attention to the question of getting the most outstanding South African architects engaged on this job. This is probably the biggest single public building that has been built for many a year. Even a whole railway station does not cost much more than this and this is a single building complex calling for tremendous architectural skill. We therefore need our most imaginative architects, drawn perhaps from Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and possibly other centres. I do sincerely hope that the significance of this as an architectural and technical achievement is being appreciated and that only our most talented architects have been considered for the job because we would hate to come up with a very ordinary achievement at the end of it all. I would like to have greater assurance in this regard than the hon. the Minister has given us so far. I appreciate that some architects are on the job but we need our best architects for this job.

I understood the hon. the Minister to say that the architects were still busy completing plans for this new big complex. I am just wondering how the figure of R16 million has been arrived at because the plans are not yet complete. Obviously no tenders have been called for and the estimate must be a very rough one if the plans have not yet been completed. This is a very big undertaking and I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us any indication as to whether he really thinks that this building is going to be completed at a cost of R16 million or anything like it. My own belief is that the cost will probably be nearer R25 million by the time it is finished. Would it not be wiser to try to get a closer estimate of what we are letting ourselves in for? We all agree that the work has to be done, but are we not deluding ourselves by making provision for a figure which is not likely to cover the final cost? Would it not be wiser to try to ascertain what the final cost is likely to be? If that figure proves to be an over-estimate then it would not matter because we would be saving money. We know that it so often happens that money is voted here for an undertaking and that by the time it is completed the cost is twice as much as the original estimate. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us any idea as to how closely the estimated cost of this building has been investigated. Was provision made for R16 million just because it is a round figure or how was the figure arrived at?

In the first place, as far as the architects are concerned, I just want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that I entirely agree with him that in projects of this nature we should obtain the services of the best architects in the country. However, it has been the practice of the Department of Public Works for many years, since the time of the previous Government as a matter of fact, to appoint architects for projects on the advice of the Institute of Architects. The architect for the Jan Smuts terminal building was appointed on the advice of the Institute of Architects. Only one firm was appointed. With the consent of that firm we called in other architects to obtain their views in connection with the type of building. In the meantime I have changed that procedure, because I believe that in future when we are dealing with large projects, one should appoint a consortium of architects so as to avail oneself of the experience and knowledge of a larger number of people. This will be done in future.

As far as the estimate is concerned, the hon. member is quite correct. At this stage we cannot say with certainty what the final cost of that terminal building is going to be, because the price level may possibly change entirely before 1972. The building will be completed in various stages. In many respects this is a highly technical building. It will not be possible to complete it before 1972. This estimate was made by my Department, one that has knowledge of the cost of buildings of this type, but the estimate was based on present price levels. Hon. members must realize that the estimate was based on the approximate cost per square foot for that type of building, due regard being had to its technical nature, etc. We concede that the final cost will be much higher, and I believe that the cost will in fact be higher as a result of the constant increase in building costs, but that is no reason why we cannot say at this stage that a building of that type, according to the experience of the Department, will cost approximately R16 million. I think that is as close as we are able to estimate the cost at this stage, and we must, after all, give Parliament an indication of the estimated cost.

I want to ask a question about the first item, the various re-voted services. Here the Minister has lumped together services totalling R173 million, and he has told us that he needs an additional amount of R 1,464,000. We have no idea at all how that will be distributed and what work it will be applied to. Could the Minister please give us some information?

When the hon. the Minister spoke of the Jan Smuts Airport, he told us that persons had already been sent overseas by the architects, and also by others, to conduct investigations at the most modern airport terminals in other parts of the world. Now I want to ask him this: If those persons had been sent overseas, it would surely have cost more than this small amount of R50 which is indicated? From what source then is that expenditure being met?

