Mr. Speaker, I move—

In my speech which I made when we dealt with the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill a few weeks ago, I gave hon. members the assurance that, as far as the present financial year was concerned, any supplementation of the amounts voted for the Votes would be requested only in urgent and essential cases. In the Additional Appropriation Bill which is now before this House, Parliament is being requested to make a total additional amount of R246,5 million available to departments for the 1975-’76 financial year. I want to add at once that this does not mean that State spending in terms of the Main Budget for 1975-’76 will increase by this amount. To this extent there is in fact greater parliamentary authorization to spend, but as against the additional amount we definitely expect departments to refund approximately R100 million in all. Under the provisions of the Appropriation Act I am of course not empowered to transfer savings under one Vote to another Vote. The total actual spending for 1975-’76, as estimated in the Main Budget, should not exceed more than a net amount of R150 million.

Mr. Speaker, I think that, having regard to the general rise in costs since the original estimates for 1975-’76 were finalized approximately 15 to 18 months ago, as well as to circumstances which have arisen since then and which could not have been foreseen at the time, the amount which is being requested is not an unreasonable one. In fact, we have reason to be grateful that, with the cooperation of my colleagues and their senior officials, it was possible to keep the additional demand within limits in this way.

I can give hon. members the assurance that this was not easily accomplished. There are few, if any, commentators who a few months ago had much hope that we would be able to succeed in curtailing State spending to this extent and keep in such measure to the undertakings given by the Government in the anti-inflation manifesto. The total or gross additional demand represents an increase of approximately 3,5% on the Main Budget. The net additional State expenditure, however, is expected to be only 2,1% greater than the initial estimate. This figure testifies to a financial discipline of which we may be proud, particularly at the present juncture.

†Mr. Speaker, the specific increases under the various Votes will, as is usual, be motivated and explained by the hon. Ministers concerned. The main increases are as follows: Defence requires an additional R31,5 million on the Revenue Vote and R1,5 million on the Loan Vote. I doubt whether hon. members will begrudge them this in the circumstances prevailing. Loan Vote N, Bantu Administration and Development, shows an increased grant-in-aid of R30,4 million to the Bantu Trust Fund in respect of the purchase of land for the consolidation of the Bantu Homelands. A further amount of R5,5 million is requested on the department’s Revenue Vote to finance preparations for the independence of the Transkei. An amount of R18,3 million is requested on Revenue Vote 22, Mines, as follows: R13,7 million to assist needy gold mines in terms of the Gold Mines Assistance Act, 1968, and R4,5 million to finance the oil exploration activities of the Southern Oil Exploration Corporation (Soekor). Provision is made for additional subsidies, amounting to R16,6 million, to the provincial administrations. I may mention that, as part of their contribution to curtain Government spending, the Administrators agreed to accept substantially lesser amounts than would normally have been due to them in terms of the subsidy formula.

The Department of Transport requires an additional R16,8 million on Revenue Vote. This amount includes R9 million in respect of the subsidization of non-White bus and train services and R3,7 million in respect of the construction of national roads in and around the Transkei. On Loan Vote a further amount of R5 million has been provided to finance urgently required extensions to the Upington airport. An additional R13 million is required under the Agricultural Economics and Marketing Vote in respect of subsidies on maize (R8,4 million) and grain sorghum (R0,5 million) as well as to the fresh fruit industry (R2 million) and the wool industry (R2 million). The Government’s commitments in respect of contributions to pension and provident funds are now estimated to exceed the existing provision by approximately R12,8 million and this additional amount has been included on the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote. Increases have also been included on the following Revenue Votes: Interior, in respect of the repatriation of Portuguese refugees (R3,2 million); Public Works (R7 million); Community Development (R8,5 million); Health (R6,5 million); Industries (R4,8 million); Police (R3,0 million) and Prisons R2,6 million). On Loan Account further additional amounts are also required in respect of the purchase of land by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure (R2,8 million); to finance water schemes (R6,3 million); to finance the Industrial Development Corporation’s activities in promoting the development of border areas (R7 million); for the erection of official quarters, mainly for the Department of Defence (R5,5 million); to supplement the share capital of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation (R5 million); and to complete the Richards Bay coal terminal installations timeously (R8 million).

The main increase on the South West Africa Account concerns an amount of R3,163 million in respect of Government water supply schemes.

Mr. Speaker, basically this Bill is debated in the Committee Stage and I shall therefore not take up the House’s time with further detailed explanations now.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will not oppose this measure. However, we have come to that decision with certain serious reservations and with certain misgivings. The first reason why we have decided to support the Bill is because it makes provision for an additional sum of R17 million in respect of salaries, etc., for the Defence Force. We had had enough trouble in recent weeks in regard to delays in payment to members of the Defence Force. [Interjections.] Only this past weekend I received complaints from wives in regard to delays in receiving their husbands’ pay. For that reason we on this side of the House are going to put no impediment in the way of providing the necessary funds so that members of the Defence Force can be paid timeously and in full.

The second reason why we are not opposing this Bill is because it provides for a sum of nearly R13 million for additional contributions to pension funds and provident funds which we have no doubt are necessary in the light of the present inflationary situation. Having said that, I would also like to remind the House that we on this side of the House have already made several speeches this session emphasizing the need for a curtailment in Government expenditure. There is not going to be a hope of fighting inflation successfully unless the Government makes real efforts to curtail its own expenditure.

I believe the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government generally realize that. At least they have given verbal utterances and public support to the collective programme to fight inflation, an important leg of which is the curtailment of Government expenditure. I would also like to remind the House that the collective programme to fight inflation was first announced in the first half of last year, nearly a year ago. The Pretoria Manifesto which put it into operation was signed as long ago as October 1975. I consider that there has been plenty of time in which to put the programme into effect and to show some results from it. It is, after all, only results in which we are interested.

