Sir, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Certain Organizations I move—

1. (1) That the Select Committee on Certain Organizations have power to allow witnesses to be assisted by counsel and/or attorneys to the extent that the Committee deems fit; and
2. (2) that, if a witness before the Select Committee on Certain Organizations so requests, the name of such witness shall not, in the discretion of the Committee, be published in the minutes of proceedings or the evidence of the Committee, nor shall his identity be divulged in any other way.

Agreed to.

Sir, last night I was asking the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development for certain information regarding this item of R2 557 000, Item N. The hon. the Minister kindly informed me what the position was with regard to the hospitals which were taken over and administered by the Department of Health in the Bantu areas. I come now to the question of those Bantu hospitals which are in the White areas. Will the hon. the Minister tell me whether any of this money is going to the payment of fees or subsidies to the provincial administrations in respect of those Bantu hospitals which are in the White areas and administered by the provincial administrations?

The position is that after they are taken over by my department and the Department of Health, the finances for missionary as well as State hospitals (previously provincial hospitals) in the Bantu homeland areas, now come through my department to the Department of Health, but with regard to Bantu hospitals outside the Bantu homeland areas, that is to say, in White towns or in White cities, in all four provinces, the position remains absolutely unchanged. Those Bantu hospitals in the White area still fall under the provinces and will all be financed, as in the past, by funds from the provinces. In South-West Africa the position is the same. There, too, we do not through my department finance any hospitals in the White area of South-West Africa; so in the four provinces the position has changed only in respect of Bantu hospitals inside the Bantu homeland areas where the financing now comes through my department to the hospitals and the Department of Health, but in the White areas in the four provinces the Bantu hospitals in the cities and towns will undergo no change as far as financing is concerned. The position will be just the same as in the past.

In the light of the hon. the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for South Coast, I would like to ask him whether he will now exercise control entirely and solely over those hospitals which are inside the Bantu Areas. The point is whether the provinces are free to plan and extend these facilities to Bantu outside the Bantu areas.

Sir, I do not know whether I must reply to that question because it is totally irrelevant here. The position is that I have no say whatsoever over Bantu hospitals in the White area of South Africa, except for the sitting of such hospitals; I have no say with regard to their running.

Sir, last night the hon. the Minister told us that part of the increase in salaries, wages and allowances was due to the posting or the seconding to the homelands of more White personnel than they had at first anticipated. Could the Minister tell us what his Budget is; can he tell us how many persons he really had in mind, and what extra number had to be posted?

No, we do not keep statistics in that form. The position is that we plan the hierarchy for every one of these Bantu homelands; as I have said, as a matter of principle we always try to get as many Bantu persons as possible to man the various posts, but it was not possible, especially as far as the top ranks are concerned, to get all the Bantu persons we hoped to get and consequently we had to take in more White persons who are, of course, on a higher salary scale.

How many White persons were engaged?

Sir, I have said very clearly that we do not keep statistics in that form. Theoretically the answer is that right at the beginning we intended to have so many posts but that ultimately we had to fill a quarter number of posts with White persons, but the statistics are not kept in that way; it is not necessary.

Sir, when the hon. the Minister draws up his Budget, does he draw it up on a guesswork basis and simply make provision for a globular sum, or does he have a specific establishment? When the Budget is drawn up, the original Estimates show the various posts and grades, the number of people in those grades, the rate at which they are paid and the total amount. That is how the Estimates appear before this House. When the hon. the Minister draws up his Budget, does he not have before him the individual grades, the individual posts, the number of people planned for it, and the amount required? He now comes to this Committee with additional Estimates and says, “I do not know, because we do not have the statistics.” He does have those statistics, Mr. Chairman. He had them in the original Estimates; they had to be there because they were presented to this House. The original Estimates appeared before us in this House; they were debated and the money was voted. The hon. the Minister now comes to us for an additional amount. What we want to know is where this additional estimate differs as far as numbers are concerned from the estimates which the Minister presented when we considered the original Estimates last year. The hon. the Minister cannot say “We do not keep those statistics.” Of course he keeps those figures.

I said “not in that way.”

But the hon. the Minister knows how many people he budgeted for, White and non-White? Surely, if he has done his job, and if he knows what is going on in his department, he can say: “We budgeted for so many; in fact, we could not fill these posts at this rate; we had to fill them at a higher rate with different people.” The hon. the Minister cannot shrug his shoulders and say: “I have no statistics.” That means that when we have the Main Estimates before us, we are going to have to say to the hon. the Minister that we cannot accept any of his figures in the Main Estimates because they are not based on any statistics. For instance, I have here a copy of last year’s Main Estimates. I refer to Vote 24. on page 142. This shows the number of deputy secretaries, under-secretaries, principal Bantu Affairs commissioners, right down the list, to “other staff”. There are 127 in this latter category. We then find separate sections dealing with the Territorial Authority of the Tswana, the Territorial Authority of the South Sotho, of the Ovambo, and each Bantu Territorial Authority, showing the exact number of people. The numbers are listed, and in each case there is a group of “other staff” at the bottom. It shows the number of officials, the rate and the total amount. I have here before me a copy of the Main Estimates. Now, can the hon. the Minister tell us under which heads—and in respect of which groups he has not conformed with what he asked Parliament to approve, and where he has asked us to depart from what this House approved, and from the establishment which this House granted the hon. the Minister. That is what we want to know. That is what the Minister should know, and that is what we are entitled to ask him. If he cannot reply, then we have every reason to ask: “Why does the Minister not know what is going on in his department?”

Mr. Chairman, to anyone participating in an intelligent way in the functions of this Committee and this House it became clear long ago that the Opposition avails itself of every opportunity to wage so-called psychological warfare against this side of the House, by alleging that none of us knows anything about any of our departments.

It seems like it.

Sir, it is no problem at all to ask the Opposition a question about their functions, in respect of which they will not be able to give the answer. What we are dealing with here is not the number of posts in my department. Nor is it the number of posts in the various Bantu Governments, because all this money is not intended solely for posts in my department. There is money here for posts in the Bantu departments of the various Bantu Governments. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of that. What we are dealing with here is not the number of posts; we are dealing here with a necessary increase in all the various Bantu Governments, and apart from the Transkei there are seven others which have recently come into operation. There are Bantu posts in the establishments of the Bantu Governments in the case of each of those departments they have, and those Bantu posts are financed out of the estimates of those Bantu Governments. If these are Bantu persons, then it is their business and they have the particulars of how many there are. In so far as Bantu persons cannot be found for those Bantu posts, White persons are on loan from us to occupy those Bantu posts at the remuneration of the White salary scales of those whom we employ. That is the position, and one of the reasons which I have already expressly mentioned. I want to point out that there are various reasons for this. Yesterday afternoon I mentioned five categories, and if the hon. member wants to know from me how many posts there are in each of the Bantu Governments in general, and how many of those posts are at present occupied by Whites, and how many are at present occupied by Bantu, I can give him the information, but I cannot give it to him at the moment. It is useless for me to bring this information along to this House, for when these particulars were given to me last week, the position was different to what it is today. It fluctuates from week to week, as persons come and go. Hon. members must remember that we are dealing here with seven different Bantu Governments, where there are a few thousand such posts. There are more than 50 000 teachers’ posts alone. If the hon. member really wants to know how many Bantu persons there are in the various Bantu Government posts, and how many White persons, then I give the hon. member the choice of doing one of two things. Firstly he can raise the matter under my Vote. I shall then furnish him with the total number. I shall not want to furnish him with the names of the people as well, though, because to do so would be a waste of both time and paper. However, if the hon. member does not want to wait for that, he can put a proper question on the Order Paper in regard to the posts of all the various Bantu Governments, Whites and non-Whites, and then I shall furnish him with the information. We do have the information available in that way, but we do not have it available in the way which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana …

Umlazi.

Yes, we do not have it available in the way in which the hon. member for Umlazi requested it from me, namely …

It is a Zulu name.

Yes, I said “Umlazi”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Umlazi must be careful. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I said “the hon. member for Umlazi”; I do not know what is wrong with that. In that way, in which the hon. member for Umlazi put the question to me, we do not keep the information, for it is not in any way relevant for us to do that.

Mr. Chairman, it is a sorry day for this House when I have to hold up the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs as an example to other Ministers as to how they should conduct their business. All the hon. member for Umlazi wanted to know was: “What is the increase in the number of White personnel who have had to be employed in the different departments during the year to bring about this difference in the salaries, wages and allowances.” Last night the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs gave us those figures in respect of his department. Admittedly he could not break down the amounts, but he was able to give us the numbers. Now the Minister very unreasonably says that if we want to know the numbers of all the Whites employed in the different departments he will give them to us. He facetiously adds that he cannot give us all the names. Nobody is asking for that sort of thing; he is just trying to be a bit too smart. One of the excuses he gave was that he also had to furnish the Bantu Governments with White personnel if they cannot find sufficient numbers of Bantu officials to fill the posts. Then he said “Dit is hulle saak”, as to how many they require. I submit that it is not “hulle saak”, if we are paying for those people.

I said it is “hulle saak” to get their own people. If they cannot, it is our “saak” to help them.

Well, then this House is entitled to know how many he had to second to help them. Surely we are entitled to know the extra number that had to be employed. We are only asking for the extra numbers. We are not asking for the details of all the servants employed by the department. We are merely asking how many extra officials had to be employed. That is what the hon. member wanted to know. I submit that that is not an unreasonable request to put to the Minister. It is no answer to say that they vary all the time. When he placed this fixed amount in these Additional Estimates, he must have known how many he was budgeting for. Surely his department can tell him how many additional Whites—that is all we want to know—had to be employed to fill these posts?

Mr. Chairman, … [Interjections.]

Order! Last night a ruling was given to the effect that no interjections would be tolerated. Hon. members are starting off in the same vein now, and I do not at this stage want to say that I do not want any more interjections. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I want to set the hon. member straight. In regard to drawing up estimates, and in regard to how many people have to be employed there, how many posts there are and how much money is required, the hon. member must remember two related points. An establishment is drawn up for a department. According to that establishment we know precisely how many posts there are. The ideal situation is to fill them all. You do not get the situation in any administration, not even in our White administrations, where all the departments have at all times filled all their posts. It fluctuates from day to day. Sometimes you will perhaps have a 90 per cent occupation of posts, and other times it will be 91 per cent, and on another day it may even perhaps be 96 per cent. It fluctuates from week to week and it may even happen that at the end of this year, when the final accounts are closed, all this money will not even have been used because you did not have 100 per cent occupation of the posts. This is for the establishment with the number of posts it has. For that establishment that money is necessary in toto, and so much as an additional amount. If you do not have full occupation of all the posts on an establishment, if you cannot find all the people you need, because others have resigned or something like that, it may even happen that money is returned unused. It is an impossible task to give the hon. member a precise reply in this regard at any given time. That is why it is an absolute waste of time to keep particulars of this kind up to date, and I repeat my offer to the hon. member opposite. If he wants a full and proper picture of what the overall set-up is, we will be pleased to give it to him.

I really do not understand the hon. the Minister now. When he submitted his Main Estimates, he indicated to us a full establishment of 6 540 people. Now he is asking for that to be changed. If he was able to give us the original, surely he can tell us what the change was, for example where the increase or where the decrease was. Were the original estimates false, and did the Minister come to this House to request money for things he did not want? No, if he was able to furnish the number of posts on the original establishment in each of these categories, then he can also furnish the information in regard to this increase.

If the hon. member had rather asked me in private first, he would not have made such a great public fool of himself as he has just done. That book which the hon. member held up there indicates the posts of my department of which Mr. Van Onselen is the Secretary. This argument revolves round the posts in the Bantu Governments, which do not appear in that book. They appear in the books of the Bantu Government. That is the difference.

It seems the hon. the Minister does not understand what is going on at all. He spoke of three increases. I am referring to A in regard to which he was also unable to furnish the details, where he is asking for an increase of R355 000.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would answer an elementary question. I know him, and I know he will realize that he has to account for this to the House of Assembly. Would he please inform us with what object he is today asking Parliament to vote this additional amount of R355 000, what it will be used for, whether it involves any new staff who will have to be paid out of this amount, and if so, what staff and in what capacity and how many of them. Can he give us particulars; can he motivate to us his request for the amount of R355 000?

Sir, I am not asking for R355 000 at all. The hon. member is making a mistake right from the word go.

I am sorry I made a mistake, it is far more. It is more than a million rand.

Sir, I do not know whether you want me to repeat the particulars I furnished last night when the hon. member was not here. I furnished all those particulars then.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I furnished these particulars last night, and I want to repeat them now. This deals with the salaries, wages and allowances in respect of this R995 000. As I said, after expected savings were introduced, these excesses are there and this amount has to be spent for the number of posts which were necessary on the establishments for all these different activated Bantu authorities, because at the stage when we established the authorities it was not clear how many people they would be able to produce from among the members of their own peoples to fill those posts. White persons then had to be brought in for those posts, who, in the first place, are on a higher salary scale than the Bantu persons, and for whom therefore more money would be required.

But how many of them are there?

In the second place, more White persons were needed for that purpose. In addition there is also the expansion of the establishment, in other words, the normal expansion of the staff which occurs in any administration, and for which this money was required. Most of this money was spent on salary adjustments, salary improvements which took effect on two different dates in 1971, i.e. in January and October. This applies to both White and Bantu persons employed by those departments, as well as those employed by my own department, i.e. the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. These are the particulars I furnished the hon. member with last night. I repeat that if hon. members want specific particulars, specific numbers on specific dates, they must put the question in that way and I will have it tabulated for them in detail, in so far as we keep statistics of that kind up to date. One does not keep statistics up to date simply in order to have long rows and columns of figures. In so far as these are available, I shall furnish them to hon. members.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister. But, Mr. Chairman, although I accidentally mentioned the wrong figure to him a moment ago, I must point out that he replied to the wrong question. I do not want under the general heads in respect of which the money is being spent. I asked a specific question. The Minister must have calculated an amount of R995 000 plus R355 000. He must have calculated a further amount of R2 557 000. He must have calculated these amounts to the nearest thousand or nearest hundred.

How did he calculate these amounts? He must surely have said, when he calculated these amounts, that he needed them for adjustments or new appointments. That is all we want to know. We are entitled to know. After all, we cannot blindly vote R3 million to the hon. the Minister. He told us that he is requesting this money because he had to appoint people to posts for which Bantu could not be found. He had to fill additional posts. Why did he have to fill them? We are asking him specifically to motivate the reason for these people having been appointed, who they are, where they were appointed and how many were appointed.

Who they are?

No, not their names, but officially. In other words, what office do they hold. He cannot expect us to make him a gift of R3 million to do with what he wants. Surely he must use it for a certain, specific object. That is what we are entitled to know, otherwise he is unable to motivate it and explain to Parliament why he wants the money and what he wants to do with it. It is his duty, that is what he is Minister for and that is what he is paid for. His office is to justify his administration to the representatives of the people in this House of Assembly. So we are asking him once again to do his duty by the people.

Mr. Chairman, I will not have the hon. member for Yeoville formulating my duty for me. He can formulate his own duties, and those of his own people. I know what my duties are. I know what my responsibility is, and to whom I owe a responsibility. [Interjections.] And if the hon. member will do me the courtesy of allowing me to speak without interruption I shall tell him that I also know what control is exercised over my responsibility. If the hon. member did not hear what I said a moment ago, I shall repeat to him, as well as to any other member, what I said. If he wants detailed particulars of the number of posts, the number of people, White and Bantu on a given date, I shall give him this information if he puts that question to me and if these particulars are being kept up to date in that way.

The date was when the Estimates were drawn up.

I told the hon. member that those Estimates were drawn up for the maximum number of posts for the year. I am convinced, and everyone knows this, that it will be impossible for the maximum number of posts to be occupied. There are always vacancies and there will probably be money which is not utilized. If the hon. member asks me for the particulars in that way I shall give them to him in due course, but not today.

That is very unsatisfactory.

Mr. Chairman, in the reply the hon. the Minister gave before his last reply, he made a certain statement. He said that this new amount of R995 000 —not R355 000 as I said the first time—in other words almost three times as much, is inter alia, being requested for salary increases granted in January, 1971.

They were with retrospective effect.

The main Estimates were drawn up after 1st January, 1971. Why was it not added to those Estimates? We are referring here to Head A. If the hon. the Minister was able to tell us under Head A in the Main Estimates what the establishment was at the time, he can also tell us now what increase he is now envisaging in the establishment.