The second point I want to raise is this. The hon. the Minister will have wide powers in regard to the building of this terminal at Jan Smuts. Will he be the person who must determine priorities in regard to a major work such as this, or is it the task of the Minister of Transport to say that he would like to determine priorities? We should just like to know who is the Minister in charge with whom we shall have to deal in the event of there being any delay in the work, in order that the Minister of Transport will not be able to tell us that the Minister of Public Works is the Minister in charge.

I wonder whether the Minister will give us some additional information in regard to the third item, the new High School for Coloureds in Pretoria? Apparently this is to be a high school on the outskirts of Pretoria, and as far as I know the coloured population of Pretoria is between 7,000 and 8,000. Will the Minister give us some information as to whether this school will serve a wider area than Pretoria itself, or whether the fact is that there is no high school for Coloureds in Pretoria at present and that one is thus necessary?

The other point on which I should like to have some information is why it is that most of the coloured schools appear under Loan Vote “B”, under Public Works, and then we find that there are a number of coloured schools which fall under Loan Vote “P”, Coloured Affairs? Is there some reason for putting some of the expenditure under Public Works, and other expenditure under Coloured Affairs, seeing that they both relate to the building of schools for Coloureds?

The hon. member for Orange Grove once more spoke of the building at Jan Smuts Airport. It is very obvious that the hon. member does not know how the machinery of State operates. As a matter of fact, he has never been a member of a governing party, because when the party to which he now belongs was in power, he was a member of the Opposition, and now that we are in power he again is a member of the Opposition. However, when an architect receives a commission and goes overseas to conduct a personal investigation, that is his affair and he himself foots the bill. But when the Department of Transport, or my Department, sends someone, that expenditure is included in the normal administrative expenditure of the Department and is not entered as a charge against the building. It is normal procedure for officials to be sent overseas from time to time to investigate certain specific matters, and that is done according to normal practice. For that reason no provision was made for the expenditure before. The provision we are now being asked to make is simply to enable us to issue tender documents for the first phases of the work to be carried out.

The hon. member also asked who would be responsible for determining priorities. Neither the Minister of Transport nor I myself will determine priorities; the Government as a whole will do so. The person who will really have the most say will be the Minister of Finance, because he will have to make the money available whereupon the Government as a whole will determine the priorities in the interests of the country.

†The hon. member for Umlazi asked me in connection with the first item, the large number of various services re-voted. According to the latest revised Estimates of Expenditure on the whole Loan Vote “B”, an excess of R 1,700,000 is expected this financial year, but this is partially decreased by the amount voted in respect of the named services in the Additional Estimates, and consequently it is expected that an additional amount of R 1,446,232 will be required to meet the commitments of the Department of Public Works for this financial year. Available funds are usually exceeded as the result of slower progress during the previous financial year than was expected, and quicker progress during the current financial year by the contractors than could be foreseen. There are some 500 separate services under Loan Vote “B”, of which a number are globular provisions. The number of buildings being erected, therefore, exceeds the number of items in the Estimates, which indicates how difficult it is to forecast the actual expenditure during a financial year.

*The hon. member for Green Point asked me questions in connection with the school at Pretoria. I regret that I cannot give him the replies. My Department does not determine what area a school should serve. My Department merely carries out the tasks which other Departments ask it to carry out. The Department of Coloured Affairs gave high priority to this particular school and indicated that it must be completed by the beginning of the next financial, or rather, school year. For that reason this amount is now being asked for. I cannot tell him what need there exists for that school. The hon. member must obtain that information from that Department.

The hon. member also asked why two items requesting loan funds for schools for Coloureds appear under the Loan Estimates. The reason is that the Department of Coloured Affairs finances the completion of schools that were under construction when coloured education was taken over from the provinces, with money it obtains from the Treasury, but my Department is responsible for all new works.

I refer to the item of R 160,000 for additional residential accommodation at Acacia Park. Can the Minister tell us how much additional accommodation will be provided?