In this Bill we have the first measure by which we can judge whether the Government is putting words into deeds, because this is the first occasion on which the Government has come to the House to approve expenditure in respect of the current financial year since the programme was announced. What do we find? We find that out of 45 Government departments, 36 departments, in other words, 80% of the Government departments, are spending more than they budgeted for on Revenue Account this year, so that where the hon. the Minister’s saving of R100 million is to come from, is a bit obscure. He referred to savings of R100 million. It will have to come either out of the remaining nine departments which are not spending more than their budgets, or out of Capital Account.

If we go back three years to see what the trend in additional expenditure over and above the original budget has been, we find that this is a rising trend, both in absolute amounts and relatively, as a percentage of the original budget. If we look at the Revenue Account two years ago, i.e. in 1973-’74, we find that additional expenditure amounted to R86 million. This represented 2,5% of the original budget. Last year it amounted to R90 million, which represented 2% of the original budget. This year, 1975-’76, the year of the great economy drive, the year in which the Government committed itself to effect economies, we find that additional estimates, as presented to us, represent in total on Revenue Account R162 million, which is 3,3% of the original budget, nearly double what they were last year. I do not think that we must be misled. There may be a general impression that this additional expenditure on Revenue Account is caused primarily by defence expenditure. It is not. The percentage increase over the original budget by departments other than Defence, is about the same as it is for Defence.

The same picture emerges also on Capital Account. If we go back two years to 1973-’74, the additional estimate was for R31 million, which represented 3,2% of the original budget. Last year it was R49 million, representing 4%, and this year it is R78 million, representing 4,9%, which is a rising trend all the time. If we look at the figures for the South West African budget, they represent a smaller, but even more acute rise. These additional estimates do not reflect to any great extent the additional cost to the country as a result of the devaluation of the rand. I have examined all the items in the additional expenditure on Revenue Account which total more than R1 million. These items total R145 million out of a total of R162 million in all. Of that R145 million I would say that R125 million is for items like additional pay for the Defence Force and additional contributions to pension funds, which are not directly affected by devaluation. I would like to point out also that in these additional estimates of expenditure no provision is made for the additional cost of servicing and of repaying foreign loans, which additional cost results from the devaluation of the rand. We know, from a reply to a question in this House, that the additional annual bill, as a result of devaluation, for servicing foreign loans, amounts to R48 million per annum. There is no provision at all for any part of that expense in these additional estimates. I find it rather surprising that it has been unnecessary to so provide in the light of the fact that by the end of the current financial year it will have been more than six months since the devaluation of the rand. I would like the hon. the Minister to comment on that in his reply to the Second Reading. Presumably, as there has been no provision, this is a substantial additional cost still in store for us.

Despite the savings which the hon. the Minister states he will make before the end of the current financial year, I do not get any impression from this Bill or the items contained in it that the Government really means business when it comes to playing its part in the collective programme to fight inflation. This Bill certainly does not add to my confidence in its ability to do so. As I have said, for the reasons I have given, we shall not oppose this Bill at Second Reading, but when it comes to the Committee Stage we will examine a number of items in detail.

Mr. Speaker, one must obviously, in a budget the size of the Republic’s present budget, anticipate that there must be additional expenditure which cannot be foreseen or that there must be increased expenditure in respect of items which one hoped would have cost a little less. There are, quite obviously in these particular estimates, clear examples of expenditure that could not have been anticipated. It is also fairly clear that the hon. the Minister certainly did not anticipate that he would have to devalue and have the consequences of that devaluation, because if he did anticipate that, we would have even more serious complaints to lay at his door. Similarly, one could of course not anticipate that we would have to incur the defence expenditure which was incurred as a result of the events concerning Angola. There are therefore many items in these additional estimates about which there can be no criticism and should be no complaint.

The important factor that we need to look at in regard to these estimates is that the Government has now for some considerable period of time appealed to people to make sacrifices in respect of the fight against inflation. What is important is that the people of South Africa expect the Government to do the same. It is not enough if the Government merely appeals to other people to make sacrifices; the Government too must show the way in regard to this matter. The matter on which the hon. the Minister has so far not convinced me in respect of many of the items is that there is not enough of an indication to the public that this is a joint effort and that there is in fact as much sacrifice on the part of the Government as there is on the part of the ordinary individual, the working man in South Africa. That is something which is important for the hon. the Minister to do if he is going to show that this is a fight in which everyone is involved.

There is another matter which I think is important, and I think it is important that it is raised at this stage. That is that the most important factor in so far as the economy of South Africa is concerned at the moment, is the need to ensure that there is confidence in the future of South Africa, the need to ensure that confidence on the part of the people in South Africa and on the part of the people outside South Africa who are expected to invest here and are expected to lend money to South Africa. This to me is the most important factor, and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister today to go out of his way to bring about this state of affairs, not by means of shallow statements which any businessman can see through, but by means of conveying to the public in real terms what the problem is, that the problem can be overcome as far as our economy is concerned, and that there is no need for anyone to lack confidence in the economic future of this country. That to me is the most urgent thing of all that is required. When we look to the fact that we have to finance our expenditure, when we look to the fact that we need foreign loans, when we look to our balance of payments, it is clear that confidence is the most important factor of all. If the hon. the Minister does not do everything in his power to ensure that there is this feeling of confidence in the future of South Africa, then he is not doing his job. That to me is the most important factor in regard to these particular estimates. I can ask specifically of the hon. the Minister, because he has not said so, how he proposes to finance this increased expenditure. One of the matters that is important is that we need to know that the expenditure which is necessary is also being financed in the least inflationary manner possible. We have heard nothing in regard to this matter and we have heard nothing, for example, about the extra R150 million which is going to be required on balance, as he has indicated, and how this is going to be financed.

I would also like to know from the hon. the Minister whether in fact any portion of this is going to be financed by means of loans to be raised overseas. If any portion of it is to be financed in this manner, are we still in the short-term league, or are we able to get longer term money? Sir, I believe this is something we also need to know.