Mr. Chairman, in the present financial year the increase in the number of White officials was ratified with retrospective effect to 1st January, 1971. That is why we need money in the present financial year for particulars in regard to the previous financial year. The hon. member does not seem to realize that.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with the situation which the hon. the Minister has revealed in these departments. It shows a total instability of labour. He has told us that from day to day the filling of posts in a superstructure which is to become an independent state and which is to run a country, varies from 80 per cent to 90 per cent to 95 per cent to 100 per cent; not quite 100 per cent—96 per cent was the highest. What sort of administration is this where from day to day the filling of your posts can vary to that extent? The hon. the Minister has now come and asked us for an amount of money; he is asking us to budget for the maximum possible, but he admits in asking for that money, that he has no stability in this service he wants to finance. He admits that his labour force is so unstable that it would be necessary to pick a particular day in order to get the particulars of what Whites and what non-Whites fill these posts. What we want to know is, when these posts were classified and put on the original Estimates of the various authorities and when they were taken up in the planning of those authorities, did the hon. the Minister have no idea then of what work force was available to fill these posts? Did he allow, under his authority, a staff structure to be created for, let us say the Kavango Authority, without any idea at all of how many Kavangos there were who were able to fill those posts? Did he not know how many matriculated people there were, how many were able to fill posts, how many were able to fill administration posts such as clerks and all the different positions? Does he simply create a structure on paper and when he comes to applying it, he finds that the reality is quite different. This is what worries us. We are handing millions and millions of rands for this Minister’s department and it now appears that we are voting this money for a structure on paper, a structure which exists only in the imagination of the Minister, a structure which the hon. the Minister has dreamt up but which in fact does not work in practice.

You are now making it ridiculous.

That is the hon. the Minister’s argument. The hon. the Minister’s argument is that they have planned certain posts to be filled by Bantu but then they could not fill the posts.

Order! That argument has been made and that question has been put already by previous speakers. I do not want …

No, Mr. Chairman …

Oh, yes. I do not want any repetition now.

I want to approach it from a different angle.

But it remains the same argument and the same question.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling, but I ask you whether the argument which I am about to make has been debated across this floor?

I am talking about what has been put forward. The hon. member should not try to evade my ruling.

I am not doing that, Mr. Chairman. May I put my argument and then leave you to judge whether it has been made before?

The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. the Minister has said that there is a staff establishment for the various Authorities. The question I want to pose and which I submit has not yet been posed, is whether the hon. the Minister can tell us what preliminary investigation is made into the availability of qualified Bantu before an establishment is created and before this Parliament is asked to vote money for that establishment. We would like to know what investigations are made and on what basis of availability of people for different posts are those posts created. We would also like to know what the reason is why the estimate of available personnel as a result of the investigation differs from reality to the extent that he must ask us for another R1 200 000. That is what I would like to know from the hon. the Minister.

Judging from the questions and the requirements of the hon. member for Durban North and also those of other members I realize very clearly that it is essential that these methods, in regard to which the hon. member put his question, should be made known to hon. members. With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Chairman, this cannot be done today. This is not relevant here at all. This matter belongs under the Main Estimates and the discussion of my Vote.

I have been asked how we set about launching the entire constellation when we give a Bantu homeland a government and devise an administration for them with seven or eight departments, and a number of posts. That is not relevant to this matter; we are not dealing today with the fundamentals, we are simply dealing with the additional money required to get through the year. I am going to make a point of giving those hon. members that information in the Main Estimates, until their heads are spinning, on the points on which they put questions today. I can give him that information off the cuff today of how we set about doing this, but it is in no way relevant here. With all due respect to you personally, Mr. Chairman, we would be completely out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what induces him to think that he requires fewer Whites to work in the homelands than he actually had to put in when the homelands were established? If the intelligence of his department was working correctly—I know they do a lot of work and I have the highest regard for them—they should have informed him of how advanced those homelands were and whether they were ready to govern themselves, and so on.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister does not seem to grasp what we are trying to find out from him. We are not asking him to tell us the general principle on which he works when establishing these Bantu Authorities.

That is what the other hon. member asked for.

We have asked him a very simple question, namely how many additional people did he have to employ to justify this amount? That is all we have asked him. After all, this amounts to 14 per cent more than he budgeted for. He budgeted very badly, but we are not asking him whether he made a mistake. That we can deal with in the Budget. All we want to know is how many extra people he employed. That is all we are asking him.

If the hon. member will ask me that in a proper way, specifying for what date, and for what administrations he would like to have it, I will give it to him. It does not concern my departmental administration but those of the Bantu homelands. I have said to the hon. member that I cannot give it to him today. I have to find out from all the various Bantu homelands and from my department.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the hon. the Minister means when he says “If I ask him in a proper way”? Surely, I have asked him in a proper way! What is improper about the way in which I asked it?

When I say “proper” I mean written out. Give me the particulars you want.

I am very sorry; if the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs could last night give hon. members on the other side all the information he did, why does this hon. Minister come unprepared to this House? Does he treat this House with contempt? He gives us a broad statement and expects us to be satisfied.

Frankie is more efficient than he is.

Votes put and agreed to.

“Bantu Education”, R60 000 (Schedule 3), and S.W.A. Vote No. 11.—“Bantu Education”, R20 000:

Mr. Chairman, I notice that an additional amount of R20 000 has to be made available in respect of the Bantu Education Account for South West Africa, and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister to what extent this increase is due to salary adjustments or the increase of the number of persons in the department.

Mr. Chairman, this increase of R20 000 is due to a general improvement in salaries of teachers and other employees in the Department of Bantu Education which came into operation last year. It was done in terms of Public Service Commission Circular No. 4 of 1971 and came into operation on 1st October, 1971. There are also cases in which it was of retrospective effect. The hon. members will notice that the amount was R21 000 originally, less the excesses which had to be met from savings on other subheads, which amounted to R1 000. An additional amount of only R20 000 is now being requested. This amount is necessary for adjustments to and improvements in the salaries of 558 teachers, 74 of whom were principals. I think this is more or less the reply the hon. member wants.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 26.—“Justice”, R308 000, and 27.—“Prisons”, R470 000, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 12.—“Justice”, R20 000, and 13.—“Prisons”, R12 000:

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of matters which we wish to raise and discuss under these various Votes. Under Vote No. 26 I want to refer to Item M, legal expenses incurred by the State Attorney for which an additional amount of R60 000 is asked to be voted. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will indicate to us whether this is caused by unexpected litigation which was not budgeted for in the normal event, and if it is so, what sort of cases were they and to what amounts the State is involved. In fact, could the hon. the Minister be specific and indicate whether perhaps the hon. the Minister of Community Development’s indiscretion is one of the cases which is included?

Mr. Chairman, the legal expenses incurred by State Attorneys are absolutely unpredictable. The State Attorney acts on behalf of all State Departments, provincial administrations and the like. One cannot tell exactly what the amount will be in one particular year. We estimated that it would amount to R350 000 in this particular year. In point of fact we find that according to our most careful calculations the amount will be R410 000 on 31st March, 1972, an additional R60 000. We had quite a number of important cases, a few of which I have with me here. It is not necessary to name these cases, but if hon. members insist I shall do so. There are approximately ten of these cases amounting to a total of R124 708. It is difficult; one cannot say exactly how many. The hon. member referred to the case of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He asked whether that was also included here. It is not included in these cases which I just mentioned here and which amounted to R124 000. It will certainly be included if it is finalized before the 31st March. The court fees a quo will then be included in this additional R60 000.

May I ask the hon. Minister to what extent the additional sum is involved in disbursements, as a result of unsuccessful litigation where the costs of the other party are concerned; not merely because of the representation of the State in one or other of the departments, but costs paid in respect of unsuccessful litigation?

I would not be able to give that information. One can imagine, it runs over many cases through the year, from the 1st April every year until the 31st March. There are a terrible lot of cases. How many have been successful and how many unsuccessful, I would not be able to say. Coming back again to the case of the hon. Minister of Community Development, that was one which was not successful.

I realize that we cannot expect to have available a whole host of cases, but does the hon. the Minister not perhaps have available those cases which have cost the State, say, R5 000 or more in payment of costs where the actions have been unsuccessful? If not, is the hon. the Minister in a position to obtain that information? I can explain why I ask this question. We asked before what costs were in regard to litigation, for instance in the Department of the Interior over censorship, and we have not been able to get the figures. Will those figures be available if a formal question is put on the Order Paper to the hon. the Minister in respect of all cases of all departments in which the State Attorney appeared on behalf of the State?

Yes, I suppose we could get the information for the hon. member, but it will take some time. I do not have it available now.

Mr. Chairman, one assumes that the hon. the Minister did not anticipate that the hon. the Minister of Community Development would be involved in litigation …

Neither could I anticipate any of the other cases.

Yes, precisely. I assume that he could not anticipate that one particularly. Therefore it would be part of the additional amount here. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would indicate to us in the first place how much is involved, and in the second place, whether the Government now accepts that the Minister said whatever he said which caused the litigation in his capacity as Minister of Community Development and not when he was on a frolic of his own.

I wonder if the hon. member will be so good as to repeat his question.

If the Government accepts that it will pay the cost of the court a quo, is it accepted by the Government that the hon. the Minister of Community Development said whatever he said, which was the cause of action, in his capacity as Minister of Community Development; in other words, does the Government accept now that the hon. the Minister of Community Development said what he said in the course of his duty as a Minister of State?

Yes, the Government does accept it. As a matter of fact, I have already replied to a formal question which was put in this House in that regard.

Sir, we were not certain, from the hon. the Minister’s reply to a question, whether this was an ex gratia payment to the Minister to help him to meet his costs. But now we are talking about the principle. Is the principle accepted now that the Minister’s department will pay the costs of Ministers who are involved in actions for defamation?

If a member of the Cabinet acts in his official capacity, then the Government accepts responsibility. If he acts in his private capacity, the Government does not accept responsibility.

Does that mean, Sir, that hon. Ministers of the State are now free to defame people at the State’s expense?

Order! The hon. member must not make an accusation like that.

May I put it in another way then?

It is completely irresponsible of you to make that statement.

It is irresponsible to make defamatory statements.

What did the judges say?

We are talking about irresponsibility.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District must take heed of my previous admonition.

Mr. Chairman, am I not allowed to reply …

Order! If the hon. member is not given a chance to speak now, he can rise in his seat again; the Chair will call upon the next speaker.

Sir, may I put it this way? Here we find, for the first time in history, so far as I am aware, that the State has undertaken to pay the costs in the court a quo where a Minister of the State, in his capacity as a Minister of the State apparently, has defamed someone. What I am saying is that this raises a very important principle which involves whether we pass this additional amount or whether we do not, and it is this: Is it accepted by the Government that if Ministers in their capacity as Ministers, in the course of their duties, defame anyone, the State will pay the costs of the action when the defamed party sues them for defamation? This is what we want to know. Will the hon. the Minister please give us a reply to that question?

The position is quite simply this: the State and a Minister of the State are obliged to accept responsibility for what is done by their officials. The State is responsible for what is done by its Ministers. If a Minister should happen to go too far in his official capacity as Minister, then the State might just as well be sued as the Minister himself. Consequently the State accepts responsibility. Of course, if an official expresses himself in an irresponsible manner such an official will be discharged, and if it is a Minister who acted irresponsibly, then steps will be taken against him. I do not want to go into the matter in detail, but in this case it quite simply amounts to this: what was involved here was the question of a discussion between the Minister of Community Development and the mayor of Pretoria. The mayor of Pretoria addressed his council and told his council that the Minister of Community Development had broken the agreement which had existed between them. This caused large headlines in the newspapers. The Minister of Community Development was obliged either to let the report pass as it was, or to justify his department and himself, and consequently he replied to the report. He honestly believed, and believes to this day, that there was no agreement; that was the whole point at issue. The court unfortunately found … [Laughter.] Sir, I do not know what hon. members are laughing at. I said the court unfortunately found that there had been an agreement, with the result that the State was obliged to accept responsibility. The hon. member for Durban North himself said, in a newspaper report I saw, that if a man spoke in his official capacity the State was obliged to pay, because the State could just as well have been sued in court as the Minister himself. The Minister of Community Development could have been sued as Minister of Community Development if he had made the statement in his personal capacity. That is accepted policy. There has not been a similar case in the past. This case is the only one of its kind. This is the first time it has happened; that is quite correct, and consequently the State accepted responsibility. So sincerely did the hon. the Minister believe that he was right in his interpretation of what had happened that he decided to appeal and the State then said: “No, we do not believe that you should appeal against the verdict.” The Minister then replied: “But there was no agreement; I can prove that there was no agreement,” and he said that he was going to appeal at his own expense. The State then said that he could go on at his own expense and that was what happened. That is why our expenses are limited to the costs in court a quo. The Minister paid the other costs himself and he also paid the damages.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot see that whether or not there was an agreement has anything to do with the necessity of the hon. the Minister to utter libellous statements. You see, what the hon. the Minister is saying, is—this is what it amounts to—that there are times when, in order to express the views of the State, it is necessary for Ministers to do so by means of libellous statements. Now, one has only to state that to realize how unacceptable it is. One accepts the principle that when a Minister is acting properly in his official capacity, he should not have to bear the responsibility of his acting in that capacity, but I have yet to hear any justification for the point of view that there are times when it is necessary, in order for a Minister to do his duty, to do so by means of uttering libellous statements.

Nobody said that at all.

That seems to me to be quite unacceptable. The Minister said that the principle has now been accepted by the Cabinet that when a Minister makes libellous utterances and he believes he is performing his job as Minister when he does so, the costs of a case which is lost are to be borne by the State. Surely this will have one result and one result only, and that is to encourage the use of irresponsible utterances by such Ministers as are given to that sort of thing. Sir, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, who has given a long and careful explanation, it is no explanation at all which we can accept if that is the basis on which it is to be put.

Mr. Chairman, it is an outrageous statement which is now being made by the hon. member for Zululand. I did not hear the hon. the Minister make that statement. All that the hon. the Minister said was that if a Minister should, in the course of his duty, commit an offence of that nature and defame someone, the State would accept responsibility for it, but surely this is an analogy to the situation if a Minister should drive a vehicle and be involved in an accident. The State is then responsible for it if it was due to his negligence, but that does not mean that he can and will drive as he likes every day.

I think that is an absurd statement. All that happened here was that the hon. the Minister said that if something like this were to happen in the course of a Minister’s duty, the State must accept responsibility for it because the State is also responsible for it in the second place. What is wrong with that? Surely that statement is correct. I think the hon. the Minister explained the position very clearly. But the hon. member for Zululand has gone and twisted it for political purposes.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Prinshof entitled to say that the hon. member for Zululand has twisted a statement for political purposes?

I shall put it this way: if the hon. member for Prinshof had said “deliberately” or “on purpose”, I would have made him withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, before you give your ruling, may I say that I am sure there have been rulings in the past—I can recall them in my experience in this House—where the word “verdraai” or “twisted” was used and where hon. members have been asked to withdraw those expressions, because they do impute an intention.

Order! Would the hon. member for Prinshof just repeat exactly what he said?

Mr. Chairman …

The last sentence only.

Mr. Chairman, I said that the hon. member for Zululand had twisted the words of the hon. the Minister for political purposes.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “twisted”.

Sir, I shall withdraw the word “twisted” and say that he used the words for political purposes.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister has now justified the Government’s attitude towards this case by saying that it is an ordinary principle that an employer is liable for the actions of his employee during the course of his duties. On that basis they are paying the costs. An employer is responsible for the actions of his employee, but he is responsible for all the actions. I want to know on what basis the Cabinet decided to pay the costs, but not the capital involved, as would have been the case normally, in the case of an ordinary employee.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to two questions. There is the question just put by the hon. member for Transkei and then there is a further question as well. The trouble is this: you cannot decide whether an utterance which has been made was in fact an insult before the court has decided that it was. Before the judge has decided we cannot take that decision. I told the hon. member that the Minister believed that there had been no agreement in this connection. Therefore he could choose between two alternatives. In the first place he could accept the amount that was claimed and pay it in full; and he could not possibly do that, after all.

He could have made an offer.

That he simply cannot do. He has to go to court.

He can apologize.

He went to court and the court ruled against him.

“Unfortunately ruled”, you said.

Yes. I said “unfortunately”, but what is so funny about that? Why does the hon. member get angry when I use that word? There is nothing funny about it. [Interjections.] I say it is unfortunate for the hon. the Minister. Consequently the Minister was obliged to go to court, to go and ascertain whether there had indeed been an agreement or not. The court found differently. We were satisfied with that.

Because the court found differently?

No, not because it found differently, but we accepted it. The Minister said he felt so strongly about it that there had been no agreement; he was sure he could prove it and prove it over and over again. He then appealed. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister suggested that in this case there was a dispute as to whether or not a certain agreement had been entered into. Now, if that was the dispute it would not have resulted in an action for defamation. That is merely a dispute of fact, i.e. whether the agreement existed. Now I want to come to the hon. member for Prinshof, who seems to put his legal knowledge into vacuum containers somewhere when he does not want to use it, when it is to his disadvantage to do so. The hon. member for Prinshof said, quite correctly, that an hon. Minister in the discharge of his duties might give rise to an action for accidental or even negligent action. But the hon. member for Prinshof knows that defamation is not an accidental or a negligent act, and that before there can be an action for defamation there must be a deliberate statement intended to injure and be understood to injure the person concerned. Now the Minister of Justice says the argument was about whether or not an agreement existed. That might have been what heated up the Minister of Community Development, but the law case was not over whether there was an agreement or not. The law case was over whether the Minister was justified in using the language he did use towards two officials of the Pretoria municipality.