As the result of the shortage of residential accommodation for sessional officers, it was decided, upon representation by the Acacia Park Board of Control, to have an additional 20 three-bedroomed houses erected. The estimated cost of the 20 houses is R161,000. The erection of a further ten houses at an estimated cost of R83,000 was approved at a later stage. As funds for this purpose are not provided for in the Estimates now in force and as many houses as possible had to be ready for this parliamentary Session a special warrant was issued and the service will have to be voted in these Estimates. I may add that the 20 houses are already occupied.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote C,—“Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services, R797,000”:

Mr. Chairman, this sub-head reflects an increase of R258,000. In the Main Estimates there are 13 different items for which money was requested originally. Could the Minister just indicate to us which of those 13 items are the three or four main items for which R250,000 is being requested under this particular subhead?

Mr. Chairman, these items are different from those to which the hon. member is referring. In the first place, the increase can be attributed to an amount of R1 million which is needed for the expanding telephone system. The tremendous demand for telephones and tele-communication equipment has been the reason for an additional estimate of R1 million. Then there is also an amount of R55,000 in respect of work done by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for the Department of Defence. At the same time one should subtract a saving of R258.000 in respect of the S.A.B.C. which curtailed its expenditure in respect of the V.H.F. F.M. service as a result of the appeal made by the Government. If you add all these amounts, namely R1 million plus R55,000 minus R258,000, you will arrive at the amount of R797,000.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote D,—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, R1,200,000”:

Mr. Chairman, this item represents an increase of R 1,200,000 which the hon. the Minister is entitled to grant to farmers in terms of the State Advances Recoveries Act. I just want to know whether this increase also includes the assistance which will be rendered to farmers in flood-stricken areas.

The hon. member knows that he may not advance reasons. The Minister furnishes the reasons.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members will probably know why there is an increase in this item. In drought conditions such as we have had in this country, it is, of course, very difficult to place the exact amount in the Estimates. This item was voted in accordance with the possibility I envisaged in the previous Estimates that, if these circumstances were to continue, all these items would increase. For various reasons all of these items showed increases. Amounts required for the consolidation of debts were increased; loans for the purpose of purchasing land and effecting improvements, etc., were increased. Loans in respect of soil conservation works as well as production loans were increased. The drought is, of course, the major reason for this increase.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote F,—“Forestry, R300,000”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain sub-head (2), namely Utilization: State sawmills, R 100,000.

In December, 1965, there was a fire in the George district plantations resulting in considerable damage to timber. In order to handle the situation a portable sawmill had to be sent into the area and the George sawmill had to work on double shifts to salvage the burnt timber and handle it immediately. This accounted for R50,000 of the R100,000. In addition a large amount is involved in salary payments. The amount that has been given to me is that approximately R 1,800,000 was the original Estimate for salaries, wages, etc. That Estimate was lower than the actual amount required. It was increased by another R50,000, a matter, as the hon. member will see, of not more than 2½ or 3 per cent of the original Estimates. These two items make up the total amount of R 100,000.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote J,—“Commerce and Industries, R25,300,000”:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister introducing these Estimates made reference to this Vote of R30 million in very vague terms. I wonder whether he could give us a little more information about this.