I would like to draw attention to what, I believe, are three characteristics of these additional estimates which should be a warning to South Africa. In the first place there is the obvious increase in defence expenditure, and I believe it is clear that there is no opposition from these benches in respect of that expenditure. What is important, is that we have to bear in mind that we are going to have to spend more and more money on defence in the future. We are entering a different situation in Southern Africa, in which we shall have to reconcile ourselves with this kind of situation. I believe this is a lesson which we in South Africa cannot afford to ignore. There is one other factor to which I would specifically like to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention. That is that it seems as if we may be entering a different type of war situation in southern Africa, and there are many South Africans—not only the young people in our forces, but also perhaps their parents and others—who know that a different type of war has come about and they want an assurance that we shall be adequately equipped to deal with this type of war that is lying ahead of us.

I do not ever want to hear, in the years that lie ahead, that the hon. the Minister of Defence gets up in this House—at an ay stage in the future—and says that our soldiers are not adequately equipped to deal with a new type of war that may be upon us.

The second point to which I want to draw attention, is in connection with the increased subsidies which the hon. the Minister has dealt with, subsidies that are necessary for non-White bus services by reason of changed circumstances. This is perhaps the most sensitive area and we must realize that, in a time where there are these inflationary pressures, in so far as our economy is concerned inflation is a political issue, a race relation issue, with which we have to deal in order to ensure that there is racial harmony in South Africa. I particularly want to refer to non-White bus services, because we have again in recent time learnt about at least one bus company on the Witwatersrand which proposes to increase its fares. I want to say here and now that we very often find that a slight spark can set off something which can have far more serious consequences and I do not believe that we can afford that spark being set off by reason of a subsidy in respect of bus services that is perhaps not given, or perhaps by a desire to make profits which, at this stage, may not be warranted. We have to realize that in this age in which we live, we cannot afford to take chances, and that economic circumstances can set off situations in South Africa which may well have consequences far beyond the immediate problem that may exist.

Sir, the third point that arises from these additional estimates, is that we have to vote more money for the agricultural Vote, and here we have attention drawn to the fact that food prices are perhaps the most important thing to keep an eye on. In our country we have to bear in mind that in the lower income groups we need either to see to it that living costs, and more particularly the prices of food, are kept down, or, alternatively, that wages in real terms keep pace with the necessities of the lower income groups.

It is for these reasons that I believe that there are very real warnings for South Africa contained in these additional estimates. They are lessons which we cannot afford to ignore, because I believe that South Africa is entering a different era where perhaps we will have to be very much more careful in respect of many things which on the face of it appear to be merely purely economic, but which may have far wider consequences for South Africa as a whole. Sir, we on these benches will not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill but as far as individual items are concerned, we will during the Committee Stage check that every item is being expended in the interest of the country and that is necessary in these times.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be as brief as I can, because the main debate on these estimates takes place in the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Constantia had a good deal to say about the portent of this budget in relation to coming expenditure. He seemed to criticize in advance that we were not economizing sufficiently on Government spending. I have said from the very start, and I have said it for many months, that it is a very difficult thing to cut down amounts which have been approved by Parliament many months ago. It is very difficult when there are considerable and substantial contractual obligations, such as any Government has, and which the various departments have to meet. Furthermore, you cannot simply reduce the salaries of the various Government departments’ personnel or retrench the personnel. I do not think the hon. member would like to see that either. Therefore I have said all along that it is a very difficult matter to come to Parliament at this stage and say that on existing budget we have been able to cut spending in various ways. What I said was that we would make every effort in the main budget—which is very soon to be presented to this House—to show what this Government is really doing in this respect. The hon. member’s reason for saying that his party will not oppose this measure, seems to me to be almost frivolous. If I understood him correctly, he said that the Government was now paying the salaries of our troops, our soldiers, and therefore this measure would not be opposed. Sir, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this additional budget. What sort of reasoning is that? However, another point is that the hon. member asked me whether provision had been made, and if so where, for the repayment of loans—which were negotiated abroad—after devaluation had caused a bigger amount to be owed. But, Sir, I think the hon. member will know that the repayment of loans is not a question to be voted on by Parliament.

The servicing of the loans.

In terms of the Loans Act, loans are repaid as statutory commitments. The hon. member referred to the increase in the capital amount of the loans. [Interjections.] It is no use saying he did not; of course he said so. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South must listen. He might then learn something about capital financing. The fact is that the bigger amount involved here relates to the actual capital extent of the loans. It is far bigger than the interest increase, and is not a matter for parliamentary approval at all. But as far as the increased interest commitments are concerned, of course that will be provided for as they fall due. The hon. member for Yeoville also said that there was not much indication of economy in Government spending. My reply to him is exactly the same as to the hon. member for Constantia. But I would like to say that hon. members opposite vie with each other to ask Ministers to say to the House in what ways they are economizing. If the hon. member for Yeoville would take the trouble to analyse the replies already given—and there have been many of them—he might find that quite an impressive picture emerges bearing on this question of economy in Government spending. Those facts are available.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked how I would finance this spending. That has been provided for. This money has already been obtained from essentially non-banking sources. We have, in fact, made provision for this in the least inflationary manner possible. We have done this by raising various loans in good time—not overseas loans. Those overseas loans that were budgeted for were raised earlier. What we have done more recently is that we have raised new loans domestically. So this amount has been provided for in an essentially non-inflationary manner. These are the main points I want to raise at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how he proposes to provide for the additional cost of servicing as a result of devaluation? I emphasize the word “servicing”, i.e. the additional cost of interest payments on foreign loans.

Mr. Speaker, in the accounts of the current year, which ends on 31 March, there is money available to pay for that. We have provided for that in our raising of revenue. For the ensuing years we shall do so in the budget wherever it is necessary to do so.