I want to go further than the Minister and say there must be logic. If the State must accept liability for the costs, why does it not pay the damages? Where is the dividing line? Where is the principle which says that the State can justifiably pay costs, but must leave the Minister to pay the damages himself? Either it must defend because the Minister’s actions were in the course of his duties, or not defend as it was not in the course of his duty. If it was in the course of his duty, the State should accept the whole responsibility. I suggest that the hon. the Minister here and his colleagues have shown their own weakness and their own lack of conviction in their arguments by just going, if I might say so, “halfpad” with the acceptance of the responsibility. It must be total or not at all. On this side we believe it should be not at all, because a defamatory statement is an assault, and can a physical act of assault by a Minister ever be held to be something which he does in the course of his duty? This is an assault on the character of an individual and can be likened to an assault on the body of another person. I am sure the Minister would not ask this House to vote funds to defend a Minister who is guilty of a physical assault.

The hon. member for Green Point has spoken of the hon. member for Prinshof in quite insulting terms.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member entitled to say, while you are in the Chair, that an hon. member spoke in insulting terms?

The hon. member may proceed.

He questioned the expert knowledge of the hon. member for Prinshof. It is very clear that the hon. members on the other side are not really interested in what should be under discussion. But the hon. members on the other side have been engaged in petty politicising since yesterday.

It is a smoke screen.

No, they are only vapour screens. That is not so pleasant. Mr. Chairman, the real point in the discussion of this particular Vote is the fact that a specific legal principle is at stake here. What is the real legal principle which is at stake in this particular debate and under this Vote? This is namely that when officials of the State and Ministers of the State act in their capacity as servants of the State there is the pure legal principle that the State, which in this case is the employer in terms of our common law, may be held responsible for any unlawful act by either an official or a Minister. This is the position, irrespective of whether the unlawful act was committed through negligence or deliberately, violently or otherwise. The principle remains, irrespective of whether we condemn the particular act. Hon. members may condemn a particular act by an official or a Minister if they want to, but my submission is that this is not relevant here. What is in fact relevant is a legal principle which must apply. The accepted legal principle in our country is that when an employee or a Minister, as in this particular case, commits any unlawful act which results in damage, the State is co-responsible for the consequences of the act.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, I am sorry, I do not want to answer silly questions.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I should like to finish my speech. That is another silly question. What is relevant here? The hon. members can play politics if they want to. I submit, however, that they are not entitled to hold this discussion which they are now holding under this particular Vote. I want to submit that all that is relevant here is that the hon. the Minister of Justice is acting as is required of him under his Vote by upholding the principle of common law of paying the costs of a Minister of the State. I want to go further.

Then you are not upholding the principle.

Really, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Yeoville. He is not a legal practitioner; I want to submit, therefore, that for the purposes of this discussion we should not consider the capital of the claim and by who it was paid. Provision is not made under this Vote for the payment of a claim or the capital of a claim. All that is provided for in this particular Vote are legal costs which I contend are the responsibility of the State in terms of our common law.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I think, we would like to make it quite clear to the hon. member for False Bay that we on this side of the House are not going to be told by him or by any other member on his side of the House how we carry out our duties in this Chamber.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Order!

We regard the principle involved here as very … [Interjections.]

Order! I have been looking at the hon. member for Kensington and I have called for order three times already; I now warn the hon. member. The hon. member may proceed.

We on this side of the House regard the principle involved here as a very important one. In fact, the hon. member for False Bay conceded that it is an important principle. He said that the principle involved here was the responsibility of the State for—and then he went so far as to say—illegal actions of the Ministers committed in the course of their duty as Ministers.

I never used the words “illegal actions”.

We would like to take this matter further because the hon. member for False Bay went a lot further than the hon. the Minister of Justice. What exactly is it that the State or the Government alleges to be the principle involved here? Does the Government allege that the principle is that whatever illegal act is committed by a Minister in the course of his duties, the State is responsible for whatever damage is caused by that? Is that the test? If it is not the test, then perhaps the hon. the Minister of Justice will tell us exactly what he regards the test to be. The hon. the Minister of Justice has said to this Committee that if in the course of the discharge of his duties, a Minister has caused a defamation, as happened in this case, the State is responsible. Let us examine this statement. First of all, if the State is responsible, then it must be responsible not only for the costs but also for the damage, but apparently the Government regards the State as not being responsible for the damages flowing from the defamation of the hon. the Minister of Community Development.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the question of damages at all relevant under this Vote?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, there is also another aspect. The hon. the Minister of Justice then went on to tell us that there may be circumstances where a Minister may be reckless or irresponsible in committing a defamation, and in such cases he may be disciplined. This is a very interesting proposition. What exactly does the hon. the Minister of Justice mean by it? Does the Minister of Justice mean that the State will be liable only if there was no recklessness or irresponsibility or does it mean that the State will be liable even if there is recklessness or irresponsibility but that the Cabinet will then discipline that Minister in some way? This matter is very important because it is a matter of principle. We would like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he goes so far as to suggest that the test in a case like this is the degree of irresponsibility or recklessness with which the Minister concerned has committed a defamation. If that is the test, we must go very much more deeply into the defamation of the hon. the Minister of Community Development because in my opinion there was recklessness and irresponsibility in this case. I shall explain why I say this. The hon. the Minister of Justice has stated that this whole thing arose over whether or not an agreement had been entered into between the Town Clerk of Pretoria and the Minister of Community Development. This is a very simple issue. If the hon. the Minister of Community Development considers that there was no agreement, he can say that. He can say it very firmly and he can be very emphatic about it, but there is no need whatsoever in order to deny that an agreement had been entered into or in order to assert that an agreement had been entered into, to commit a defamation. Surely, if a defamation is committed under those circumstances it is reckless and irresponsible. We would like to hear very clearly from the hon. the Minister of Justice whether he regards the test as being one of recklessness or irresponsibility. On that note I will sit down. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, while I am on my feet, perhaps the hon. the Minister will also tell us how much is involved in the costs of the court a quo? How much does the State, in other words, propose to pay? Perhaps he can tell us whether the amount has already been paid out.

Mr. Chairman, to reply to the last question first, I have clearly said that this case has not yet been settled. The bills have not been assessed. Consequently I cannot give that information at this stage. What is more, I cannot say when it will be paid. I added that if it was settled before 31st March and if we managed to pay it, it would come from this amount. That is the reply on that point.

How much did you set aside for it?

No …

You must have made some estimates.

No, I am sorry, but I cannot say how much was set aside for it.

I now want to reply to the other question by the hon. member. The standpoint adopted by the State in connection with this matter is precisely the standpoint of common law and no other. The standpoint of common law is that the employer is responsible for the actions of his employee. Another point was also raised, namely that it must be applied right through. The hon. the Minister paid the cost of the claim himself. That is the reply to the other question that was put.

Why?

Because he reckoned he should.

If the hon. member says the State must be logical and go all the way we can consider it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister says it was paid in accordance with the established legal principle that the master is responsible for his servants’ wrongs. With respect, the hon. member for Green Point showed that this does not apply in the case of an intentional injury, where there is animus injuriandi. I challenge the hon. member for Prinshof, who got up a moment ago but was not seen, and the hon. the Minister, to cite a case where, in fact, the employer of an employee has been sued and held liable in damages for the defamation of his servants. I know of no case in the South African law. And that is why this is a most important matter of principle. Consequently, anybody who alleges that this is not an important matter, is trifling with the situation. I suggest that it is because of the Government’s uncertainty on this point, because they are not sure of their law—indeed, perhaps they suspect that they are wrong in law—that they have not been prepared to pay the capital damages which have been awarded, but the costs only. After all, if this is a simple case of our South African principle of law, first and foremost it is the damages which a person has suffered that may be claimed against the employer, but costs are only incidental. Because of the very uncertainty of the Government in this matter, they have struck an unhappy compromise whereby they have helped the hon. the Minister with regard to the costs—and we feel sorry for him in one respect—but they were not prepared to pay the capital and they are not prepared to pay the costs of appeal.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands is just raising a dust now. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that if an official were to commit an assault in the course of his duty the State would be responsible for the damage arising from it.

But give me a case.

I am not going to give you a case, I am going to quote you a principle. The whole matter is as clear as daylight. The hon. the Minister said that the principle of common law applied to these cases as well. The fact that this is the first time that defamation falls under this principle does not affect the principle at all. The principle of common law applies to this as well. The fact that the hon. the Minister was decent enough to say that he would pay the damages himself and that the State could pay the legal costs is now being held against this side of the House by hon. members on the other side. Surely that is ridiculous. In actual fact the Government would have had to pay the damages as well as the legal costs. Here is an hon. Minister, however, who is decent enough to say that he feels a need to pay the damages himself and that he does not want the State to pay it. Hon. members on the other side hold it against him, however. It is a ridiculous statement. Hon. members on the other side are now running around in circles and trying to find all kinds of peculiar deviations from the principle here, while there is no deviation from principles. The principle is quite simply that the rule of common law applies right through in respect of all cases.

Order! I just want to point out that arguments are now being repeated, and if an hon. member comes along with repetitions again I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, one hesitates, of course, to enter into a debate in which all these legal arguments are being advanced, but it interests me, all the same, to know that if the hon. the Minister of Justice is correct in his approach to the matter, and if the State is prepared to pay the man’s legal costs, there need be no problems at all, apparently, if the State should pay the other costs of the hon. the Minister of Community Development as well.

Order! That point has already been raised.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister of Community Development that we sympathize with him. In my humble opinion we are dealing with a very serious matter here. The matter is very simple, namely that the hon. the Minister of Justice is placing the ministerial position on the same level as that of a public servant. When a Minister or an official then does something which is not correct the State is responsible for it. A Cabinet Minister is not an official, however. When an official commits an error the State is responsible for it and the State has to pay. In such cases the State has a disciplinary measure and this disciplinary measure is quite simple. Such a person can simply be dismissed. But what do we do with an hon. Minister? One cannot put the same machinery into operation for a Minister. Because this is so it points very clearly to the basic fact that there is a difference between a Cabinet Minister on the one hand and a public servant on the other hand.

My third point is that the hon. member for False Bay says that an employer is responsible for the actions of his officials.

I do not say so; the common law says so.

I have listened to the common law, but it seems to me that that law becomes rather common sometimes. What is the truth? Let us look at the common law. Let us take the case of a traffic constable who sees someone he does not like and who then goes up to that person and gives him a few cuffs. Does the hon. member for False Bay want to tell me now that the municipality is going to accept the responsibility for that?

Yes.

Oh no. What will happen is the following, common law or not. Let the hon. member for False Bay answer me if he can. That official—and he knows this is true—will be suspended. If that particular person then takes him to court for a case he himself will have to pay and not the municipality. Sir, as soon as the official-—this is very clear—does something with the deliberate intention of injuring a man his employer has nothing to do with him, because he acted out of his official capacity. In this connection it is very clear to me that the hon. the Minister of Justice will have to take a firm stand. He dare not put the Minister on a par with a public servant in this basic case. To do that would be to create an example which might lead to great abuse in politics in South Africa.

We have heard the Minister enunciate a principle here this afternoon that the State accepts responsibility for the payment of costs that arise from defamation carried out in the course of a Minister’s duties. He referred to the Minister of Community Development and his particular case of defamation. I would like to ask him, is this the only Minister who is involved in a case of defamation? Are there other Ministers whose costs are going to have to be paid? I would like to ask him particularly what the position is of the Minister of Water Affairs, who uttered defamatory statements in the course of addressing a public meeting. Was he addressing this meeting in an official capacity, was it in the course of his duties, or was it as a professional politician?

It is all rather fishy to me.

I have already replied, in the Other Place, to the question now put by the hon. member for Simonstown. I said that responsibility was only accepted for him when he was acting in his official capacity, in matters connected with his official duties, of course. That was the case with the Minister of Community Development. If he had not been Minister of Community Development there would never have been a case for which the Government had to accept responsibility. [Interjections.] That is right. Then it had nothing to do with his official duties. That is all. It is simple, after all. I qualified it and said, “If he commits some action or another in the performance of his official duties.” The Minister of Water Affairs, to whom the hon. member referred, did not act in this way. He was a Minister of the State, but he was not acting in connection with his official duties. Consequently he himself is responsible for the whole action which arises from it. This is the attitude that was adopted towards him. In fact, he knew it himself. He did not even approach the Cabinet in this connection. He did not even mention it. But the test is very simple here. If the hon. the Minister had not been Minister of Community Development, if he had not negotiated with the city council in that capacity, there would not have taken place what has in fact now taken place. Therefore responsibility was accepted for him, because we feel that while he happened to be sued it might just as well have been the State.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his elucidatory reply, but he did not quite answer all my questions. My other question was, are there any other Ministers who have also committed defamation in the course of their duties for whom the State is going to have to be responsible?

I am not aware of any such cases. It is not relevant.

Sir, it is quite clear from the discussion that has taken place here that there is a difference in principle between that side of the House and this side of the House as to whether or not the State should pay for the defamatory or actionable statements of a Minister of the State. As far as we are concerned, that is a matter for the Minister personally, not a matter for the State. Sir, once the arguments which have been put forward from that side of the House are accepted, then clearly, as in the case of a State official, the State should pay the damages as well. But once one accepts that that is so, as has apparently been done here, then the State is in charge of the operation; it is for the State then to say whether the matter goes on appeal and whether it settles the matter or not. But, Sir, what happened here? One of the most extraordinary things that I heard here this afternoon came from the hon. the Minister of Justice. What the hon. the Minister said was that the State in fact believed that the Minister should not have gone on appeal and that that was the advice of the State Attorney. Despite the fact that they say that this is a matter in which the State was involved and that the State said that they were not going on appeal, the hon. the Minister was allowed to go on a frolic of his own in respect of the same matter and to go on appeal.

And pay for the costs himself.

That is not the point. If the State is involved, then it is for the State to decide. Let me give one example. If a Minister is sued because one of his officials has assaulted someone, then he is obliged to pay damages; judgment is entered against the hon. the Minister and the State official then says: “I want to go on appeal; will you allow me to go on appeal?” He is not the dominus litus; the State is in charge of those proceedings. Sir, this demonstrates a difference in principle in our approach in this regard. As the hon. member for Green Point has pointed out, this is not just a case of negligence; this is a case of defamation involving an animus; it involves an intention, a deliberate act, and we do not feel that this should ever be the responsibility of the State. What the hon. the Minister does about this is a matter between him and the hon. the Prime Minister and the electorate of South Africa. That has nothing to do with this issue. But, Sir, because this is a matter of principle, because we will not tolerate this when we become the Government after the next election, I wish to move—

The hon. member must realize that if there are other cases included in the R60 000 where the State Attorney is taking action, no money is going to be made available for those cases. That is what the effect would be if this amendment were to be passed.

Sir, we have previously asked for the precise amount involved in this case. The hon. the Minister was not able or willing to give it to this Committee.

He has not got it.

He has not got it, nor apparently has he got an estimate, and for those reasons we are compelled to vote against the whole amount. The matter is in his hands. If he can give an estimate, it will be possible to vote against that item only.

Sir, we are not interested in the hon. the Minister’s little technicalities. We have made our position clear on this item and we will vote against it.

I want to deal with one other matter, and that is the large increase of 25 per cent for printing, stationery, advertisements and publications. The original Estimate was apparently as much as 25 per cent out. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister, firstly, why the estimate was so badly out and, secondly, what the additional amount of R105 000 involves.

The Department of Justice has an enormous amount of matter which it has to have printed, for which it places orders with the Government Printer. Unfortunately one is faced with the position that the Government Printer is not always able to execute these orders immediately. These accounts vary a very great deal. In one year you find that he was able to fit in the work, and consequently your account is bigger; the next year you find that he was unable to fit in the work, and then there is a large decrease. Then you know that there is still a lot outstanding and you estimate in advance. In the meantime printing costs and the cost of paper increase. The first time you know how much it is going to cost is when you see the account, and you are obliged to pay the account in that year. This is what happened in this case. For this year we received accounts from the Government Printer for a larger amount than we had expected, and consequently the amount had to be increased. You simply cannot tell when the Government Printer will complete the work and submit the account.