Mr. Chairman, as you will see, this item makes provision for an interest free Loan to the External Procurements Fund. The External Procurements Fund was established in 1942 by the previous Government by way of a war-time proclamation. At that time this empowered the Government to purchase strategic goods, to transport them and to store them until such time as these goods would be used by the private sector or by the Government itself. That fund has remained in existence since that time. It was used again particularly after certain countries had taken steps to withhold certain goods from us, as Pakistan did when it stopped exporting jute to us. This fund was retained and used for building up local supplies of those strategic goods, because it was essential for the survival of our economy. These funds, which were required for purchasing such supplies and keeping them in stock, were obtained by means of a Government guaranteed overdraft by the Reserve Bank. When such supplies were sold or disposed of, that fund was once again credited with the amount concerned. You will recall that as far as this Procurements Fund is concerned, it was provided earlier this year that funds could be made available to the private sector from this fund. In the interests of our survival it was deemed necessary also for the private sector to be able to purchase strategic goods in larger quantities than their normal supplies. It was, therefore, approved that the private sector could also make use of this External Procurements Fund for special long-term supplies. There is one change now. It has been proposed that, as regards our storage of strategic goods, all those funds should not be spent abroad, but that certain arrangements should be made locally, particularly as regards the storage of such goods. When these funds are borrowed from the Reserve Bank and paid out abroad, it is not inflationary as far as our own economy is concerned, but when these funds are borrowed from the Reserve Bank and are in fact utilized domestically, it has an inflationary effect. For that reason provision has now been made—especially since loan funds are available at the moment—instead of borrowing this money from the Reserve Bank on an overdraft, guaranteed by the Government, for a loan to stock-pile those strategic supplies. That is the real reason why an amount of R30 million, minus the savings which were effected, has to be provided in this way instead of its being obtained from the Reserve Bank, as would normally have been the position.

The hon. the Minister has explained the variations in the method of financing the External Procurements Fund. Until recently the External Procurements Fund was used mainly for goods such as jute, jute bags and so on. Now according to the Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs, it will be used for strategic stockpiling—I think this phrase was used. On those grounds I gather that the Minister is not prepared to give this House any further information as to how the money is to be spent. Is that so?

That is correct. Besides, I do not think that it is in the interests of those people abroad who want to do us harm to have knowledge of the goods which are being purchased. These purchases are not only made by the Government. A very large percentage of them is being purchased and kept in storage by the private sector itself. The additional cost incurred in this way is being financed from this fund in terms of legislation passed earlier this year. Therefore I believe that it is not in the interests of South Africa that those people who want to do South Africa harm should know what supplies we are purchasing and storing.

I do not want to pursue the subject unnecessarily. However, the hon. the Minister knows that the whole country is full of stories about what is being done, or about what is intended to be done, under this Vote. Consequently I doubt whether it is wise for the Minister just to draw a veil of secrecy over all the proceedings especially in view of the fact that that secrecy is not being observed. As I have said, everybody knows what is going on and, therefore, I cannot for the life of me see exactly what is being achieved by pretending that it is not going on. There is no sense in the Minister talking about public interests if everybody knows what is going on. Everybody knows. The newspapers have been full of it, both the English and the Afrikaans Press. So what exactly is to be gained by pretending that it is not going on, I do not know.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote K,—“Community Development, R6,929,300”:

Could the Minister tell us why it is necessary to augment the funds of the National Housing Fund by this amount of approximately R8½ million?

Hon. members will realize that the National Housing Fund makes allocations to local authorities. The latter enter into contracts for the construction of schemes, schemes which often extend over a period of two to three years. Usually the maximum time within which the scheme has to be completed, is stipulated. but not the minimum time. It is not possible to say how much of the work involved in the scheme will be completed within a specific year. Experience has shown over the past year that owing to building restrictions and credit control, local authorities have made more rapid progress with their respective housing schemes than either they or we originally expected. Building contractors employed more workers and consequently the schemes were completed at an accelerated pace. The increase is attributable to this. The position is therefore that we managed to have more houses built over the past year, something which, in my opinion, justifies a further allocation.

Does this mean that local authorities which have run out of funds, such as Durban, are going to have more funds available to them?

No, it does not mean that they will receive additional funds for new schemes. It does mean that they will receive further allocations for approved schemes on the basis of the amount the Department allocated to them. As I have said, it does not mean that they will receive funds which will enable them to build more houses during this financial year. They will have to wait for that until the next financial year.

Could the Minister tell us under what head this considerable saving, i.e. R1,570,700, was effected and how it fits in with these additional allocations?

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote L,—“Transport, R2,602”:

Could the hon. the Minister give us some information about the construction of aerodromes at Kortdoorn and Katima Mulilo?