Then you have over-estimated.

No, we have not at all.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Schedules 1, 2 and 3:

Revenue Vote No. 3.—“Prime Minister”:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Prime Minister give us the reason for the increase in respect of printing, stationery, advertisements and publications, as reflected in subhead D? I see that the original estimate was R5 000. It went up to R12 500, i.e. an increase of R7 500, of which R3 500 was met from savings, leaving an additional amount of R4 000 to be voted.

Mr. Chairman, the increase was R7 500. This is the final instalment of the printing costs of the Schlebusch report.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 4 and Loan Vote 0.—“Defence”:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister, arising out of the reply given in advance by the hon. the Minister of Finance, whether he can give an assurance that the amount of R17 million to be voted under subhead A will be paid out to the forces or to the dependants of members of the forces immediately the money becomes due?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence whether he is prepared to furnish us with more details regarding subhead R. In the 1975-’76 budget provision was made for an additional R450 million and here we see that an additional amount of R5 300 000 is being asked for under the Special Defence Account in terms of Act 6 of 1974.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance, item A deals with the results of the Riekert report. The Riekert report followed upon the last adjustment made to the salaries of Public Servants. The Government appointed the Riekert Committee to investigate the conditions of service of the Services and the Riekert committee reported to the Cabinet that as far as the Services are concerned certain privation and service allowances should be paid under given circumstances. This would apply to the general service risks, potential and real privations due to service in the field, liability to immediate mobilizing and classified or other missions without prior warning. The service allowance concerned long and irregular hours of service and stand-by duty for regimental or security services. The Riekert committee recommended that certain privation and service allowances be paid to the Services, i.e. for the Army, the Police and the Prisons on the basis of certain principles. The amount paid out as privation allowances is R7,8 million and as service allowances, R2,7 million. This gives a total of R10,5 million for the 15 months from January 1975 to March 1976. In other words, these allowances were paid to members of the Permanent Force. This is an improvement in their conditions of service.

Then there is an extension of the establishment for which provision is also being made. A special effort was made to recruit personnel for the Permanent Force. We succeeded in filling a number of vacant posts. An amount of R6,5 million is required for this. This gives an additional amount of altogether R17 million as far as subhead A is concerned.

The hon. member for Rondebosch put a question concerning subhead R—Contribution to Special Defence Account. The net increase amounts to R5,3 million and is due to the fact that initially an additional amount of R80 947 000 was asked for in the second revised budget. However, owing to the present economic climate and the anti-inflation manifest, the department reconsidered the cash position and, although this is not a saving, estimated that only R5,3 million will be required to meet its commitments. This is the only explanation for it.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to give us an explanation of the two ex gratia payments listed under subhead E? Could he also give us the details in respect of subhead 2—Standard Stock Capital, under Loan Vote O? This is a new item for which an amount of R1,5 million is to be voted.

Mr. Chairman, let us start with subhead 2—Standard Stock Capital, under Loan Vote O; the increase of R 1,5 million is due to the recent devaluation of the rand which had an adverse effect on the cost structure of medicine and equipment. As hon. members will know, the Department of Defence controls the central medicine store for all Government departments. This falls under the Surgeon-General. The Department of Health asked that tuberculosis medicine be supplied to local authorities by this department, tuberculosis medicine which they previously purchased from the private sector. It is expected that more favourable prices at which the central medicine store can supply these medicines, should bring about a considerable saving for the local authorities. However, this will mean an increase of approximately 20% in the turnover of this department.

Why is this a new item? Why was the increase not included in existing items?

Because fresh provision had to be made in order to comply with this request of the Department of Health.

The hon. member asked for an explanation concerning the ex gratia payments under subhead E. I shall first deal with the payment to Barlows. On 2 June 1971 the State Procurement Board signed a contract with Specialized Electronic Systems for the supply to the South African Air Force of 30 altitude encoders—this has to do with the system of information concerning hostile and friendly aeroplanes—and supplementary equipment at a total cost of R184 359. No deliveries were made during the contract period and on 31 July the department agreed to an extension and a final delivery was to be made before the end of February 1973. However, delivery only took place on 6 August 1973. On 6 August the contractors submitted an application for the re-imbursement of a loss of R19 636, compiled as follows: Loss due to fluctuation in the exchange rate, R15 154; costs concerning freight and insurance for which, accidentally, no provision had been made, R3 767; loss due to a too low selling price quoted in the tender, R714,54. This amounts to altogether R19 636,36. The contractor reminded the foreign suppliers on several occasions to expedite delivery. It seems that, after the people concerned had finally reached a decision on the composition of the equipment, Messrs. Jagger had to make provision to comply with the requirements of all Mirage aircraft. The total claim of R19 636,36 includes no element of profit, but only represents the direct loss on the contract.

The other ex gratia payment was made to Criterion Equipment Company (Pty.) Ltd. On 24 September 1973 the Procurement Committee of the Armaments Board gave permission for certain contracts to be concluded with the firm I have mentioned. This was for the provision of seven diesel-driven forklift trucks with five metric tons capacity, at R9 995 each. The price-in-delivery period was 180 days. Contract E25 provided for the supply of nine diesel-driven forklift trucks with a two metric tons capacity at R5 395 each. The price-in-delivery period was also 180 days—this sounds familiar in this House. Due to problems of his overseas supplier, the contract could not fulfil his delivery promise and the department postponed the delivery date on condition that no price increases or further postponement would be considered. Delivery was completed between June and August 1974. The contractor informed the Armaments Board on 28 January 1975 that a loss of R7 839,63 had been incurred due to the increased prices at which items had to be imported owing to the fact that they were imported by the overseas suppliers at the prices which prevailed on shipment. Documentary evidence was submitted to support this. An application for an increase of 15% in the price in order to cover further costs, was submitted by the contractor, but the department recommended that the firm only be refunded for the real loss of R7 839,63.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 5.—“Foreign Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister would explain the increases under both sub-heads.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place the increase concerns salaries, wages and allowances because of the problem of inflation with which the whole world has to contend. This results in a continuous increase in salaries abroad. As is also generally known, we employ foreigners there. They are locally recruited staff, and in order to obtain their services, it is necessary for us to compete on the labour markets of those countries. So we must pay them more. In the second place the devaluation of the rand has also resulted in an increase in the salaries and wages of locally recruited staff. The amount required for this, is estimated to be R280 000; I must, in the last instance, mention the annual revision of our officials’ foreign service salaries. These salaries are revised annually in view of the rising cost of living abroad and other factors. It is impossible to conclude this revision every year in time for the main Budget, because the revision demands a considerable amount of research. Consequently it cannot be ready in time for the main Budget.