Sir, I would like to deal with a matter under South-West Africa Vote No. 12 which is an entirely new item; it is a contribution to the Legal Aid Board for legal aid in South-West Africa, and provision is made here for the paltry sum of R20 000. The object of legal aid is, where the means of persons do not allow it, to bring within their means the ability to prosecute their rights and to defend their rights in our courts. Sir, no one has more eloquently expressed the lack of this in some respects in our country than the hon. the Minister himself earlier this week when he spoke in his constituency at Klerksdorp at the official opening of the new P. C. Pelser Building. What the hon. the Minister said was this: He talked about our legal system, and said that it could not be surpassed. With that we agree entirely, bearing in mind, of course, the few changes we shall implement when we become the Government. Then he went on to say—

The words in parenthesis are mine and not those of the hon. the Minister—

I agree with that last part. Sir, that is so. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, this is not the first time this topic has been raised. We had the Van Winsen Commission which looked into the matter of the uniform rules of court and the high cost of litigation. However, that is what the hon. the Minister said then, at Klerksdorp. But, having regard to this paltry amount which we now find in these Estimates for legal aid, it is interesting to note what he went on to say—

Then he went on to motivate this. The way to bring within the reach of every citizen the ability to prosecute or to defend his rights in court is through the medium of legal aid. That is the way to do it. We have said throughout that the amounts the Government has been appropriating in respect of legal aid are hopelessly inadequate. The hon. the Minister said: “No, no, let us wait and see”. Fifty thousand rand was the first amount appropriated for the Republic. This builds up to R250 000 and, today, on Vote 26, we see that an additional R100 000 has to be voted for this purpose. Sir, if we are going to do this job properly we have to expend more money. I venture to say that the way to do it is not the way in which the hon. the Minister intends doing it, namely to fiddle with our proven legal system, which, as he has said, has no peer and no better in this world. We must not fiddle with that system by giving increased civil jurisdiction to the regional magistrates’ courts. The way to do it is to increase the amount in respect of legal aid. Then you do not have to fiddle with the system. The hon. the Minister said in the course of this speech that the number of Supreme Court judges who were appointed as a result of the increased civil litigation was reaching proportions which had to be stopped. But if he is going to give regional courts civil jurisdiction in excess of that of the magistrates’ courts, but less, obviously, than that of the

Supreme Court, then he is going to have to employ more regional magistrates. This is obvious. In other words, we shall have to employ people to do this work, whether they are magistrates or whether they are judges. May I say to the hon. the Minister that if that is so, why try to fiddle with this system? Why not, if it is necessary, appoint more judges? Surely the cost in salaries cannot be a factor? If you have to choose, obviously you should have a judge appointed, in our tradition, and not a regional magistrate. Let me say at once, and let me make it quite clear, that the regional magistrates have done a marvellous job of work. They have taken on a great deal of work which in the old days was normally done by the Supreme Court. They have taken on cases which could not come before magistrates’ courts. We need only look at the number of rape cases, for example, that are dealt with by the regional courts, which are marvellously done. These are not ordinary men, Sir; these are persons who have completed the Higher Civil Service Law examination, or who have an Ll.B. They have to have ten years’ experience as a magistrate before they are appointed to the regional Bench. They are men of experience, and they have done a very good job. But I want to say that this is neither fair to the litigant, nor is it fair to the regional magistrate, whose experience is almost entirely criminal. They are appointed, when they become magistrates, from among the ranks of the prosecutors, who are prosecuting in the criminal courts. They then become magistrates, and their experience is overwhelmingly of criminal work. Then they become regional magistrates, after ten years of criminal experience. But they have no training or experience in the civil law and it is not fair to the public and it is not fair to them, and you are not going to save the cost of litigation by increasing their jurisdiction and encouraging litigants to go to the regional court. For one thing, Sir, I venture to suggest that you may have many more successful appeals than you had before, for the reason that that is not their experience. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not at some time give consideration to the appointment of some sort of ad hoc, if you like, but intermediate court like a county court in Great Britain, where you employ an advocate of standing, of ten years standing if you like, to sit in those courts and to adjudicate upon those civil matters. That is their experience. 80 per cent of advocates gain their experience in the civil law. It is not something you pick up through a law degree or something you pick up anywhere else than through experience of life in the courts. That is what I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate to us. What is his approach in this regard? R20 000 for legal aid is just playing with the subject, and it is not even paying for the staff. It might just be a start there. I do not know. But it can do very little else. And this is an important matter. Legal aid can be as important to a person as medical aid can be. If he is denied legal aid, if he is denied legal access to the courts, you deny his very existence in some cases. R20 000 is playing with the subject, and I hope the Minister will indicate that he will try at least to get his priorities right not only in respect of money but his priorities in respect also of the nature of the relief which is to be given to John Citizen.

I just wish to say that it is a very interesting speech that the hon. member for Durban North has made. Will the hon. member please listen to me now?

He was not at a finishing school.

It is a very interesting speech and a very interesting plea which the hon. member made, but I do not know what on earth it has to do with the question of legal aid in South-West Africa. These are legal aid moneys which are spent in accordance with court decisions which have been given and which laid down certain rules in terms of a hint I gave the department. His speech would have been interesting at an appropriate time, but most certainly not under these circumstances. If the hon. member wants to know why this amount is only R20 000, I want to make the following point. The Legal Aid Act was made applicable to South-West Africa only last year.

No.

That is why the amount is so small at this stage. When I made available R150 000 in the first case, the Legal Aid Board had not even decided what their guide-lines would be. They said they were not going to have everyone defended; we conducted a debate on that and at the appropriate time, the next year, I told them there was still some money available. When we asked for only R50 000 for the whole of the Republic the following year, the hon. member also objected, and I told him that there was some accumulated money and that the Legal Aid Board was not functioning yet. There is enough money, also in my main Estimate for next year, in which we are asking an additional amount for them in respect of the Republic. The position there is that we now have an indication of what we shall need. I may just tell the hon. member that we have not yet received accounts that we could not pay from the amounts available. The reason why the amount for South-West Africa is so small is simply that the scheme has only just recently been made applicable there. This being the case, we do not need any more, and in the light of our experience we do not think we shall need more than R20 000.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Revenue Vote No. 26, as printed, put and agreed to.

I put Vote 27 and S.W.A. Votes 12 and 13 … Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to page 22 of the Additional Estimates and specifically to Vote 27, Prisons. May I ask what supplies and services …

Order! I put all the Votes at the beginning; we proceeded to vote on them, and the time has expired. I put …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, my colleague the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City rose to his feet when you put the Vote and when you asked whether there was any objection. You looked at him and said, “Agreed to.”

We are in the process of putting the Votes. I started with Vote 26, and afterwards I put Vote 27 and S.W.A. Votes 12 and 13 merely as part of the procedure.

Revenue Vote No. 27 and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 12 and 13 put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 28.—“Mines”, R1 658 000, and Loan Vote Q.—“Mines”, R6 400 000:

Would the hon. the Minister be good enough to explain in detail why the large additional amount of R170 000 is wanted for State alluvial diggings?

The fact that we need this additional amount for State alluvial diggings at Alexander Bay is due to the late execution of orders for expensive capital goods. I may inform the hon. member that these goods were actually to have been delivered next year, but they were available this year. These are heavy capital goods required, inter alia, for the reclamation plant at Muisvlakte at the Alexander Bay State Diggings as well as for the cement and steel used there, which are now being delivered and for which provision has been made.

Does that mean that the estimates were not given out beforehand for these items?

Just repeat that.

Does your explanation mean that the requirement of steel, cement and so forth at the State alluvial diggings was not originally estimated? Is that something new?

No, this is an increase. The reclamation plant is being erected there. As I told the hon. member, the increase is due mainly to the late execution of orders for expensive capital equipment. The order was placed in 1970-’71, but was only executed in the present financial year. In other words, provision was made for the equipment, but it was not delivered. Therefore, as the hon. member knows, provision must again be made for it.

I should like to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister in regard to one point. He says the increased amount is for capital equipment. Why then does this amount not appear under Loan Vote Q instead of under the Expenditure and Revenue Vote, Vote No. 28? Surely it is customary to make provision for capital goods there. These are not, for example, capital assets that go out of commission suddenly, such as diesel engines, etc.

It is precisely that type of thing. These are items —I do not know precisely what items— that are used.

Where does the diesel engine come in then?

What does the hon. member mean, where does it come in!

I see that under subhead J.—Administration of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act—there is an increase of R785 000. Would the hon. the Minister please tell me what this amount is going to be used for?

This amount is made up of four items: The first is the late delivery of X-ray apparatus for the new building in Johannesburg. Here the same circumstances apply as those in regard to the previous sub-head. The apparatus was to have been delivered in 1970-’71 but is available only now. The amount involved in this is R55 000. The second item is the increase in the price of X-ray material and the maintenance of the equipment. This amounts to R17 000. The third item the hon. member will understand, is the increase in tariffs levied by the South African Institute for Medical Research and the fact that more mines have been declared controlled mines with the result that a larger number of tests are done. The amount in respect of this is R13 000. In addition there is the financing of the C Accounts, the Government account, with regard to pneumoconiosis compensation which amounts to R700 000. This account has had to be supplemented because, as the hon. member knows, since 1st April last year there have been increased benefits for widows and the equalization as a result of the amending legislation we passed here. The reason for paying in that amount of R700 000 is to make provision in the account for the payment of those benefits without its being necessary for us to convert the investment of the funds at a loss of interest, etc.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell me how many widows and dependants are affected by this last item?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot give the exact figure to the hon. member now. Just this morning I was dealing with that, but if I remember correctly the number is something like 1 600.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to item L, Atomic Energy, I would like the hon. the Minister to explain the additional amount of R340 000 which has to be voted.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of this item there is an increase of R340 000 which is made up as follows: Firstly, there is the increase in royalties paid which amounts to R10 800. In respect of the housing loan scheme there is an amount of R200. Postal services, as in all other cases, amounted to R11 000, advertisements to R5 000, insurance to R5 000 and the research fund contribution—these are salaries and I shall come to them in a moment—to R424 400, and the contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency to an additional amount of R5 600. These amounts total R462 000. However, there were savings on administration, printing, general, and the purchase of isotopes, which savings reduce the net increase to R340 000. The amount I have mentioned in connection with the research fund contribution represents the largest increase here and this was caused by insufficient provision for salary adjustments, which became effective on 1st January, 1971, in respect of research staff. Unfortunately the full implications of these adjustments first revealed themselves during February, 1971, i.e. after the estimates had been approved provisionally. Unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member the number of research staff concerned in this matter, because the hon. member will realize that as far as the Atomic Energy Board is concerned, one would not like to reveal this figure.

Mr. Chairman, am I right to assume that it is also in order to deal with Loan Vote Q now?

Yes.

In item L of Vote No. 28 and in Loan Vote Q provision is made for additional sums to be spent on the uranium research fund. This fund, as is well known to this House, has to do with the uranium enrichment complex. We are aware that at the time legislation was passed, provision was made for an ultimate expenditure of something of the order of R50 million and I presume that the amount of money now voted by way of share capital is a portion of that total contribution by the State in the form of a purchase of shares in the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. We have been concerned for some time as to the manner and justification of this expenditure. We are concerned that while the technique which has been developed is undoubtedly a unique and successful one, the economics of this process remain to be proved. We are asked here to vote a very large sum of money towards this process and this comes at a time when we find doubts apparently arising from no less a quarter than the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In Nuclear Active, a journal published by the Atomic Energy Board, there is an article by Dr. Muller which purports to deal with the economic factor in the uranium enrichment process in South Africa, and elsewhere. He has the following to say:

Then he concludes:

Now, Sir, the implication of this article which, as I say, comes from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, not from the Minister of Mines, appears to be an appeal for economic considerations—that is the title of the article—for economic factors to be taken into account; and to prepare our minds for the possibility that this enrichment plant, which is now in its pilot plant building stage near Pretoria, should become the object of international co-operation. Well, I am not saying that it is wrong, but if it becomes the object of international co-operation, we will obviously have to revise our financial outlook. We will have to take a new look at this matter as regards the payment for this most expensive project. Now we have here Vote No. 28 a portion of which amount is to be devoted to the Uranium Research Fund, and under Loan Vote Q, an increase of R6 399 000 over the initial R13 000 000 estimated last year. These amounts have to be devoted in the face of a very recent apparent change of policy. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would explain whether there is indeed a basic change of policy in their approach; and whether in view of the economic factor, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs suggests, it will now be necessary to enter into some kind of international co-operative arrangement in order to implement this enrichment project.

The hon. member is quite correct in saying that this amount of R7 million is for the share capital of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. The original estimate was R13 million, but you will realize that two factors are of major importance here. The one is that there are so many unknown factors at such a new plant that it was very difficult to make a correct estimate. The other factor is—and this I think hon. members will be pleased to hear—that very good progress has been made both as regards the building of the pilot plant and as regards material and equipment required. However, the hon. member’s interpretation of that article by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is wrong. There is no change in policy, no change in policy whatsoever. We must draw a clear distinction between the pilot plant and the use of this unique process in a large-scale plant or plants eventually. At the time of the announcement of the hon. the Prime Minister it was indicated very clearly, as I have repeatedly done since that time, that the pilot plant had a maximum capital in terms of the Act of R50 million. Whether the full amount will be used is a different matter altogether. The State accepts full responsibility for the pilot plant. The prospect was never held out of the State wishing to share the pilot plant with other countries. The article by my hon. colleague refers to the other aspect covered by the hon. the Prime Minister in his statement, i.e. that we are prepared to share this unique process and that we shall welcome participation, financially and otherwise, on certain conditions from the non-communistic countries which may be interested. This is the only point made by my colleague in that article, i.e. the desire of South Africa to co-operate with non-communistic countries in this matter. But he was not referring to the pilot plant. In other words, it does not refer to this additional share capital of R7 million either. I do not think I should say more than this.

Mr. Chairman, we thank the Minister for the explanation he has given and naturally we welcome the major progress which has been made with the development of the pilot plant at Pelindaba. We have no objection to that.

I may just say that it is at Valindaba.

I know; Valindaba is adjacent to Pelindaba. The names are somewhat confusing. In any event, we welcome the progress which has been made. It is perfectly understandable that if more rapid progress than that anticipated has been made with the building of this plant, this additional money will be required. In brief I just want to draw attention to the fact that Dr. Muller quite rightly made a point of the importance of the economic factor. We accept that the basic technical problem has perhaps been solved. The economic factor still remains the criterion. It will be the decisive factor and where more money is to be spent on this plant, we welcome the fact that the Minister will always take it into account. As for the rest, we have no objection to this appropriation.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to come back to item K—Assistance to gold mining industry—R300 000. Are any new mines being involved in the assistance the Government is giving or is this an increased amount for the mines that are already receiving help? Is this help being used primarily for the pumping of water?

May I just indicate to hon. members that this increase of R300 000 is on a total of approximately R17 million. In other words, this was a reasonably accurate calculation. Secondly, it is a statutory obligation which rests on us to render assistance to these mines according to a very complicated formula, as you yourself know. The amount of R300 000 is made up of two parts. The first part is an additional amount of R66 000 which is required because of an incorrect calculation made on the basis of this complicated formula with regard to the mines to which we are already rendering assistance. The second factor is the fact that the two mines on the East Rand, South African Lands and Vlakfontein, were flooded after the heavy rains we had, and that they are pumping water from those mines at the moment hoping to save the mines. This involves an amount at present estimated at R234 000. Together with the amount of R66 000 this makes up the amount of R300 000.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 29.—“Health”, R2 083 000, and 30.—“Health: Hospitals and Institutions”, R813 000:

Mr. Chairman, there is a great increase in the original estimate, an increase of over R2 000 000 required for medical poor relief. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would be good enough to enlarge upon the reasons for this vast increase in the original estimates.

The hon. member is quite correct in saying that this is a very large increase. But, Sir, I should like to mention to you the various factors which influence this. Firstly, he knows, and I sincerely regret that this is so, that many posts for district surgeons are vacant. In other words, we simply cannot find the people. These services are provided by private medical practitioners at present. Private medical practitioners, of course, provide these services at the ordinary tariffs laid down by the Compensation Commission. Secondly, the medicines prescribed by them are obtained on prescription, which inevitably is considerably more expensive than when such medicines are supplied by a full-time district surgeon who works for a salary.

The next aspect is that according to statistics we have received from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, statistics which influence this matter, the number of people in receipt of civil pensions who lay claim to these services has inevitably shown a tremendous increase over the years. The figure I can give to hon. members is that there were no fewer than 160 719 on 31st July, 1971. Now, as the hon. member will also know an arrangement was made—I think it was last year or the year before—for the convenience of these pensioners to obtain these services on the production of their pension books. We foresaw that this service would be used on a larger scale, but we never realized that it would be used on this scale. This is the one aspect responsible for this. Of the R2 million the estimated amount to be voted for this is R1 900 000. In the second place there is an increase in the utilization of the family planning services of the department. I think all of us would welcome this accelerated attempt for all population groups. Our estimate in this connection was too conservative altogether. I think one of the major reasons is that the department has made a real attempt to encourage family planning amongst the various peoples, but also because certain contraceptives, apart from the pill and the injections, have become available to us in recent times, as the hon. member knows, ones which are popular but expensive. We have made further arrangements, which are working well at the moment, to have these contraceptives available at all times at the various points—mostly at clinics, hospitals, etc. It is of no avail to apply family planning if the contraceptives are not available at all times. So as to have the contraceptives available at all times, we must carry certain stocks which we did not carry before. These are the principal reasons for this reasonably large increase in the amount.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has indicated the reason for the large increase under sub-head K. Could he give the Committee a breakdown of the additional amount and tell us how much of it represents payment to district surgeons and how much of it represents the increased costs of medicines?