The expenditure in respect of both these aerodromes is covered by savings under this Vote. The amount of R1 is shown merely to bring the additional expenditure to the notice of Parliament. As regards the expenditure of R2,200 shown in respect of the Kortdoorn aerodrome I want to say that the work was completed as long ago as February, 1966. No further expenditure had been foreseen when the Estimates were drawn up, but in July, 1966, a delayed claim was submitted by the Department of Mines, which had carried out the work in conjunction with Consolidated Diamond Mines of South-West Africa. Kortdoorn is situated near Alexander Bay. Katima Mulilo is situated in South-West Africa and the expenditure is covered by savings in this case as well. The work was completed by the Roads Department of the Transvaal Provincial Administration during November, 1965. When the Estimates were drawn up we did not foresee that additional expenditure would be incurred. After the work had been completed, however, it was decided that the equipment belonging to the Transvaal Provincial Administration would be used for the construction of a road between Katima Mulilo and Ngoma. The equipment was sent back to Pretoria only during the current financial year. A claim for the cost of sending it back to Pretoria as well as one for an amount of R35,000 in respect of repairs was received from the Transvaal Provincial Administration. They also submitted delayed payments for the construction of the aerodrome amounting to R10.555.

Could the Minister give us more information about the ex gratia payment of R2.600 mentioned under item 4?

Provision is made here for an ex gratia payment of R2,600 to a Japanese company, the company which has built the departmental vessel R.S.A. This vessel was handed over to the Department on 30th November, 1961. In terms of the guarantee, however, the company still had obligations for a further period of 12 months. Shortly after the vessel had been handed over, difficulties were experienced with the deep-sea echo sounder. This instrument did not work satisfactorily. In fact, the company had to send one of its employees to South Africa several times to work on this instrument, but without satisfactory results, even though the instrument had been attended to four times. The Department adopted the attitude that the company concerned still had obligations in terms of the guarantee, and on 29th January, 1965, the company was therefore requested to replace the defective instrument. The Japanese company eventually replaced the recorder of the echo sounder. The company’s agents in South Africa requested the Department to pay half the repair costs, which amounted to R5,182. Later a claim submitted by the company itself was received for the full amount of the repairs, which then, according to the company, amounted to R5,914. Because the Department felt that the original device was not wholly defective and because it was replaced at considerable cost to the Japanese company, the Department decided that the claim be paid as a matter of prestige and in all fairness. The opinion of the State Attorney was thereupon obtained and he suggested that an ex gratia payment to cover half the repair costs be made to the firm as requested by its agents in South Africa. The matter was then settled amicably in this way.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N,—“Bantu Administration and Development, R5,200,000”:

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Deputy Minister please explain why there is this increase of R5,200,000?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that in 1966-’67 we received 25 per cent less than we had spent in the financial year 1965-’66. This R5.200.000 is intended, inter alia, for the erection of hospitals. An amount of R 1,600,000 is intended for the erection of a mental hospital at Newcastle. That amount is required for the present financial year. In view of squatter conditions at the various border industry areas 3.200 houses have to be built.

Where is that?

I do not know, but I hope it is at Hammarsdale, to satisfy the hon. member. I hope it is there. Calculated at approximately R500 per house, the amount is approximately R 1,600,000. Then there is a shortage of water at the various Bantu townships built by the Department. An amount of R1,100.000 is required for that our-pose. Then there is an urgent payment which had to be made by the Trust as a result of its liability for part of the costs in respect of the laying of a water pipeline to the Garankuwa Bantu township. That gives a total of R4,650,000. The balance of R550,000 was used for assistance during the drought, which caused very great difficulties amongst the Bantu farmers. and, inter alia, unemployment as well. The last amount which also forms part of the R550,000 relates to the establishment of prison farms, which has become very urgent. That brings the total amount to R5,200,000.

What about the farm gaols? Is the Department building farm gaols, and where are they being built?