The additional R30 000 for special departmental services is required in connection with emergency relief in the form of medical supplies which the Government decided to give to Guatemala after a state of emergency had developed there as a result of the recent earthquake.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 7, Loan Vote N and S.W.A. Vote No. 5.—“Bantu Administration and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister please tell us about the additional R5,5 million which appears under subhead O—Payments to the Governments of the Bantu Areas?

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the same question.

Mr. Chairman, I shall give the information to the hon. member with pleasure. The hon. member for Griqualand East apparently wants the same particulars. It is money which the Transkei needs in its development so as to be able to enter independence. The money is required for the provision of certain facilities in the form of buildings.

†It is necessary for certain administrative buildings with a view to the Transkei becoming independent later this year and also to make provision for meeting the extra financial burden which the Transkei will have to carry during the year with a view to the inclusion of the Herschel and Glen Grey areas in the Transkei administration. Funds were not made available for including those two areas under the Transkei, but under the Ciskei. There are certain sums which may be deducted from the Ciskei’s allocation since the Ciskei is not going to use those funds. In total we have to vote an additional amount of R5 539 million under subhead O. This amount comprises three components, if I may call it that way. In the first instance there is the building aspect with which I have already dealt. The second component is the provision for health services, for which R432 000 is required in the two above-mentioned areas. The Transkei will be responsible for those areas during the last few months of the current financial year—in other words, from December until March. In the third place there are several other groups of services for which provision will also have to be made, since the Transkei has now taken over from the Ciskei responsibility for Herschel and Glen Grey. As I have already stated, R5 539 million is required under this subhead.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, there is still the following aspect: He said that there are three components, one of which was buildings in the Transkei. Is the building of an administration block in Owen Street, Umtata, included in the list of the hon. the Minister?

Yes, the amount is R6 million, but a certain amount has to be deducted since the Ciskei will no longer have to provide for Herschel and Glen Grey. We, therefore, take money which the Ciskei could have used and allocate it under the virement system to the Transkei.

In other words, the amount of R6 million is not the full amount to be voted at this stage?

Yes, that is correct, since we can use other funds towards financing the project.

Does the amount of R6 million represent the final cost?

No, I do not say that it represents the final cost.

You have not replied to the question raised in connection with subhead O.

The questions to which I replied were raised on sub-head O.

I refer to the Loan Vote where R30 450 000 is required.

What is the question in that regard?

I want to know for what purpose that amount is required.

The hon. member refers to Loan Vote N. The money required has to do with the land purchases. I shall give hon. members all the available information in this connection.

It is for Port St. Johns.

Yes, it has to do with Port St. Johns as well. However, the hon. member ought to know that Port. St. Johns received only a small part of that amount over the past year. As regards land purchases, the position is, as hon. members know, that provision was made in the main Budget for an amount of R25 million. However, the department had an understanding with the Treasury that over and above the sanctioned amount, we would be able to spend a further amount of R25 million, if necessary. The further amount of R25 million would then have to be voted by means of the Additional Appropriation. The process of land purchases continued in the course of the year—and we then established that we would require more than the additional amount of R25 million. Consequently we started both written and oral negotiations with the Treasury and the Minister of Finance as to how much more we could obtain. These negotiations naturally took some time. Several discussions were held, and it was finally decided on an amount of R30 million and not R25 million extra as the understanding originally was. R30 million extra is therefore being provided for land purchases. The amount of R450 000 mentioned under Loan Vote N, is an amount which is required for Vendaland. The money was originally available for Vendaland,

but under another subhead which could not be transferred by means of virement. This is intended for an industrial park, or industrial area, or industrial township. The money is required for the establishment of the township and for the provision of facilities there. The establishment of the Venda Corporation, the national corporation for the Venda, however, resulted in the decision being taken that the corporation and not the Vendaland department concerned should rather develop the park. The money could not be made available, by means of virement, however, because this is against the rules. Consequently it is not being paid out under the original appropriation, but is paid out additionally so that the Venda Corporation may obtain the money to establish the industrial park. This explains the total amount of R30 450 000.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister when it was realized that the additional amount of R30 million agreed to by the Treasury was not sufficient to meet the commitments of the Government.

Mr. Chairman, it is not R30 million, but R25 million. Perhaps the hon. member did not understand. In the beginning of the last financial year Parliament voted R25 million for land purchases. At that stage there was an understanding between us and the Treasury that, should it be necessary, another R25 million could be made available later. That time is now. However, during the course of last year we realized that the extra R25 million in terms of this understanding would not be sufficient. Therefore we started negotiations, in written form and verbally with the Treasury and the hon. the Minister, and at the end of the year—I think it was the beginning of December—we came to the final agreement that the additional amount would not be the R25 million we originally had in mind, but R30 million, plus the R450 000 I have mentioned for Vendaland.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a further question. When the Government withdrew certain offers it had made to farmers in the King William’s Town district in November, had it already used up the R30 million?

The amount was R25 million. The answer to this is “yes”. It was in the process of being spent.