I am sorry, but unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member these figures, and I shall tell him why. As far as medicines are concerned, the figure includes everything, including means of family planning. Unfortunately I am not able to tell the hon. member the amount paid out to district surgeons and the amount paid out for medicines. If he asks me for this information in the Budget debate, we can work out the figures, but I think it will be an enormous task to work out the figures separately.

Sir, did I understand the hon. the Minister to say that this amount under K included the cost of the campaign to educate people in family planning?

No.

I notice that under Item P there is an increase of R30 000 for, amongst other things, maternal and family welfare. Can the Minister indicate to us whether he intends launching an educational course for family planning, or is this simply to help the underprivileged in family affairs?

No, item P is really a separate item because it is a grant-in-aid to the South African National Council for Maternal and Family Welfare. They were given a grant of R60 000, if I remember correctly. They have asked for an increase and we have given them a 50 per cent increase. They will now be receiving R90 000 for this year.

Do they work amongst all race groups?

Yes, they work amongst all race groups and I may say that they are doing excellent work. A lot of this work is voluntary work, so we would like to encourage them, and that is why, in spite of the difficult financial position in which we are at the moment, the Minister of Finance was prepared to give them a 50 per cent increase, but because of the good work that they are doing and the fact that this is a voluntary effort to a large extent, we were prepared to help them in the good work they are doing.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to item K, I wonder whether the Minister could inform the House whether or not general practitioners who are doing work for district surgeons have their prescriptions inspected after they have been dispensed. Is he aware that in many cases there is a great deal of over-prescribing and that the cost of these prescriptions could, I am sure, in many cases be cut by a half? It was only today that I saw some quite fantastic prescriptions which had been handed in for dispensing. I should like to know whether the Minister has the machinery to inspect these prescriptions, and to bring the over-prescribing to the notice of those medical practitioners who are doing this work.

I just want to tell the hon. member that the prescriptions which are handed in at a chemist and for which the chemist has to pay, is presented to head office where they are checked very thoroughly. The chemist, of course, has no authority. He must dispense the prescription handed to him. That is the first point. The second point is that we did in fact take steps to impress upon district surgeons who prescribe medicines on prescription that the expenditure was tremendously high. How did we do that? Circulars were sent to these people, circulars I had seen to personally. Secondly, we have in our department a directorate which deals with this, and the members of this directorate go from place to place, especially to places where problems have cropped up, where there has been over-prescribing, as the hon. member calls it.

†And, of course, we are being given help, and we are actually soliciting the help, of the Medical Association, in dealing with these cases. I may perhaps just place on record my appreciation for the help we are receiving from the Medical Association.

Votes put and agreed to.

Loan Vote K.—“Community Development”, R5 180 050. and S.W.A. Vote No. 16.—“Community Development”, R141 700:

Mr. Chairman, Loan Vote K includes an increase of some 25 per cent on the loan to the Community Development Fund. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister can give us the information as to why there should have been such a considerable increase above the Estimate for this year, and whether he can tell us what the loan stands at at the present time.

The additional provision is necessary to finance the payment of compensation for expropriated property in urban renewal projects. As you know, quite some time ago there were a large number of cases that were referred to arbitration, and since several decisions were recently given by the arbitration courts, the Department has no choice but to pay the compensation. For the rest, there is a general tendency, on account of the present economic climate, to settle for realistic amounts, and so far for even lower amounts than the market value. This means that claims which would only have been payable during subsequent financial years have to be paid forthwith. As a result the provision on the Estimates is insufficient and at least R5 million is required in order to meet the commitments. However, the department is able to apply R500 000 out of savings towards State housing, and consequently the amount has been put at R4,5 million. I may just say that this is also the case in connection with District Six, where negotiations in respect of the price determinations of the properties expropriated by the Community Development Board in District Six proceeded very slowly because owners would not accept what they were offered. They are now accepting the offers to an increasing extent, and more and more arbitration cases are being decided, and that is why we are obliged to request this additional amount.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for what he has told us so far, but he has not answered the question as to what is the total loan now to the Development Fund in terms of this particular provision of the Act. It seems to me that the sum is increasing considerably. What provision is being made for the recovery of interest, etc., in due course? I take it the Minister has temporary ownership in District Six and that other properties will be developed and sold.

But what is your question?

I first of all want to know what is the total loan at the present moment, in terms of the appropriate section of the Act to the Community Development Fund. I want to know what is the total amount up to date, for the current year. What has it reached now? The Minister has indicated that the properties in the possession of the board stand at round about R100 million at present. What provision is being made in regard to the interest? Is the interest on this sum capitalized, to be recovered when the properties are eventually sold, and if so, at what rate?

I’m afraid I cannot give the hon. member that figure because I do not have it available. I will try to find out within the next few minutes and then I will tell the hon. member.

I should like to deal with the new item which appears here, viz. the purchase of the property known as Rhodesia-by-the-Sea. As this is a new item, I would ask the hon. the Minister to give us the full details about this. Firstly, with what object has this property been purchased, and secondly, I would like to know from the Minister whether before agreeing to any particular price, sworn valuations were obtained and, if so, by whom, and finally whether any commission has been paid in respect of this sale and, if so, to whom and for what reason?

This hotel, Rhodesiaby-the-Sea, was being run by a company. I have its name here somewhere. I think the registered name of the company is the State Lottery Trustees of Rhodesia. [Interjections.] They own the hotel. I believe the hotel ran into financial difficulties and then it was offered to us at a tentative price of R1 million. The Department of Defence told us that they are very interested in getting hold of this hotel for quarters for unmarried people. I believe, according to the Department of Defence that it is very suitable for single quarters for the Department of Defence. They asked us to buy this hotel for single quarters for the Department of Defence. We then had valuations made and these valuations were made by our valuators and the valuation was something like R600 000. Eventually, after negotiations we bought it for R650 000. To the best of my knowledge no commission was paid to anyone at all. I think these are all the questions the hon. member asked. It was bought for the Department of Defence.

May I ask the Minister whether he has any idea of the estimated cost to reconstruct or alter this building for the purposes for which it is now to be used?

Putting up a building like that would cost much more than R650 000.

But what about its conversion to its present use?

I think it is about R50 000.

*I will now answer that hon. member’s question. The current interest is being capitalized. That is the question the hon. member for Green Point asked me a moment ago. The total sum of the capital plus capitalized interest is now approximately R100 million. According to the auditors’ report of 1970-’71 it is R107 million.

On page 56 under Vote No. 16 there is an item for additional official quarters in South-West Africa for which an additional sum of R128 500 is asked. Will the Minister give us details of that expenditure?

The amount now requested in respect of the purchase of land represents the purchase price of 73 plots in Windhoek. Immediately after re-adjustment, the Department started negotiations with the City Council of Windhoek for the purchase of the necessary plots. The Works Division of the South-West Africa Administration conducted the negotiations with the City Council on behalf of the department. Initially only 45 plots were allotted to the department, but since these did not meet the needs, 18 and subsequently 10 more plots were allotted after further negotiations. The first 45 plots were expected to be transferred early in the 1970-’71 financial year, in which case there would have been no problems in connection with funds. However, the plots were only transferred late in March, 1971, and early in April, 1971, and notice of the registration was sent to the South-West Africa Administration, from where it was sent through to this department in April, 1971. As a result it was not possible to pay anything during the 1970-’71 financial year and the department was obliged to pay everything in the 1971-’72 financial year.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 32.—“Public Works”, R2 500 000, Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”, R6 500 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 17.— “Public Works”, R139 000:

On Vote 32, Public Works, there are two items which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. The one is financial assistance to the Board of Control of the Huguenot Monument, which has gone up by R5 000. Is that to be a recurring increased subsistence grant or is it just one payment which is required? The second question is to ask the Minister similarly to explain the assistance to the Public Service Association in respect of the restaurant in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building, an amount of R10 000 being provided for that.

I should like to ask the Minister for more information under Loan Vote B, on page 37. I take it the hon. the Minister wants to reply to the hon. member for Green Point first.

Yes. All my notes are now in Afrikaans, and I hope hon. members do not mind. The provision to the Huguenot Monument Board of Control is for the purpose of putting up a fence round the monument. Originally the Board applied in September, 1970, for financial assistance to the amount of R11 120 for the erection of a granite ring-wall around the wall. The Treasury only approved an amount of R5 000, which was sufficient. After further representations the Treasury approved that a further concession of R5 000 be placed on the Additional Estimates for 1971-’72. Subsequently the Board decided that the iron trellis fence, instead of a granite ring-wall, would fit in better with the existing trellis-work which forms part of the fencing, and that it would be more effective and cheaper and would also go further as regards fencing in the grounds as a whole. However, it has now become apparent that the costs will amount to considerably less than R10 000. At this stage, however, the actual cost is not available.

†The hon. member can therefore see that these will not be recurring items. They are individual items which will not recur.

Then the hon. member asked a question in regard to assistance to the Association of Civil Servants running the restaurant in the H. F. Verwoerd Building. This organization is running restaurants for civil servants all over the Republic of South Africa. They have restaurants in the Union Buildings, at Onderstepoort, in the Department of Labour building in Pretoria and in the provincial administration building in Cape Town. In some instances they do make profits while in others they show losses. They were willing to run this restaurant on condition that we guaranteed their loss. That is why this amount was voted.

Is this a grant which is being made for the specific purpose of equipping this restaurant, or is this to be a continuing subsidy for the restaurant, and if so, how many public servants will use this restaurant and for how long in each year? I ask this question: Is this R10 000 merely to be a guarantee against loss?

Are members of Parliament allowed to make use of this restaurant?

I do not know. I asked them that question the other day. It is a very nice restaurant. I cannot tell the hon. member how many civil servants will make use of this restaurant in a year. All I can tell him is that it is packed every day.

Is it closed during the recess?

No. It will not be closed during the recess, but will remain open. It is not for the equipment that this amount is necessary. The amount is needed to cover the loss. They are supplying these meals at very low rates to the civil servants. I think members of Parliament, at least decent members of Parliament, will be allowed there. The hon. member for Orange Grove can try and if they allow him in he can invite me for a cheap meal.

But will they allow you?

Well, after certain things I am not so certain! This is all the information I can give the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his definition of those members who will be allowed there and that it will be quite open to all members from this side of the House. I trust that the sorting-out will be done on the other side of the House.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will now deal with item J in respect of the increase in rent, rates, etc., of R1 274 000. Is this due to the fact that there were more premises taken on hire by the department or is it because of an increase in rentals of existing premises? I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister could give me some break-down of the amount of R1 274 000.

I can furnish the hon. member with certain figures. New leases which, in the public interest, could not be postponed, amounted to R300 000. Increases in existing rentals amounted to R261 000. The consequences of devaluation and revaluation for a period of four months at an average of R15 000 per month, amounted to R60 000. Then there were increased rates to the amount of R13 000. Increased municipal rates and increases in consumption amounted to R620 000. The abnormally cold weather in the Cape and the additional consumption of electric current were responsible for R20 000. These amount to a total of R1 274 000.

I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to Loan Vote B. Two new items appear under Loan Vote B, of which the first appears on page 37. This item deals with the compensation for buildings that had to be paid to the Natal Provincial Administration.

Which one is that?

It appears under sub-head (14)—“National Education”, in the paragraph entitled “New Service”. It involves an amount of R24 000. Hon. members know that the open-air school is a special school and that it provides special education, which was previously under the Provincial Administration of Natal. It now falls under the Department of National Education. I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate how the amount of R24 000 was arrived at as a basis of compensation for the buildings. I would also like the hon. the Minister to indicate whether the buildings included the hostel facilities, which are in a separate portion and which stand separately from the rest of the school. The amount which appears here, an amount of R24 000, seems to be a very low sum indeed, the note at the bottom of the page indicates that the total cost is estimated to be R24 000.

The other item in regard to which I would like the hon. the Minister to give me further information appears on page 38. It involves a new service for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I refer to the amount of R20 000 that is to be voted by the Committee for the accommodation for drug dependants at Cullinan. This new item is one in respect of which the estimated cost indicated at the foot of the page will be R130 000. This will be for the benefit of White drug dependants who will receive treatment there. It falls under the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I would like the hon. the Minister to give us more details concerning this building. Firstly, he must tell us how many drug dependants this building has been designed to accommodate. Secondly, he must give us some indication as to the expected date of completion of this particular establishment and this particular building. The overall amount to be spent now is R60 000 which appears to be approximately half the total estimated cost of R130 000. Of the estimated R60 000, R40 000 will be met by savings on other services. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us more detailed information in regard to the building and the establishment of this accommodation of drug dependants.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to have some information from the hon. the Minister on two items. Depending on his reply I may be able to put further questions.

On the Loan Vote?

Yes, on the Loan Vote. I refer to the item concerning the Jan Smuts Airport in which an additional amount of R3½ million has to be voted. It falls under sub-head (17) “Transport” and under the sub-paragraph “Kempton Park”. The amount is to be voted for the new terminal building and alterations to existing buildings at the Jan Smuts Airport. The next sub-head I would like to refer to is “General”, and the item is “Building Services”, Pretoria. It is in regard to the new building for the Department of the Interior. An additional amount of R1 297 950 is being asked for. After the hon. the Minister’s reply I would like to put a few questions in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a supplementary question to the question asked by the hon. member who has just sat down. Could the hon. the Minister give us the estimated total figure for the building of the Department of the Interior in Pretoria? I take it …

Which building?

The new building for the Department of the Interior, Pretoria, in regard to which the hon. member for Orange Grove has requested details. Could the hon. the Minister tell us what the estimated total figure will be after completion? I would like to have his assurance that the amount of R1 297 950 will include the new sculpture which is to adorn this building in Pretoria.

Mr. Chairman, I will first deal with … I have lost my place. Which was the hon. member’s first question?

Concerning the Durban open-air school.

When this school was taken over by the Department of National Education on the 1st April, 1969, in terms of Act 41 of 1967, there was still certain building work which had to be completed by the Natal Provincial Administration. The total cost of this work amounted to R23 933,30. The Natal Provincial Administration has now applied for a refund of the amount and has submitted an audited statement in support of its claims. In terms of section 6 (2) (e) of the Act, the Central Government must accept debit for this expenditure. Treasury approval has therefore been obtained to include this item in these Estimates to enable the Department to defray the relevant claim without delay.

I do not know whether I can answer the other questions. My difficulty is that they fall in the purview of another department. I do not have the knowledge concerning the building and its size, etc.

As far as Loan Vote B: sub-head (18), Social Welfare and Pensions, is concerned, I can say the following: The abuse of drugs in the Republic is reaching alarming proportions. Hence the passing of the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1971. It will, however, not be possible to implement this Act until the minimum requirements for the treatment of drug dependence have been met. As the first step, the existing retreat for the men and women at Cullinan, which was erected in terms of the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act, is being enlarged to accommodate these drug dependants. These institutions lend themselves to the proposed extension as an efficient kitchen and hospital facilities are available for additional patients. Additional sleeping accommodation also has to be provided. The cost of this service is estimated at R150 000. As this was a matter of national importance which could not be delayed, a special warrant was obtained to enable the Minister of Public Works to arrange for the erection and accommodation without delay.

Apparently it has only been partly completed.

I do not know. My difficulty is that this falls under the department of another Minister and I do not have all that information at my disposal. All the information I have is the amount spent, etc. The other information the hon. member wants I think he can gain from the hon. Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.

*Etienne, what did you want to know?

About the Jan Smuts Airport and the new building at Pretoria.

As far as the Jan Smuts Airport is concerned, I can give the hon. member the following information: In February, 1969, the Department of Transport reported that it had been decided that the date on which the Boeing-747 passenger aircraft were to be put into operation, would be advanced to October, 1971. The Department of Public Works was therefore obliged to make special arrangements for having the eastern boundary wing ready in good time. Tender Board approval was obtained for negotiating with the contractors for the non-White concourse to erect the accommodation at schedule tariffs plus a percentage to cover the increase in building costs in the meantime. No allocation or particulars in respect of trimmings, fittings, etc., are available, and the costs of the work in question were based only on particulars in respect of accommodation which were fixed at approximately R10 million. Working drawings were, as they were completed, handed to the contractor one by one. It was only in May, 1971, when the building had reached an advanced stage of construction and the allocation of all the fittings was available, that it was possible to survey the whole service thoroughly and to prepare a reliable estimate of the final cost of the building, which amounts to R14 million. When the estimates of the expenditure under Loan Vote B for the year 1971-’72 were prepared during December, 1970, provision for the expenditure on the eastern boundary wing was based on the then estimated cost of R10 million. The amount voted at the time is quite inadequate at the moment. In December, 1971, the building was partly completed and occupied, and it is expected that the additional amount of R3 582 000 will have to be paid until 31st March, 1972. Since there are no savings on other sub-heads under Loan Vote B which may be used for meeting the excess expenditure on this service, additional funds are now requested. I think this will give the hon. member all the information he wanted to have. In any case, other than this I do not have any further information.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister then tell us whether he is suggesting that this is not really the final figure and that the final figure is yet to come in respect of the Jan Smuts Terminal?