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that is a question which has to be answered by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. Unfortunately he had to leave for Pretoria this afternoon. I cannot give the hon. member that information. I shall, however, give it to him in writing. I personally do not have the information at my disposal.

Has any of this money been spent in the Transkei?

It does not appear so to me. We will have to get money for that territory later.

I am sorry, Sir, but I did not quite hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. Did he say R1.6 million for a mental hospital outside Newcastle?

Yes.

Is that amount for running expenses or is it for …

Order! The hon. member may not suggest reasons. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the figures and gave the reasons.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the question was asked what this was and the hon. the Minister gave a reply. The hon. member is now, with respect, dealing with the Minister’s reply.

Order! No. The hon. member said he did not hear the reply.

May I ask, Sir, whether this R1.6 million is in respect of running expenses of the Madadeni hospital? May I further ask the Deputy Minister to repeat the figure for housing?

Mr. Chairman, my information is that, amongst others, a hospital for mentally deranged persons is in the process of being erected at Newcasle. For this year the amount of R1.6 million will be required. The amount budgeted for housing is calculated at R500 per house, and there being 3,200 houses, it gives us another R1.6 million.

Mr. Chairman, dealing with the Madadeni hospital to begin with, could the Deputy Minister ascertain and advise me on this figure, whether this is being used for capital expenditure or whether it is for running expenses? My information from the hon. the Minister of Health during the last session was that by this time the Madadeni hospital would be in operation. The other point is in regard to these houses. Could the Deputy Minister advise me what type of house the Department intends constructing?

It will be the usual type of house, the type that is being built in Umlazi and Garankuwa and those places. I will obtain the information about the hospital. That matter is being dealt with by the Minister himself, so I unfortunately do not have much information on that score. I will obtain the information for the hon. member and send it to him. I am very pleased to be able to inform the hon. member for Transkei that we do spend a little money in the Transkei, and that the prison farm is being built at Umzimkulu. The Trust is supplying the building. I only hope the hon. member will keep out of trouble.

I should like to ask a question about this prison farm to which the Deputy Minister has just referred. May I ask whether this is the prison farm adjoining Mr. Halford’s farm? When those farms were bought by the Department, Mr. Halford was promised that he would have a “good neighbour”. This matter is of tremendous local importance. These farms were bought by the Trust against the will of the farmers. When the Secretary for Bantu Administration was informed that the farmers there were being forced out, one of the farmers was told, “We are not forcing you out; you can stay here if you like.” He was promised that he would be given “good neighbours”. I am now asking whether this prison farm is one of the “good neighbours”.

That has nothing to do with the increase in this Vote.

It has!

In any case—I do not know.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, during the discussion on this Bill it has become apparent that it is actually only the hon. member for Houghton who has serious fundamental objections to this measure. She entertains those objections despite the fact the hon. the Minister is trying, by means of these training centres for Coloured cadets, to introduce a positive measure in order to draw Coloured youths into a specific programme of preparation for greater preparedness to work and purposeful training. This will enable them to take their rightful place in society, in the Coloured community in particular, and in the country in general. The hon. member for Houghton is not here at the moment, but I do want to say that the hon. member surprises me time and again by the hopelessly negative attitude she adopts here. I do not know what her aim is in doing so, but her kind of liberalism is actually a fellow-traveller of Communism. One gets the impression that she actually wants to take delinquency into her protection in an attempt to further her liberalistic notions in some way or other. If liberalism takes delinquency into his protection, one is surprised at the stupidity with which such people approach life. I want to leave the hon. member for Houghton at that, and just say that unless she begins to think more positively about possible solutions to our country’s problems, the time will soon come when she will no longer have a seat in this House.