Were the offers withdrawn because it was realized that the money would not be enough?

Let me put it this way: It was clear by that time that we could not expect the Treasury to make a large amount available in excess of R25 million in terms of the understanding. Therefore we had to cut down where we could and limit further purchases. We then withdrew offers which had not yet been accepted by the parties concerned, because they did not come to a final decision in the period allowed. This was towards the end of the year.

Was that in November?

Yes.

Was it before the hon. the Minister paid out Henning and Schoeman for their property at Port St. Johns?

The money paid out to Messrs. Schoeman and Henning was reserved, because we knew we had to pay it out. [Interjections.]

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 9, Loan Vote L and S.W.A. Vote No. 4.—“Transport”:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister of Transport to give us details of the amount of almost R5 million under item J—Contributions, Grants-in-Aid and Subsidies? Could the hon. the Minister also give us an explanation of the figure of R152 418 under the same heading—ex gratia payment: Border Passenger Transport Ltd.? Under the same heading an amount of R214 000 for research into the improvement of urban transport facilities is being asked for. The latter two items are new items. They raise a new principle. We want to debate this. However, before doing so, I would like to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity of giving us an explanation.

Under sub-head M—Construction and Maintenance of National Roads in and around the Transkei—and additional amount of R3 750 000 is being asked for. Could the hon. the Minister give us an explanation why, whereas less than R6 million was voted originally, this amount has now increased by more than 50%?

Finally, could the hon. the Minister give us details of the additional amount of R5 million being asked for under Loan Vote L for construction of airports?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked so many questions that I should like to answer him first. In the first place the hon. member asked a question in connection with subhead J—Grants-in-Aid and Subsidies—for which an additional amount of R4 956 582 is being requested. As the hon. member will know, the department has been subsidizing Bantu transport services in terms of the Transport Services Act for the past 18 years. Contributions are made by employers to a fund from which the subsidies are paid. In so far as the fund is unable to pay the subsidies, the balance is provided by the Treasury.

As a result of increased costs of transport, including petrol, tyres, vehicles, etc., several applications for the increase of fares have reached the road transportation board in recent times. When it was justified, the road transportation boards have approved the increased fares. The increased fares naturally brought about an increase in contributions by means of a subsidy. As a result of this, one now finds an increase of nearly R5 million for Bantu transport services.

The hon. member asked about the amount of R214 000 which is being requested in connection with research for the improvement of urban transport facilities. Last year a White Paper was tabled in consequence of the Driessen Report. Several of the recommendations of the Driessen Report were accepted by the Government in this White Paper. In order to commence the necessary administrative and preparatory work, the Treasury agreed that an amount of R750 000 be voted for the financial year ending at the end of this month. This was done so as to implement some of the recommendations as set out in the Driessen Report and as accepted in the White Paper. In consequence of this, it was necessary for the department to have certain research work done by the CSIR, the Provincial Administration and the local authorities of the five major cities in the country. It is in respect of that research that this amount of R214 000 is being provided.

The hon. member asked what the amount of R152 418, which is being provided as an ex gratia payment, involved. The hon. member will remember that there was a bus boycott in East London at the end of 1974. This led to this amount of R152 418 being paid to the Border Passenger Transport Ltd. The circumstances which gave rise to the granting of this ex gratia payment are the following—I do not want to go into the preceding history, because this will draw matters out. From 2 December the Bantu who used this bus service, refused to do so any longer because an increase in fares had been approved by the local road transportation board which was put into effect on 2 December 1974. Negotiations were then conducted from time to time between the various departments, in conjunction with the bus company, on possible ways and means of terminating this boycott. The result of this boycott was that as from 2 December 1974 to 12 January 1975 there was for all practical purposes not a single Bantu who made use of this bus service. The only people who made use of the bus service, were the odd few Coloureds. Throughout these negotiations the company said that for the purpose of saving—and this is self-evident—it wanted to terminate the service. With the termination of this service they wanted to dismiss the bus drivers. The various departments and I myself attended a meeting in the Verwoerd Building on 23 December 1974 at which this whole affair was discussed, and representations were then made to this company not to terminate this service and not to dismiss the drivers. Hon. members will realize that if this service had been terminated and the experienced drivers had been dismissed, it would have meant that there would be no continuity in the service should it have to be resumed. Naturally everyone felt that this bus service should continue. Negotiations were conducted with the Department of Bantu Administration, and in due course it was agreed that this transport organization would be taken over by the XDC and that affair was settled. However, seeing that the authorities had requested the company to continue with the costs and had also given it to understand, that on the successful settlement of the matter, it could lodge a claim with the National Transport Commission for the losses it had suffered, the company subsequently—please note only in July last year—lodged a claim for its losses. The original claim exceeded R500 000, which was reduced to R402 000 after auditing and correction. It was then agreed and the National Transport Commission recommended to me that under the circumstances an ex gratia payment be made to them, only for the wages and salaries for the period for which the company had continued to employ the people at the request of the authorities. The wages and salaries amounted to R152 418, the amount which appears in the Estimates. The final question which the hon. member asked, concerned the amount of R5 million under the Loan Vote …

And the Transkeian National Road?

Yes, I shall first deal with the question of the Transkeian National Road. The roads in the Transkei are not built by the Department of Transport but by the Provincial Administration. As in the case of so many other services and the financing of services—as also in the case of the bus service which I have just mentioned—payment for such services is channelled through the Department of Transport, because it is the most suitable department to effect such payments. This is indeed what is being done here. In other words, the Department of Transport is merely the channel through which the financing goes as far as payment for the roads built by the Provincial Administration is concerned. In this case I have been informed that the work which was done, had been expedited to a considerable extent and that costs had escalated considerably. Because of this, the work was not only more expensive, but more work was done than what had previously been foreseen. This increased amount is required as a result of this.