No, the final figure is R14 million, if I am not mistaken.

Is it not reflected here?

No, it will not be reflected here. This is only the additional amount requested.

†The hon. member for Green Point asked me about the new building of the Department of the Interior and whether this amount includes the cost of the new sculpture. The answer is “yes”. The plans for the erection of the sculpture are going ahead. During 1970-’71 the building industry had to contend with serious shortages of labour and certain materials with the result that progress with the erection of the project was generally slower than had been expected. This resulted in the surrender of funds under Loan Vote B at the close of that financial year. During 1971-’72 the position eased considerably as far as the supply of materials is concerned and there has been a general quickening in the tempo of construction by contractors, especially on the larger projects. This is also attributable to the need to complete the services within the contract period to avoid penalties and the financial climate prevailing in the building industry during this financial year. Owing to the curtailment of Capital Expenditure by the State and the general scarcity of funds in the Republic contractors have, as a result of the growth of new services, concentrated their labour forces and services on projects already under construction. This resulted in a much higher expenditure on certain large projects during the current financial year than had been expected when the Estimates of 1971-’72 were framed in December, 1970. One of the services affected by the foregoing is the new building of the Department of the Interior in Pretoria and as funds are not available from savings and other services on Loan Vote B, this additional appropriation is necessary.

Does the contract price remain the same?

The contract price remains the same. I do not think there has been any change in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, just in passing I would like to express the appreciation of many people in South Africa that the Minister has not been persuaded by the criticism of old women of both sexes in regard to artistic works and sculpture intended for the building of the Department of the Interior in Pretoria and elsewhere. It is very rarely that I have occasion to express a word of appreciation, but I think I can do so in this case. However, the point I wish to raise is in connection with the Jan Smuts Airport.

*Here an additional amount of R3½ million is required until 31st March, 1972. In other words, this additional R3½ million will already have been spent on these extensions at the Jan Smuts Airport by the end of this month. Last Sunday I was a passenger on the Boeing 747 to Johannesburg, and if the near chaos that prevailed there in regard to the discharge of passengers at the airport—not only local passengers, but also through passengers en route to London—is all we are going to get for this R3½ million, then it is absolutely inadequate. The time will come when there will not only be one “Jumbo” at the Jan Smuts Airport, but three, four or five. Then 1 500 up to 2 000 people will have to pass through immigration, passport and the ordinary controls. In my case it would have been possible for me to rent a car and to make two important telephone calls first, and upon my return my luggage would still not have been there. A tremendous amount of delay is taking place, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will at least see to it that when these large amounts are requested, they will definitely be used for the benefit of passengers. The hon. the Minister will tell me that the Minister of Transport is not here, but, in that case, why is he not here? Why is the Deputy Minister not here to explain to us why, whilst an amount of R3½ million is being requested—an amount which will have been spent by the end of this month —the facilities at the Jan Smuts Airport are still so poor?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether I understood him correctly, i.e. that in regard to this contract for requirements at the Jan Smuts Airport for the Boeing 747, there was a change to the basis of cost-plus construction in order to expedite it, and that on this basis an amount of R3½ million is required? I should also like to say something else further to what was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove. In the recent past I had to go through the international building at the Jan Smuts Airport on two occasions. The handling of luggage there …

Order! That is not really under discussion here.

But I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member may do so during the Budget debate in the course of the discussion of the Vote of the Minister responsible for that matter.

I want to put a particular question to the Minister in regard to this additional Vote.

The hon. member may put his question.

On two occasions it happened that my suitcase was taken out by other persons at the place where luggage is called for. Why is this increase so large if care is not taken that every passenger gets his own luggage?

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question by the hon. member for Kensington, I told him that the final amount will be R14 million. That is not the case; I have been informed that the final amount is not yet available.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question. Can the hon. the Minister tell us roughly when the final figure will be available?

I think it will be available pretty soon, if it is not available now. [Interjections.] It is not yet available … [Interjections.]

*The two hon. members who spoke about the Jan Smuts Airport, are placing me in a very difficult position. I must say that I probably use the Jan Smuts Airport just as often as they do, and that I have always passed through it with a great deal of convenience. Of course, I know that inconvenience will be caused as a result of the alterations being made to the building, but that goes without saying.

I am referring to the international building.

Yes, so am I. At present inconvenience is caused at all the buildings at Jan Smuts, but that is unavoidable.

Who carries your suitcase?

I carry it myself, and if you are in the vicinity, you will have to carry it for me! The hon. members should at least appreciate what my Department’s position is in this regard. We are asked to erect certain buildings, to make alterations or additions to existing buildings. That is where our responsibility starts and ends. The actual control of the Jan Smuts Airport is none of our concern. I am afraid that the questions asked by the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for East London City, should rather be put by them to the Minister of Transport.

Do you not agree that the Minister should have been here?

No, what is the Minister to do here all day? The hon. member may put those questions to the hon. the Minister of Transport during the discussion of the Budget.

Then they will once again not be here.

If the hon. member will put his questions during the discussion of their Vote, I can assure him that the Minister and his Deputy will be here. However, I am afraid that I cannot reply to those questions of the hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to the new building for the Department of the Interior, and in particular, in regard to the controversial sculpture. In the first place, I want to ask what the individual, total cost of the sculpture as such will be, and, in the second place, whether the hon. the Minister does not feel that the public in general would be more prepared to accept the sculpture if a solitary leaf (blaar) could be sculptured somewhere in the midst of all those naked figures!

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member that I do not know what the exact cost of those statues is. My department will probably let me know what it is. As regards the suggestion that a leaf (blaar) would perhaps make it a little more acceptable, I may say that the “Blaar” is so popular throughout the Republic that it will probably make the statues more acceptable.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 34.—“Industries”, R50, and Loan Vote J.—“Industries”, R6 260 000:

Subhead P under Vote 34 is a new item, to cover the cost of removal of factories and key personnel. We would like the hon. the Minister to give us a statement on what the principle involved is now in the removal of factories and key personnel to border industries and also why this amount is required.

Sir, you will recall that last year we published a white paper on decentralization. That was fairly late in the session. In that white paper provision was made for donations to industries which are removed, in order to compensate them for direct losses as a result of the dismantling and removal of their factories and the transfer of the factories and staff. I should like to read the hon. member the relevant part from the white paper. It is paragraph 68 (a) of the white paper. In fact, its operation is further set out in paragraphs 74 and 75, as well as paragraph 89 (a) of the white paper. But I think the only part which is really relevant, is paragraph 68 (a). It reads—

1. (a) a cash grant to reimburse the industrialist for his immediate and direct costs in connection with the physical removal of his factory and personnel. In effect, this grant is designed to cover the cost of dismantling plant, the transport and installation thereof, and the cost of transporting the personnel and their possessions.

I do not think I can say much more than this, except to add that this is in fact a new item. However, we can meet this from savings, and therefore provision is only being made for the nominal amount of R50.

Sir, In Loan Vote J, sub-head 3, it appears that a considerable additional amount of some R4 million is required for the purchase of shares of the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd. Having regard to the concern which we share about the entry of the Industrial Development Corporation into the business field of this country in competition with private enterprise, I would ask the Minister to give some clear indication of the purpose for which these shares are now being purchased.

Mr. Chairman, I presume the hon. member is referring to the appropriation of R3 549 000?

Additional.

Yes, it is the additional appropriation. This is an amount for which shares are being purchased from the I.D.C. by the Government; but in actual fact it is only intended to finance the I.D.C. to do other things. That is why the shares are being purchased from the I.D.C. in this way. This amount of R3 549 000 actually consists of two parts, if I may explain it to the Committee. The first part is for the development of industries in border and other less developed areas. This is an amount of R2 540 000, in other words, R1 million less than the total amount being provided here. Of course, from time to time sums of money are made available to the I.D.C., in most cases by way of loans, to encourage and to help to finance decentralization to the border areas and other developing areas. If the hon. member wants me to, I shall explain how it has come about that this additional amount is being requested. If the hon. member does not require that, I shall proceed to the next R1 million. This R1 million is for the development of South-West Africa; it is for the hydro-electric scheme on the Kunene River. Last year an amount was provided for this, but it was found that that amount fell short by R1 million, and consequently this amount of R1 million has to be provided for the scheme in the north of South-West Africa. The total amount is R3 549 000.

Sir, in regard to Loan Vote J, Item 5, will the hon. the Minister advise this Committee what the reasons are for the increase in respect of the Cabora Bassa project and whether the provision now made represents the Government’s final commitment in regard to this loan and, if not, what the final commitment is.

No, the State’s final commitments in respect of this scheme is much more than the amount provided under this Vote. An amount of R2 711 000 is being provided now, and this seems strange because an amount of only R139 000 was originally voted under this head. Briefly, the reasons for this are the following: Sir, you are no doubt aware of the fact that a consortium, i.e. the ZAMCO consortium, was established there, for the building of the dam, the hydro-electric power station below the dam wall and the power lines leading from there. In addition, the power line has to be taken further from the Limpopo River to the Apollo power station at Irene near Pretoria. Be that as it may, briefly this is more or less the entire system for which a consortium has been created. There is, inter alia, a company by the name of Power Lines with which a contract was entered into for the building of the power line from the Limpopo to the Apollo power station near Pretoria. These companies have, for various reasons, come to the conclusion that they would rather commence with the work earlier than originally planned, since particularly severe penalties have been imposed for late completion of the work. This applies to two phases of this undertaking, but I should not like to go into the details at this stage. Because they started with operations earlier in order to ensure that they will be able to finish within the prescribed time so that they will not be subject to the payment of any penalties, there are now financial commitments to them which have to be met earlier, and an amount of R2 711 000 will have to be voted for this year up to the end of March. Sir, I cannot say off-hand what the full and final commitment in respect of Cabora Bassa will be, but I can tell the hon. member that an amount of R14,4 million will have to be voted in respect of the Cabora Bassa scheme in the Estimates of next year.

In the reply given by the hon. the Minister in respect of the purchase of shares in the I.D.C., he said at a later stage in his speech that it was a loan.

No.

These were the words used by the hon. the Minister. I just want the Minister to correct himself and to state that these are shares bought by the Government in the I.D.C.; it is not a loan.

Sir, the hon. member misunderstood me. I said that these were shares purchased from the I.D.C. by the Government, but that it was done to finance the I.D.C. to enable it to make moneys available to companies by way of loans.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 35.—“Police”. R3 350 000:

Mr. Chairman, just one question, and that is under Item L, “Detained persons”, where there is an increase of R33 000. Is this because the number of persons who were likely to be detained was under-estimated, or what other reason is there for this increase?

No, not really. It would appear to me that in the light of the circumstances, this amount was merely underestimated. The reply is that this item was underestimated last year; that is what it amounts to, and therefore it is necessary for us to make provision here for an additional amount of R33 000. This subhead makes provision for the maintenance of persons in custody prior to their being tried, and also for mental patients detained in police care. All I can say is that the amount was underestimated last year. It appears that the costs involved are much more than was estimated originally.

Will the hon. the Minister please give us some information about Item H, “Medical Services”? There is an increase of approximately 20 per cent in that item. It may perhaps be for medical aid of some kind.

I shall be glad to have details.

As hon. members may appreciate, this is a difficult amount to estimate in advance, since one is never sure of what is going to happen, especially in dealing with a large force such as the South African Police, which consists of approximately 35 000 members. In this case the main reason for the increase is the rise in medical expenses: hospital expenses, part-time district surgeons, specialists, etc. The increase under this subhead is R725 000. I should like to sub-divide this amount for the benefit of hon. members. Provision is made for an additional amount of R500 000 for medicine, drugs, hospital expenses, supplies, etc. Let me deal with these first. This increase of R500 000 is attributable to increased medical expenses. Half the increase is probably attributable to the fact that during the past year the Force was enlarged substantially. I may just add, Sir, since I may not have the opportunity of saying this later on, that we have had a very successful year as far as recruitment is concerned. At the moment the number of vacancies in the Police is much lower than it was last year. As a result the numerical strength of the South African Police has been enhanced, and as the numerical strength is enhanced, one may, of course, expect the medical expenses to increase too. These arguments which I have now advanced, also hold good for an additional amount of R198 000 in respect of medical services and dentists. Then there is another additional amount of R27 000—Contributions to Medical Funds. In that regard the explanation is the same as the one given here by the Minister of Defence. Hon. members on that side will recall that we received many representations from members of the Police Force who retired prior to 1st January, 1964. A medical fund was established for ex-members of the South African Police Force who retired prior to 1st January, 1964, and subsequently, after the numerous representations we received, we established another fund, which we call the B Fund, for ex-members who retired prior to 1st January, 1964. As this Fund will be very expensive to those who are members of it, the Treasury was approached and the Minister of Finance was kind enough to grant us a contribution towards the maintenance of this Fund, and that contribution amounts to R27 000 for the current year.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 36.—“Water Affairs”, R1 050 000, Loan Vote E.—“Water Affairs”, R150, and S.W.A. Vote No. 20.— “Water Affairs”, R92 000:

On Vote No. 36—Subsidies on Minor Water Works—I would like to ask the Minister about this amount of over R1 million. Is this an increased amount because of waterworks which are already approved, but where the cost has risen higher than was anticipated or are these new works in respect of which the formula applies and the subsidy has to be paid?

It is as a result of the exceptional extension of works owing to the drought. As the hon. member will know, on account of the drought in the past few years it was arranged that private boring machines were allowed to do work for the department to augment the department’s own machines. As a result of that the amount allowed in the previous year was exceeded by R1 million.

Does all of that have a bearing on boring machines?

No, we regard waterworks, the minor waterworks, as consisting of two parts, i.e. boring operations and minor waterworks. The amount has actually been divided into two. They are more or less equal, and approximately R500 000 of the amount is supplementary to those boring operations which were approved in the past and which have been carried out in the meantime and have now come up for the payment of subsidies. This also goes towards the minor waterworks. But because the increase was such a tremendous one as a result of the drought, the amount that had been voted, was exceeded considerably and therefore we have to approach the House now. I may also tell the hon. member that this is because of two things we did. On the one hand we allowed private drillers to operate as well, and you can appreciate, Sir, that the farmers availed themselves of this opportunity rather than waiting for the drillers of the department itself, but also because we gave special instructions to the effect that our own engineers had to grant approval, on the spot, for minor waterworks, for the very purpose of disposing of them more rapidly, and therefore the rate at which they are completed has increased to such an extent in recent times that we have to augment it in this manner. If we do not do this now, it would simply mean that we would have to carry it over to the next year, which would mean that for the coming year we would have less to make available in respect of minor waterworks.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 39.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”, R6 579 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 22.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”, R77 000:

Under Vote No. 39 there are substantial increases under two headings. First of all there are the contributions to the pension and provident funds where an amount is required of R3 075 000, which is merely indicated as being under “General”. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give us some information in regard to the necessity for this additional R3 million. Under the same heading contributions to pension funds and provident funds, there are two new items. The first one is a special contribution to the Contingency Account of the Government Employees Provident Fund, amounting to R150 000. I will be pleased if the Minister could give an indication as to why it has become necessary for this special contribution to be made to this fund and whether he will give some indication as to the number of persons affected in terms of this fund.

The second item is also a new item, the amount of over R2½ million which deals with the arrear contributions of members of pension funds. Here I will be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give some indication as to how this necessity arose, whereby these arrear contributions have to be paid and which funds are involved in regard to these arrear contributions, and the members of these funds who are now required to see that arrear contributions are made on behalf of the State.

The last item deals with the care of the aged and infirm, where there is an additional amount of R804 000. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give an indication as to why this increase has come about.

The reasons for the increase in the first case are as follows. As a result of the new salary scales for White public servants which came into effect as from 1st January, 1971, the employer’s contribution contributed by the State to the funds of the people, automatically increased. Initially it was impossible to estimate what the full exact amount of the increase would be. The current expenditure showed that the provision had been estimated too low and that additional money was needed, firstly, for supplementing those funds. Secondly, on 1st October, 1971, higher salaries for non-White public servants, employees of the State, were announced as well. Therefore there was no provision for them in the normal Budget, because these came into effect as from 1st October only, and the employer’s contributions were increased to date as well and had to be added to that. This is how that amount of R3 million is made up.