When a measure such as this is introduced, by means of which it is attempted to move in the direction of better preparation and employment, better training of the Coloured youth, regard should be had to those people’s background. Just like the Afrikaans-speaking people, the Coloured has a preponderantly rural background. Relatively speaking he is a stranger to the modern urban environment into which the process of urbanization has drawn him. In more than one respect he is not very well adjusted. In consequence of that, tremendous problems have arisen in the Coloured community in the course of the past few decades. We know that in the movement to the cities, where there is a lack of proper housing, the people were massed together in areas and under conditions where housing was very poor and where all kinds of social evils developed as a result. The responsible leaders among the Coloureds are therefore aware of the fact that they are facing a tremendous problem which arose in the past few decades. This problem is tremendously harmful to the Coloured population, and is most injurious to the good name of our Coloureds. In the rural areas there was more of a natural discipline for the Coloureds. Where they lived on farms the parents could still exercise fairly good supervision over them. The master of the farm maintained a natural discipline on his farm. There were jobs for the Coloured. Even if the Coloured did not go to school, he learned from an early age to do something useful. Thus he developed self-respect and pride and was naturally assimilated very easily by the community.

In the new urban environment, however, it is much more difficult for the Coloured youth to keep to the straight and narrow. In most cases both parents work. There are fewer recreation facilities. There are none of the opportunities for employment which he or his parents enjoyed on the farms. Consequently, there is more occasion for delinquency, even for crime. In saying this I do not want to cast any reflection on the Coloured population, of course. There are hundreds of thousands of those people who are honourable and who play a very useful part in society, people who present no problem to the State and to society. They are people who make a worthy contribution to our country’s development in a large variety of industries, not only in the rural areas but nowadays also in the cities.

One forms a conception of the nature of the problem if one listens to what is said by Mr. Tom Swartz, Chairman of the Coloured Council. He said the following—

Here he refers to this measure. You see, Mr. Speaker, there are people and leaders among the Coloured population who would like to provide positive guidance for their people. They would not like to have a large number of Coloured youths lost to their own population group. They would not like a continuation of this knifing, robbery and damage to property, which occurs so frequently—not only in respect of the property of Whites but also in respect of the property of Coloureds. They wish to have this kind of thing prevented. Those people see in this Bill a positive step by the Government and the hon. the Minister to combat these evils and to prevent their increasing even further. Because, Sir, the Coloureds are becoming an urban population to an increasing extent. We cannot afford, they cannot afford, the reputation of the Coloured population cannot afford, the loss of a too high percentage of those people to South Africa and to their own Coloured community. For that reason I welcome this measure. We dare not ignore these conditions and these problems, and we cannot possibly provide only for gaols to imprison people once they have become criminals. We have to make provision as far as possible to prevent people becoming criminals. The Minister’s introduction of a measure which, as set out in this Bill, proposes to have these people exercise, to have them take part in physical exercises, in sport activities, in drilling, and also to let them perform other kinds of work, is in my view most certainly a positive measure to foster some self-respect in Coloured youths, people who would otherwise perhaps fall into crime. Through this measure they may find themselves and make a proper living as human beings. Thus they may be assimilated somewhere in industry or in farming, or wherever it may be, so that they may be contented people.

In particular I also see this measure from the point of view of the loss of labour, a most important matter. We are engaged in a large-scale programme to remove the Bantu gradually from the Western Cape. The reason for that is partly that we have a large and rapidly increasing Coloured population here, and partly that we know that this part of our country is not the homeland of the Bantu. In other words, this is actually the natural employment area of the Coloured population, of an increasing Coloured population, an area in which we also want to assure them of a future and afford them an opportunity to make their full contribution to the development of our country. If one considers the statistics for the year 1960, it occurs to one that the Coloured population has not really become economically productive in a high degree, compared with the White population. In this regard I should like to quote some figures.