The final question which the hon. member asked, concerns the amount of R5 million which appears on the Loan Vote. This is for the construction of a landing strip at Upington airport. It is generally known that under present circumstances, especially political circumstances in Africa, it is felt that a more efficient airport should be constructed so as to enable our aircraft to fly from here to Europe with greater ease and with an increased economic cargo. They can in fact do this to a larger extent when they fly from Europe to South Africa, because the airports in Europe are very much closer to sea level. Our international airport in Johannesburg is 5 000 feet above sea level and in the end it was found that Upington would be the most suitable place for the construction of such an airport. It was then agreed that this landing strip would be constructed there, because Upington is approximately 3 000 feet nearer sea level than Johannesburg. The estimated cost of this airport, and indeed the tender we received, is in the region of R8,5 million. Hon. members will remember that we made provision for the building of the RSA 2, the research ship, in the estimates for this year. The building of this research ship has been delayed, however, because the design architects did not complete the work at an early enough date for us to call for tenders. Therefore we shall not have to incur that expenditure in this financial year. We came to an agreement with the Treasury that we would have a saving of R3,5 million on the RSA 2, and this R3,5 million plus the R5 million which is now being requested, will pay for the Upington landing strip.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to Vote No. 9, subhead J—Contributions, Grants-in-Aid and Subsidies—I should like to ask whether any amount is included in that for Putco operations on the Witwatersrand, specifically the Alexandra Township bus service. There is also one other question I want to ask. The other day, in the debate on the Railway additional estimates, we talked about the purchase of the new SP Boeings, and I understood the hon. the Minister to say that it would not be necessary for them to use Upington airport at all and that they could do the complete hop without coming down at sea level. Is this a belt and braces operation to make absolutely certain, or do we have to do both? It appears to me that there is a possibility of covering a problem that has arisen in two directions. Was it really necessary to spend this money?

Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely nothing included for Putco in this. As far as Upington airport and the new Boeing SPs are concerned, may I mention that we can fly from Jan Smuts Airport to Europe with the new SP, but then we must give up our cargo. We are in fact doing this at present every Monday night from London to Johannesburg. The Monday night flight from London to Johannesburg used to be an unpopular one because it does not suit one to fly from London to South Africa on a Monday night. The aircraft were fairly empty, and we made an arrangement to have a direct flight from London to Johannesburg on Monday nights, but we were aware of the fact that we would have to limit the number of passengers to 250 instead of 345, and since that decision was taken, that flight has been full every Monday night, because the people like an uninterrupted flight. We can in fact fly from Johannesburg to Europe in the same way, but because Johannesburg is so much higher above sea level, we will have to give up our cargo. In order to have a good economic load of cargo, we need another airport and Upington will make it possible for us to operate much more effectively.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to come back to the ex gratia payments to the Border Transport Company. I want to ask the Minister why it is that the Department of Transport asked the company to continue the service when they wanted to stop. The Department of Transport controls the National Transport Commission and they authorized an increase in fares. There was a boycott. Now, surely, the responsibility does not fall on the Department of Transport to deal with this matter, but on the people who wanted the passengers moved. Why should it be the responsibility of the Department of Transport while it was the Department of Bantu Administration who wanted the people moved? The hon. the Minister said he attended the meeting. Did he convene the meeting, or was he simply an observer at the meeting? I think we are entitled to know who exerted the pressure in asking for this service to continue. If it was his department, is this not a completely new departure? The Minister dealt with the question of the R4 956 582 for subsidies, contributions and grant-in-aid, but in addition there is also another R4 100 000 under subhead L for subsidizing the Railways for non-White passenger services from non-White townships. So we have altogether R9 million in respect of subsidizing transport from the townships. This is additional, unforeseen, uncalculated and unplanned. It seems strange that on a R13 million budget there should be a R5 million increase, unplanned, plus the R4 million. Now through Transport we are in addition subsidizing private companies. I think we are entitled to a further explanation in regard to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to this ex gratia payment, I may mention that there was of course great concern at that time over this bus boycott that was taking place in East London and the various departments concerned with transport, and more specifically in regard to the transport of Bantu at East London go together. Because of the department’s interest and responsibility for transport services, I, too, played a role in this. But in fact it was more specifically the Department of Bantu Administration that made this request. On 23 December I acted as chairman in the Verwoerd Building because of my seniority. We had discussions there, and on that occasion the company informed us that they were no longer able to continue; that they did not see their way clear to incurring these unnecessary costs. However, it was generally felt that this service should continue, and I do not think we can find fault with this.

But did Bantu Administration not purchase this service?

Not at that stage; and what is more, it was not Bantu Administration, but the Xhosa Development Corporation. The XDC eventually purchased the service, but that transaction was only finalized a good while later. He then asked them not to dismiss the people, because there had to be a service. Then, at the beginning of January 1975, Bantu Administration made a further request to them not to stop the service. They wanted to stop the service at the end of December, and they were then requested to continue until 9 January. On 9 January they were then asked to continue with the service and not to dismiss the people before the 12th. Later a request came for them not to do so before 17 January, but meanwhile a solution was arrived at, and from 12 January the services again continued as normal. What happened, was that they went back to the fares that had been applicable before the dispute arose, i.e. before the increase that was approved by the local road transportation board. They then started making use of the service as before. It was during this period—2 December to 12 January—that this company suffered these great losses in continuing the service without any passengers.

When did the XDC purchase?

On 13 January, therefore they started using the bus service again. On 7 February 1975, the service was purchased by the XDC. But by then the service was back to normal again. If this step had not been taken, the service would have been far from normal by the time the XDC took over.