In respect of the Contingency Account, the position is very clear. This account affects approximately 13 000 employees. Actuarially it was calculated that that fund was not sound enough and that an additional amount should be paid into it. The actuaries recommended this amount and we have accepted it at that figure in order to keep the fund on a sound footing.

Then there is the further question of the arrear contributions of members’ pension moneys. As the hon. member may know, the possibility exists in the Public Service for an official to buy back his period of service up to his eighteenth year for pension purposes. This is an attempt to afford our officials more opportunities of building up a better pension for themselves, which at the same time is to the benefit of the State, so that the employees may retire on a good pension and need not be a burden on the State. The position is that numerous officials bought their pensions back up to their eighteenth year. In certain cases it may happen that such an official owes an amount of R5 000 or R6 000 in order to buy his pension rights up to that time. Initially we arranged for small monthly deductions to be made in respect of the officials so as to enable them to make payments over a period of 10 to 14 years. But the problem has arisen now that one does not have control over all the officials in the various departments. All the officials are not from our department, but are spread throughout the country and it requires a tremendous amount of administrative work to check whether each one’s payment is made every month. The Treasury found it practicable, and we obtained the approval of the Treasury, to pay in the full amount for all arrear debts which would be outstanding on 31st March, 1972, in one lump sum, and the Treasury now deducts directly from the salary payments of each official, whereupon the money is paid into the current revenue fund. This is being done for administrative purposes, to the benefit of the officials and to the benefit of the funds and in order to facilitate the administration.

The hon. member also put a question in regard to the last item, i.e. the amount of R804 000 for the aged. There are three main reasons for this. In the first place, we had a considerable number of settler tenants on settlements, while the ideal situation is to have settlers and not tenants. Consequently we replaced the settler-tenants with settlers, and in this way we lost R8 per month in the form of rent because we had to help other people who were more needy. This brought about a loss of revenue for us. Furthermore, we provided electricity at two of the settlements, namely at Ganspan and Sonop, for which the aged were very grateful, and the additional costs involved in that are included here. Thirdly, there was a considerable increase in subsidies to private old-age homes. The hon. member will be aware of the fact that we increased these subsidies a time ago. A considerable number of large old-age homes which were being constructed, were completed at the same time this year and this increased our expenditure in respect of the subsidies to a very large extent. The result of that was this additional amount.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 41.—“National Education”, R3 635 000:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to have information in regard to two items. The first is item H which deals with grants-in-aid to the Africa Institute. Under that item there is an increase of almost 30 per cent on the original estimate. The second item is item M which deals with financial assistance to universities and bursaries for university education. As regards item M, I accept that the amount of R2½ million is due mainly to salary adjustments, but what I should like to know is how much is in fact attributable to current expenditure. I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister could perhaps give me a break-down on the basis of the universities and an indication of the amount actually involved in respect of bursaries.

As regards subhead H—the grant-in-aid to the Africa Institute—I should just like to remind the hon. member that a committee of inquiry, i.e. the Wennie du Plessis committee of inquiry, investigated the activities of the Africa Institute. The report of that committee was tabled on 16th June last year and most of its recommendations were accepted. The amount we have in front of us now, in point of fact is the difference between the financial implications of the report and the amount originally estimated. This is required for a variety of matters. It is required partly for salaries, administration costs, the purchase of library books and for the extension of staff, to a maximum of R17 000 as approved by the Treasury. The committee of inquiry did in fact recommend R34 000 for extension in respect of staff, but the Treasury approved only R17 000 of that. This is all I want to say in regard to item H.

We then come to item N which deals with financial assistance to universities. This involves an amount of R2 539 200. The position in this regard is as follows. The salaries of university staff were increased as from 1st April, 1971. After the salaries of the entire Public Service staff had been increased with effect from 1st January, it was decided to make those of the university staff of retrospective effect as from 1st January, so as to bring them into line with the salary increases of the Public Service. This, of course, was applicable to all the universities in the country, and was done at the request of the various universities as it affected their staff as a whole. Therefore I am able to tell the hon. member that the entire amount concerns salaries which were increased with retrospective effect in order to bring them into line with the procedure which had been followed in the Public Service. The exact amount involved in respect of salaries is R2 479 200. In addition, there is a further amount of R354 800 in respect of housing loans to university staff. This amount is to be added to the first. If the two are added, they come to a larger amount than that reflected in this Estimate. The reason for that is that there were certain savings on this Vote as well, which have been subtracted. I can only say that the savings resulted from the following. In the first place, progress with certain projects was not as rapid as had been hoped; therefore the loans which were granted and on which the interest was calculated in the original estimates, were in excess of the actual figures. Consequently there was a saving in this regard. In addition, there were minor savings in respect of vacation saving bonuses. This involved an amount of R35 300. In addition, there was a minor saving of R6 000 in respect of Government study bursaries. Hon. members will know that the Department of Social Welfare has a scheme in terms of which 20 bursaries are awarded annually to children from schools under the control of the department who want to study at a university. Not all 20 bursaries were taken up; only 16 of the 20 were taken up, therefore there was a saving.

In the last place, there are also the national study bursaries awarded by the universities. Not all those bursaries were awarded by the universities either. A saving of R13 000 resulted from this. If one adds the savings and subtracts that total from the amount of the increase, one gets the total amount of R2 539 200.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 43.—“Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs”, R6 337 400:

Could the hon. the Minister please give us the reason for the increased amount required?

I suppose the hon. member wants the reasons for the increase under both sub-heads A and H?

Yes.

The increase on sub-head A is as a result of the salary increases that were granted on 1st January, 1971. This concerns European staff engaged by the Department of Coloured Relations.

The increase under sub-head H is as a result of salary increases granted on 1st January, 1971, and also on 1st October, 1971. The latter increase was for teachers. The increase granted in October, 1971, when we were about halfway through the financial year, amounted to R1 900 000. The salary increases granted to all staff— these are all Coloured people working for the Administration—on 1st January, 1971, amounted to R3 800 000. The total of these two is R5 700 000.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 47.—“Government Printing Works”, R1 061 000:

Mr. Chairman, under sub-head D—Printing, Stationery, Advertisements and Publications— there is an increase of very nearly 50 per cent. I gather that between 1970 and 1971-’72 printing costs, whether by contract on escalation clauses or simply by changes in cost, increased by approximately 10 to 15 per cent. Would the hon. the Minister please indicate the reason for this increase of nearly 50 per cent?

Mr. Chairman, I shall give the hon. member the principal reason for the net increase of R120 000. The entire amount in fact involves, firstly, a decrease which was brought about because fewer items of stationery were drawn from this separate account, i.e. the stores account of the Government Printing Works. This is the purchase account on which the Government Printing Works buys its stores. There has been a tremendous increase in the prices of paper and printing requisites.

May I interrupt the hon. the Deputy Minister? I referred to sub-head D, and not to subhead F.

As regards sub-head D, the increase is R490 000. This is a large increase. Sub-head D in fact concerns the Government Printing Works as a factory. Sub-head D must purchase the paper for the Government Gazettes, etc., from sub-head F. It is purchased by means of public tender. The larger volume of Government Gazettes printed, as well as the higher printing costs and increased printing requisites, will be reflected in subhead D. Eventually this also results from higher salaries and wages. From sub-head A you will notice that there were wage increases as a result of an agreement in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, in terms of which there will be a wage increase every year for four years in respect of the lower paid employees in the trade. As hon. members know, the Government Printing Works is a factory. These wage increases are in fact one of the main causes of this tremendous increase, which as you will notice, amounts to R220 000 under sub-head A. This is reflected in the higher printing costs and in the increased prices of paper and of printing requisites which are purchased by public tender under sub-head D. I am sorry that I am mentioning the sub-heads one after the other to the hon. member. In reality they fit into one another. The increase in the Government publications which the Government Printing Works has to produce, as well as the increase in the costs of Government Gazettes printed on contract—the ordinary Government Gazette—brought about a total increase of R340 000. In the first part of last year, the volume of Government Gazettes increased by almost 15 per cent. There even were two special Government Gazettes which involved R57 000. These are only two Government Gazettes for which no provision was made. In the second place, the volume of Government publications which the various departments purchased from the Government Printing Works, increased by 100 per cent in the first eight months of last year. The tendency seems to be, because of the measures of economy which are being taken, for the departments to want to have their publications appearing sooner. This has caused a tremendous increase in printing costs. Of course, the cost of paper increased as well. Paper is bought by public tender. There are in fact only two large companies which supply paper nowadays, i.e. the South African Pulp and Paper Industries and, I think, another company known as Mondi. An agreement has been made with Sappi for their contract to be renewed annually on 1st April. In point of fact it is not the contract which is renewed. The tender is called for anew. In the last case, the increase in the price was 12½ per cent. Therefore this is due partly to the increase in printing costs or unit costs which depend basically on the wages and the increased printing requisites such as pens, ink, paper, etc. The most important reason is the bulk paper which is purchased by public tender and of which the price cannot simply be increased arbitrarily.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has replied to me in much more detail than I desired, but I doubt whether he did in fact get to the point I raised. In my question to him I admitted that printing costs, including the price of paper, etc., had increased tremendously. I have ascertained that between 1970-’71 and 1971-’72, the price increased by between 10 and 15 per cent. Here, however, we have an increase of 50 per cent and my question in fact concerned the additional 35 per cent. I concede at once that there was an increase in costs, but my question was in regard to the remaining 35 per cent. Was it due to an increase in volume which was not foreseen in 1970, or was it perhaps concerned with the publications of very high standard, the prestige publications, which the departments issued last year? Was this too not a very expensive factor in respect of this figure?

Mr. Chairman, I tried to explain to the hon. member that this was not merely a question of a difference of 35 per cent, and that it must be attributed solely to an increase in the price of paper. In reality printing costs are something which depend on wage increases as well. I also explained that the wage increase had been particularly high. Printing costs are the actual unit costs. However, there was the increase in volume as well. I also explained that the increase in volume had been exceptionally high. The hon. member also mentioned a third point which, incidentally, I did not include in my reasons. What it in fact amounts to, and it was also mentioned here last year by one of the hon. members opposite, is that prestige publications are expected of our departments and in such cases they cost more, of course. However, one does not draw a specific distinction in the statements and say that because a publication is a prestige publication, it costs more. The fact remains that in volume they increased by 100 per cent over a short period. In addition, their basic cost increased tremendously and we know that as a result of wage agreements and wage increases, an unusual increase took place in the costs of this printing work as well.

Vote put and agreed to.

Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4 accordingly agreed to.

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The scope, development and modernization of the services of the South African Broadcasting Corporation already call for large amounts of money, and this need is increased by the considerable capital expenditure which will be necessary in the preparatory phase of the television service which the corporation has been instructed by the Government to introduce eventually. In order to finance all these projects, the SABC proposes negotiating a revolving credit agreement abroad. With the permission of the Minister of Finance the Control Board is already negotiating in this regard with financial institutions abroad. There are certain doubts about the legal validity of such an agreement within the framework of the Broadcasting Act (Act 22 of 1936), in that the said Act provides that the Corporation may raise moneys only by way of stocks, by debentures, partly by stocks and partly by debentures, as well as on the security of bills. However, the agreement to be concluded provides that moneys shall be raised by way of promissory notes and also requires repayment to be guaranteed by the Government. The Bill before the House makes provision for this, and will enable the corporation to continue with its task.

Clause 1 of the Bill, which amends section 18 of the Broadcasting Act, inserts a proviso in subsection (2) to authorize the corporation to raise moneys by means of promissory notes as well, while the new subsections (3) and (4) authorize the Minister of Finance to guarantee any loan raised by the corporation. The wording of these subsections was taken from section 3 of the Finance Act (Act 67 of 1955).

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House have no objection in principle to this particular Bill. Like Escom, the Railways or the Post Office, for instance, we believe that the SABC should have the right to raise loans. As a matter of fact, in the original Broadcast Act of 1936, which was introduced by the United Party Government—a farsighted Government, I might add—provision was made for the raising of loans for acquiring movable and immovable property. I use the word “far-sighted”, particularly because that Act also provided that the SABC could not only acquire broadcasting stations and studios, but almost 40 years ago, it also provided that it could buy and acquire television stations. An amending Act of 1969—in this particular case regarding the borrowing powers of the SABC—was also approved by this side of the House. That extended the powers of the SABC in regard to short-term loans.

Now this present Bill gives the SABC the power to raise loans and also moneys on the security of promissory notes. The Minister of Finance will be able to guarantee the capital and the interest on these loans. Perhaps the Minister could give us the hope that, with these guarantees on ordinary loans too, in future, it would be possible that the rate of interest on loans raised by the SABC, even if they are raised abroad, would be lower.

The first schedule of the Electricity Act, is, according to this amending Bill, to be applied to the raising of these loans. We have read about the chairman of the SABC, Dr. Meyer, going abroad, trying to find credits and loans, particularly in view of the great expansion in regard to the proposed plan for television.

I see that the Minister of Finance “may” guarantee the interest on and the capital of the amount of any loan the corporation may raise. I am not quite sure why the word “may” is used instead of “shall”; perhaps “shall” would be a better word to have used in that case, so that the Minister of Finance can keep an eye on the loan-raising activities of the SABC.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the question of a revolving credit arrangement abroad. I take it that that is the correct translation of “wentelkredietooreenkoms”. I think this is an excellent idea. Without wishing in any way to do anything that may harm the negotiations, I would like to know to what extent the Minister can at least inform us, and whether he would do so, as to with which country this revolving credit arrangement is being made. If he could go further, he could perhaps tell us at which institution in that particular country it would be made. I think the country and the public would be interested to know. It is a good thing that SABC loans can be guaranteed in future. To a certain extent I suppose they must have been guaranteed in the past, because they were actually semi-Government loans as they were concluded through the Treasury itself.

Mr. Speaker, in saying that we approve of this Bill and that we approve of these particular financial arrangements, it does not mean that we in the United Party are in any way altering our attitude with these new financial arrangements in regard to loans, which is that we feel that control by Parliament should be greater than it is at present and that control by Parliament, through the Auditor-General, as we have so often stated in the past, should also be exercised in connection with these additional loans which will be raised and the additional revolving credit. Nor does it in any way alter our attitude regarding the watchful eye that we are going to keep over all additional expenditure that is going to be incurred under this particular Bill. We believe that the SABC has been extravagant in the past. The danger of extravagance still exists, particularly with television coming, and where in the past we have criticized unnecessary extravagances we shall continue to do so. The SABC has already had R36 million in loans, and as the hon. the Minister indicated this afternoon …

Order! I must ask the hon. member to come back to the Bill itself.

That is what I am doing, Sir. The hon. the Minister says that this loan is for television, and I am indicating that it will require an additional R50 million for television purposes according to the Television Commission appointed by the hon. the Minister.

Order! This Bill does not cover the administration of the SABC at all; that is a different matter altogether.

That is why I am dealing with the question of the additional amount that has to be raised and the reason given by the hon. the Minister, namely that it is for expansion in regard to television. I am adding to that that the amount, which the hon. the Minister should have indicated, is R50 million, as indicated by the Television Commission appointed by the Minister himself. Sir, these are new amounts and I trust that the Minister will keep a very close eye on how this money is expended. Subject to these provisos, we on this side will not oppose this Bill but give it our qualified blessing.

Sir, since we are so unanimous at this late hour of the day, it is not necessary for me to reply at length to what the hon. member for Orange Grove has just said. I am grateful that the Opposition has seen its way clear to supporting this matter, which concerns the creation and extension of services which all of us regard as essential and important, and I am pleased that we may follow this course together and in a spirit of unity.

The hon. member raised two matters to which I want to reply briefly. Firstly, he asked whether the word “may” was correct, and whether it should not rather be “shall”. In this respect I must allow myself to be guided by the legal draftsmen. I presume that this wording is probably connected with the discretion to be exercized by the Minister of Finance. If he is of the opinion that he can and should give that guarantee, he will do so, but I think the fact that the word “may” is used here, enables him to exercize his discretion as well. I think it is the customary term in cases of this nature.

In regard to the second matter raised by the hon. member I want to assure him that I always bear this in mind, and will do so particularly in the case of the planning of television, and this is one of the reasons I do not want to proceed helter-skelter with this television project as the hon. member apparently wanted us to do.

Just a little bit faster.

I shall therefore keep a watchful eye over this, as he desires I should, and ensure that the means are not used too extravagantly. I give the hon. member this assurance and I thank the Opposition for its support.

You have not yet replied to my question about where that credit will be obtained.

Yes, unfortunately I have overlooked that. I apologize. As I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, the SABC held tentative discussions abroad to ascertain the climate in regard to such possible loans. There are possibilities in various countries, but because no definite arrangement has been made up to now, I do not want to mention any names at the moment. It will have to stand over until finality has been reached, and then it will be possible to announce the names.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, we opposed this Bill at the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, and although the Minister made certain amendments in the Committee Stage the Bill is still not acceptable to us and we will oppose it.