According to the statistics furnished the number of White men who are economically active is 848,805. The number of men who are economically inactive is 690,000. I am taking only the figures in respect of the male section of our population, which perhaps affords us a reasonable basis of comparison. The position in respect of Coloured men is as follows. 369,290 were economically active, while 331,542 were economically inactive. 45 per cent of the White men are economically inactive, while 55 per cent are economically active. As for the Coloured men, 52 per cent of them aie economically inactive while 48 per cent are economically active. In other words, there is a difference of at least 7 per cent. And that, Sir, while there is a tremendous shortage of labour here in the Western Province. Among the able-bodied persons in the Western Province, White as well as Coloured, there is not one who can complain of not being able to find employment, provided he wants to work. I will not be told that a man who wants to work and who can work, even if he only wants to do some simple job, cannot get work. Everywhere people are looking for workers. Our entire industrial development, our agriculture are begging for workers. If we take the degree of employment of the White population as a standard—and here it is the position that there is almost 100 per cent employment—then there is a difference of 7 per cent in respect of the male Coloured population. If we calculate this figure in terms of the total it means that there are approximately 50,000 Coloureds in the Republic who are more or less constantly unemployed, people who are doing nothing. That makes a total of 100 million man-hours a year, man-hours which are simply lost. These are people who lounge about on the streets, people who sit at home, people who simply do nothing. I repeat, Sir—100 million man-hours a year. In my view that is a tremendous labour loss in a young, developing country like the Republic of South Africa, a country which is crying out for men, for labourers, skilled or unskilled, in every field. And yet we are faced with the position that that tremendous labour potential remains unexploited. The reason why it remains unexploited cannot be explained in one sentence.

The fact remains that many people simply will not work—as Mr. Tom Swartz put it, they are the “won’t-works”. They accept no responsibility towards the country in which they live and the community whose privileges they enjoy. And that while we have to cater for those people in our entire national economy. Because, Sir, the day they become 65 years old, we give them old-age pensions. We give old-age pensions to many people who did preciously little in their lifetime. In my view— and I think it is a sound view in a democratic country—we shall be compelled, if we want to reach a stage where we may accept responsibility for all our aged people to ensure them of a living once they become 60 or 65 years old, to take into consideration whether they were prepared to do anything during their lifetime of 18 to 60 years—65 in the case of men. They must be useful. We provide hospital services for them. Those people enjoy such services more or less free of charge. We provide education services for them. That is one of the problems of South Africa, that the responsibility for a large population is resting on the shoulders of a too small section of the population. Too few people are carrying the burden. In our country too few people have to work hard for too many. On the other hand there are too many people who do next to nothing. I am not saying this in condescension, but in view of what is said by leaders of the Coloured population, I say it is at present one of our problems on the road of progress and the creation of a better future for the Coloured population. There are too many of those people who are maladjusted in relation to normal work. There are too many people who are maladjusted in respect of their elementary obligation to do their fair share in society. This measure is a start, and I am convinced that it is a good start, in creating the machinery and the opportunities for drawing our Coloured youth into a positive development programme.

Some weeks ago I visited the rural areas. There I called at a farm where some Coloureds were working. The work they were doing was not particularly hard, but under their short sleeves I could see their arms, and I told myself that there, at least, we still had workmen with muscles. One could see that they were proud of themselves, of what they were doing. On the other hand, if one looks at the young Coloureds strolling about in the cities and towns, one feels, that it takes six of them to make one man. They have no muscles; they are sloppy; their whole way of walking is slack; they lounge about in the streets with their hands in their pockets, wearing tattered and dirty trousers and shirts. He simply does not know what he wants to do. And on top of that he is hungry. That man does not believe in himself. He finds no place in society because he is not acceptable to any employer. In fact, he is not acceptable to himself. He is a problem to his own parents. If one encounters a person who is physically developed and strong, it is one who is prepared to do something, a man who is useful, a man of potential. The Minister states in this measure that the object of the training of Coloured cadets is to let them take part in physical exercises, sport, drilling exercises, and to teach them to do something. I maintain that from a psychological viewpoint, and also from a sociological viewpoint, this is one of the soundest methods, educational and development methods, to let people find themselves, to let them develop confidence and to make them serviceable. This is a most important step, and for that reason I welcome this Bill.