Sir, what will the effect of this Bill be? It will mean a sectional tax on the employers of Bantu labour, a sectional tax which will become a permanent feature of our taxation machine. The Bill purports to be a consolidating measure—the Minister said it was—and we are told that three levies or taxes will be combined into one, which will make it so much easier for the employer, who is in any event bound down by forms and red tape whenever he employs Bantu labour. Instead of paying the initial registration fee of 25 cents and a monthly registration fee of 20 cents, and a weekly services levy of 20 cents, making a total of approximately R1,05 a week, he will now pay some amount determined by the Minister but not exceeding R2,50. If this is truly a consolidating measure to make it easier for the employer, I would ask the Minister why he did not wait a while and then combine the transport levy, for which provision was made in the Bill which this House passed recently, and also the licensing fee of 50 cents for each Bantu over a certain number employed in the urban areas.

Did you say that the employer has to pay R1,05 per week?

Yes, R1,05 per week. I worked it out.

I just want to know what you said.

I am sorry, it is R1,05 per month.

You said per week.

I said that there was a weekly services levy of 20 cents.

You said “R1,05 per week”.

I am sorry; I meant R1,05 per month.

This only goes to show how the United Party is slipping.

Sir, the only consolation that the Nationalists can find is when we make an obvious slip in dealing with figures. I do not begrudge them this little pleasure. This is the first smile they have had for two days.

We will have many more in future.

Sir, our first objection to this measure is that Parliament does not know how much the taxpayer will have to pay because the Minister is the person who will decide from time to time what he is going to levy on the taxpayer. Secondly, we do not know to whom this will apply. It can apply to every employer of Bantu labour, but the Minister can differentiate and discriminate, without a word to Parliament, without our being able to intervene. For instance, he can differentiate by providing that housewives need only pay 20 cents a month after a registration fee of 25 cents, but that the makers of garments can pay R2,50 a month. That means that not only can he differentiate, but he can also discriminate against the garment makers. He says he will not severely tax the housewives, that they will in fact receive preference, that he will discriminate in their favour, and he has indicated that he will not make them pay an additional tax but will allow them to pay only the 20 cents which they pay at present. But what was his reaction when the hon. member for Durban Point moved an amendment to put this promise in the Bill and to fix the amount that the housewife will pay? His reply was this—

That was before Brakpan, Sir, and before the municipal elections—

Well, the women of Brakpan apparently thought it was cheap. Why could he not legislate for what he promised to do? Why could he not in fact put in writing in the Bill what he promised, so that Parliament could know and the housewives would know what the position would be? What did he say? It was not even specious reasoning; it was just arrant nonsense. This is what he said—

I do not know who is wandering about loose, I know who is lost—

So apparently it is fair to promise but it is not fair to put it in writing. Sir, the first question a lawyer asks his client who is having trouble with a lady friend, is whether he put it in writing. This Minister is apparently so discreet that he gives verbal assurances, but he will not put them in writing. I would be glad if he would tell us why he thinks it is fair to give these beautiful women, as he calls them, a verbal assurance, but is not prepared to put it in writing. The hon. the Deputy Minister went on, and took great trouble, to explain that in the Bill he does not discriminate; he says he differentiates, but I have just read where he says he will discriminate, he intends discriminating but he is not going to put it in writing in the Bill.

Tell us what you mean by discrimination and what you mean by differentiation?

As far as I can see, discrimination and differentiation mean the same thing because you can discriminate in favour and you can discriminate against, and any differentiation in this Bill will act as discrimination against some other group. And I do not see how that can be done. The Minister says he does not discriminate, but I have just read from his own Hansard where he said he would not put the discrimination in writing. This is what he said—

He says he is going to discriminate, but he cannot put it in the legislation. This Bill abounds with discriminations. The Minister can discriminate between areas and he can discriminate between classes of employers or between categories of employees. He can by taxation adversely affect one area in favour of another. He can, for example, exempt or put a minimum levy on employers in Pretoria and put a maximum tax of R2,50 a month on the employers of Johannesburg.

Then, to get back to his remark that combines the three levies. It certainly does that, as the Minister has said, but the services levy. There was also another type of paid by a limited number of employers, while the new tax can be paid by all employers including housewives and farmers who were expressly excluded from the services levy. There was also another type of employer excluded from the services levy, namely the employer who supplies housing for his employees. They will get no protection of this nature any more. In terms of this Bill the Minister can apply it to them. Therefore I say it is not a consolidating measure as far as that is concerned. The employers were given the assurance by Dr. Verwoerd that once the objects of the levy had been met it would be abolished. We know from the Minister’s own mouth that the levy has accumulated to over R30 million because by law, imposed by Dr. Verwoerd, he was restricted in the use to which he could put these funds. We know too that if Dr. Verwoerd had lived he would have carried out his promise and abolished the levy. We know too that although the levy as a service levy will be abolished, once this new tax is introduced, it will only be a continuance of the old levy and it will be permanent. So I say it cannot be said to be merely a consolidating measure. We know that the first two of the three levies referred to by the hon. Minister were fixed whereas he now takes the power to raise these levies or taxes without coming to Parliament. Although the services levy discriminated in that it could be levied in one area and not in another, where it was levied it did not differentiate in the amount that was to be paid by each employer. The hon. Minister has made amendments in the Committee Stage, but instead of being magnanimous and paying a tribute to our contribution to the debate, he pretended that it was only because of the intervention of the Chambers of Industries and Commerce that he introduced those amendments. The fact is that the Chambers of Commerce and Industries were taking the same line as we were. When the Minister realized that we had a valid point he …

They did not copy you, but you copied them.

The point is that the Minister told us in this House in his reply to the Second Reading and after we had made our point, that he had seen the members of the Chamber of commerce the day before and that he had agreed to make an amendment on the very point that we were fighting for. How can he say that we copied them? He gave credit …

You copied them like you copy the newspapers.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister who asked for the amendment that was passed in the Report Stage? From whom does that amendment come? Does it come from the Chambers of Commerce?

The newspapers?

Or the newspapers?

To which amendment are you referring now?

The amendment which makes provision for the tax to be paid for each day worked, i.e. 1/30th for each day of the month.

The original thought about that came from them.

I do not know what they originally thought, but I am talking about the amendment which we drafted in this House while the debate was going on. Why did the hon. Minister himself not put it in the original Bill during the Committee Stage if the Chambers of Industries had given him the idea as he has suggested? Why must he wait for us to move it before he agrees to accept it? The Minister must not come with this nonsense. He is not in a Sunday school.

Don’t I know that.

The fact is that the Chambers of Industries—I do not know about the Chambers of Commerce—were taking the same line as we were. The hon. Deputy Minister completely ignored us in giving credit for these amendments. He dealt with the matter and with the amendments as if they were something new that had been raised by the Chambers. In regard to clause 4 (2) he admitted that he had been compelled to amend it because— and hon. members should listen to this— of the machinations of this side of the House and as a result of the circumstances which arose out of that, the politicking which arose out of that. It is a pity that the Minister regards our honest and successful endeavours on behalf of the public as machinations and politicking. In other words, he says that, because of our scheming and intriguing, he was compelled to alter his Bill. The alteration or amendment must have been an improvement or he would not have accepted it. Why did we have to “scheme” and “intrigue” in order to get him to do something to the benefit of the public? It is because of this attitude that the Nationalist Party is slipping; they do not know what is for the good of the public. In spite of our amendment, which he agrees to accept, and the further amendment which he will accept in the Other Place, I want to say that we are still opposing this Bill. We would have no objection to a truly consolidating measure which would reduce the number of taxes payable, and which will ease the administration, the work to be done by the employer and the officials. We would have no objection to money being used for the better administration and for providing the Bantu with better amenities, but we object to giving the hon. the Minister the power to tax almost without let or hindrance. Parliament must do the taxing. Taxation should be clear and ascertainable. An employer should not be in a position of uncertainty as to what tax will be applied to him and where and when the axe might fall. We are not prepared to delegate the authority of this Parliament to a Minister and we will oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Transkei did not really come along with any new arguments in respect of their opposition to this specific Bill. Hon. members came along with the same arguments they furnished in the Second Reading debate. I think there is one matter we must get very clear, i.e. that if any body, a Parliament included, passes any law in which there is a clause determining a maximum levy, there is a definable figure. In the first place the principle is accepted that a levy can be imposed. In the second place it is determined that there will be a maximum in respect of that principle. If the principle is accepted, the qeustion of a maximum becomes merely an administrative matter. Because we do not see it as a tax, but as a levy, seen in terms of the principle that a levy may be imposed, it is an administrative measure to give the Minister an opportunity to differentiate up to a certain amount according to the circumstances. The standpoint that when the principle is accepted there can be a maximum is, in my opinion, a very logical and practical standpoint. One of the hon. members of the Opposition—I do not know whether it was the hon. member for Pinelands— moved an amendment stipulating R1,05. I want to tell the hon. member for Transkei that with respect to this specific legislation we cannot come along with a figure that is already almost exceeded by the levies now being imposed. What about the future? What about planning within that same framework? It is very clear to me. Let me tell the hon. member for Pinelands that if he sees the amount being fixed at R1,05 in terms of his amendment as an interim figure, I can understand exactly how the hon. Opposition thinks.

The basic services are there already.

The hon. member does not understand what I mean. Hon. members opposite are constantly dealing with interim measures and interim policy statements. With respect to this specific legislation, the hon. member for Pinelands also wants to come along with an interim determination of the amount. I just want to tell the hon. member for Transkei, who referred to Brakpan and so on, quietly muttering with heartfelt enjoyment, that with respect to the Bill we are dealing with, he himself must read what was written in the Rand Daily Mail the day before the municipal elections. It asked what the hon. Opposition’s duty is with respect to the municipal elections. It is clear to me that they were again guided there in the sense that they were told: “Look, you are just an interim party until such time as it happens.” We cannot deal with any legislation here on the lines of this interim standpoint of the Opposition. I want to state this conclusively. We accepted the principle that a levy may be imposed. Within the framework of that principle we place a maximum which the hon. the Minister may impose as discretion, interests and necessity dictate. If that is not vision and proper planning according to which one can deal with a department, hon. members must say what more they can do. Their alternative is not acceptable to us because it is an interim alternative.

I want to state categorically that when I use the word “tax” in this debate, I do not recognize the hon. Opposition’s standpoint that the levy that will be imposed in terms of the Bill is a tax. The hon. member for Transkei says that the public at large, the employers and all the others, want to know exactly what the amount is. At this moment every employer and employee knows what the levy is at this stage, even if the three levies are being consolidated. The hon. member now wants to imply that the employers and employees will never know exactly what the hon. the Minister’s idea with this levy is. I now reiterate that it is logical that everyone affected by this legislation knows at this present moment exactly what their obligations are in terms of the legislation. The hon. the Minister intimated that sufficient time would be given so that if increases become necessary the matter can be discussed and consultation take place about it. I now want to ask hon. members: “What better assurance can the hon. Opposition give the employer and employee than that they know at this stage what they must pay, that a maximum has been determined, that within the framework of this legislation notice will be given of any increase and that within the framework of this legislation the necessary machinery for consultation is being established.” What more can the hon. Opposition offer employers or employees than specifically this, except an interim levy of R1,05 which is very impractical in any case.

The hon. member for Transkei said that any lawyer would immediately ask his client whether this was in writing. Any lawyer dealing with a situation such as that to which the hon. member referred, would definitely not like to see that his client had committed everything to writing if he wants to defend his client. He would like to see that certain things be transacted verbally. Because that is so, we should not very much like to see everything committed to writing at this stage either, for the sake of administration and the optimum furtherance of the interests of interest groups. The hon. member, as a legal man, will have to concede that if he has to appear and has an opportunity …

You now want to cheat the women.

I want to ask the hon. member for Transkei a question: Did the hon. member for Transkei say we want to cheat the housewives?

Yes.

If the hon. member for Transkei is now saying we want to cheat the housewives, I want to ask him whether, if an assurance is given to housewives and farmers in this House by the Minister, and therefore also in public by this Parliament—because if this legislation is passed it is not only a National Party Act, but also a national one—he wants to tell me that we are deliberately going to cheat the housewives and the farmers, as he put it? During the Second Reading debate I told the hon. member for Kensington how matters in agriculture functioned. This case was stated in our agricultural constituencies and not one of those people there made any objections. Those people accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s word that at this stage it is not applicable to them, possibly not in the future either. The hon. member now wants to say that because mention is made in the Bill of the term employer, we are now allegedly misleading the housewives and the farmers and are going to cheat them in the future. This legislation, which is a consolidating measure, whether the Opposition wants to recognize this or not, contains basic measures that appear in those Acts that are now being consolidated here. There the housewife and the farmer are excluded, and the hon. the Deputy Minister has given his assurance, Hon. members made a terrible fuss here about the question of the housewives. We know this was prior to the Brakpan issue, and as hon. members opposite tried to incite the housewives about this matter, we gave them certain assurances. The hon. member for Transkei and other hon. members on that side could not even incite the Housewives League to the point where they put any standpoint to the hon. the Deputy Minister with respect to this matter. If there is any organization that would definitely have acted, if it felt itself to be affected by this legislation, it would have been the Housewives League. There is no group of people so thin-skinned as far as their interests are concerned than this very Housewives League. I have no objection if the hon. Opposition wants to fill the role of the Housewives League, but then they must just not try to do so in this House, because then we are going to have very big problems.

I want to state one matter very clearly. The hon. member for Transkei accuses the hon. the Deputy Minister of the fact that in this Bill there is a discriminatory provision, and he also acknowledges that there is a differentiating provision. The hon. member now merely proceeds from the standpoint that certain groups of people are going to be discriminated against. The context and the spirit of this measure does not place the emphasis on any discriminatory provisions, it places the emphasis on the differentiating provisions.

What is the difference?

There is a very great difference. The hon. member, who is a legal man, ought to know that when one speaks of discrimination there must be mala fides. The hon. member ought to know this and must not try telling me that he does not know that when one speaks of discrimination there is mala fides on the part of the body practicing this so-called discrimination. He must ask the hon. member for Pinelands who is perhaps more scholarly than he is. He will be able to tell the hon. member. However, there is no mala fides in this legislation. There can only be a possibility of mala fides if a ceiling were not placed on the amount that may be collected. However, that ceiling has been introduced. Differentiation does not mean that there needs to be mala fides. When one differentiates this simply means that there are certain interests that are not always comparable and that those specific interests must each be handled on its own merits. And now, Sir, I want to ask the hon. member for Transkei whether he would agree that the interests of interest groups in South Africa are not all the same. Let me rather put it this way: Is the hon. member prepared to acknowledge that the employer interest groups in South Africa do not necessarily share the same basis?

Yes.

Thank you very much. The hon. member acknowledges that there are interest groups that do not all share the same basis. The moment the hon. member acknowledges that, he must also acknowledge, because it is basically so, that there ought to be differentiation to serve each interest group in its best interests.

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir, the hon. member acknowledged that there can be a difference in the basis on which interest groups function. If this is so, the hon. member acknowledges in the same breath—that is only logical—that differentiation can take place. This is precisely what this legislation envisages. Because there are interest groups that are basically dissimilar, there must be the possibility of differentiation. Why?

Like the housewives.

No, the hon. member has housewives on the brain. I do not know why the hon. member is specifically concerned about housewives at this time of the evening. Because the hon. member acknowledges that there can be differentiation, our argument is simply that that basic concept was accepted and that we are looking after the interest groups that are being affected by this relevant Bill. We say that the interests of those people can best be served if there is differentiation. To be even more practical, it is not possible, when one accepts the principle of differentiation, to simply inscribe it in all its detail in a Bill; because the basis underlying interest groups can differ from time to time. Because this is so, it is essential that certain powers be given to the Minister so that adaptability can be maintained and adjustments made as the circumstances require. If we have accepted that point, the hon. Opposition’s argument that we are discriminating falls away. If the argument falls away, the hon. Opposition must state what more they have against this legislation, apart from the fact that they see the levy being imposed here as a tax.

I now just want to come back to the very first matter the hon. member for Transkei mentioned. He asked why the hon. the Deputy Minister did not keep this Bill back so that the legislation which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport is handling, with respect to the transport services for Bantu, Coloureds and Indians, could also be included. But the hon. member ought surely to know that while the levy being discussed here is a consolidation of existing levies, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport is handling new aspects. These are not matters that can simply be embodied in a consolidating measure such as this. This would, as far as I am concerned, result in poor legislation. The hon. member for Transkei surely knows that that group of people—employers and so on—to whom the Bill will apply, will not necessarily be the same group of people to whom the other legislation applies.

Originally the Act was introduced by Dr. Verwoerd.

Whether Dr. Verwoerd originally introduced the Act or not, is not relevant now. What is relevant is this consolidating measure, which has nothing to do with that other legislation which has already been discussed in this House earlier this week.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.