The hon. member also asked me a question in regard to subhead L in respect of resettlement services rendered by the Railways. There is an agreement between the Railways and the Treasury that the Treasury will pay deficits on that service. As a result of rising costs lately, it was found that there will be a deficit of R4,1 million and provision has to be made for that. The hon. member is obviously concerned about the large amounts being paid to transport services by way of subsidies. I am not surprised by his attitude. The matter is indeed getting a bit out of hand and it deserves our attention in future.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions in regard to the Border Passenger Transport Company Ltd. He will recollect that the Border Passenger Transport Company Ltd. was purchased by the XDC for a total sum of R7,9 million. Last year the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration spelt out in detail just how that R7,9 million was made up. One of the items he mentioned was the goodwill. He said (Hansard, Vol. 55, col. 1705) that the goodwill was calculated at three times the adjusted profit of R673 000.

Now, if the purchase was made by the XDC on 7 February 1975, as the hon. the Minister has just said, that is subsequent to the company making the loss by conducting operations at a lower tariff, why was that fact not taken into account in the assessing of goodwill which was paid by the XDC? Why did it have to be done by the Department of Transport?

Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is relevant.

Oh yes!

The hon. member has now asked me a question in connection with something that was debated last year already. Last year the then Deputy Minister of Bantu Development replied to all the questions put in connection with the purchase of this service. Now the hon. member has come and asked me why the goodwill was not calculated in a different way, while I only have to explain this afternoon why we paid out the R152 000.

Order! The hon. Minister is correct. I thought the hon. member’s introduction was just a little long winded, and that is why I permitted him to put the question in that way.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can leave the matter at this …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: This is a new item. Surely hon. members are entitled to discuss it?

That is quite correct; it is a new item, but it only provides for the ex gratia payment, and that is the only responsibility of this Minister.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Minister has himself said that this amount, the ex gratia payment which we are now being asked to vote, is in compensation. The hon. member for East London City has just pointed out that they have already had payment from the XDC, and the question is therefore: Why is this hon. Minister and his department now concerned with compensation which should have been paid by the XDC? I believe that it is a perfectly valid question, to which the hon. the Minister should reply.

This hon. Minister can only reply as far as these matters concern him.

I think we have an incredible situation here. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration called a meeting in order to deal with the transport of Bantu workers by a bus service against which there was a strike and which bus service the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration wanted to buy, and which he subsequently bought. In order to make his purchase a good one and in order to keep the bus service operating, in order to maintain it as a “going concern” so that he can buy it, he comes to the hon. the Minister of Transport and requests him to subsidize the firm he is about to purchase so that when he purchases it, he will purchase it as a going concern. What sort of Minister is this, who allows himself to be used, who allows his department to be used, and who now asks Parliament to pay R152 000 as a free ex gratia gift, a bonsella to a company for doing something which he did not want but which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration wanted? The Department of Bantu Administration wanted to keep the service going. The hon. the Minister said that the request came from them. I asked him specifically, and he answered that this was the case.

The Department of Bantu Administration wanted to buy the business, which they subsequently did, at what we believe to be a highly inflated price. If there were any losses involved in making it an attractive buy, why should the Minister of Transport carry the losses? I have already pointed out the additional burden he is carrying in subsidizing transport and that this figure amounts to an additional R9 million. Why should he at the same time pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration?

They were not my chestnuts. [Interjections.]

But the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration asked him to do it so that he could buy the business later at an inflated price, a highly inflated price, for which he paid goodwill. If the service had not been operating, if they had sacked all the drivers, for which we are told this subsidy was required, then that business would have had no goodwill. If it is not operating and it has no drivers and it is not being used, what are you buying? You are buying the vehicles, that is all. You are not paying tens of thousands of rands for goodwill. What I want to get at is why this hon. Minister of Transport subsidized this. I want to know under what legal provision he is acting. What law authorizes him to ask Parliament for money to subsidize a private enterprise operation for which he was not responsible? He did not do anything which gave them a claim against Transport and against the Government. He had not done anything wrong and he had not caused a loss. He suddenly becomes Father Christmas. By what right is he asking Parliament, this Committee, to vote this money? He is asking Parliament to vote money for something for which he was not responsible. I do not see why we should approve this expenditure, because this is money for which the hon. the Minister of Transport should not be asking. If the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration had it on his budget, then we could say that the Government, through the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, asked them to sustain a loss and therefore the Department of Bantu Administration is responsible. In this case, however, I can think of no statutory provision which entitles the Minister to ask for this money. It is not a subsidy in terms of the levy which is paid by employers. It is not a subsidy in terms of the agreement with the Railways. It is not a subsidy which is being paid because of a responsibility of the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport has no responsibility in this matter, none whatsoever. On what grounds, therefore, does he ask Parliament for this money?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is wide of the mark, and I cannot blame him for not knowing what he is talking about.

That makes two of you.

No, I was involved in all these negotiations and I know what is going on. There is nothing to which people are so sensitive—and the hon. member for Yeoville has already said so this afternoon—as increased transport fares. Now don’t ask me why, but one can increase the price of bread and sugar and other articles and it is accepted as such, but if you touch bus fares, then people are extremely sensitive about it.

It is a hot potato.

Yes, it is a very hot potato. In this case—and there the hon. member made a big mistake—it was not the intention of the Department of Bantu Administration or the Xhosa Development Corporation to purchase the bus service at all.

Within a week they suddenly decided to do so.

The hon. member now wants to create the impression that the Department of Bantu Administration came a long way with the purpose of purchasing the bus service. If the problem did not arise, there would never have been any question of them now buying the bus service. The Local Road Transportation Board approved the increased fares, and I want to point out that these fares were approved on the basis of a request that came from the Chief Minister of the Ciskei. He requested that drivers be put on a higher salary scale, i.e. R36 per week instead of R22 per week. They knew about this increased expenditures that would result, and because of this they went to the Road Transportation Board to have the fares increased. At the Road Transportation Board nobody had any objections whatsoever to the increased fares. The increased fares were introduced.

Did the Bantu have objections?

No, not the Bantu either. No one made any objections, but when the increased fares were introduced, the fat was in the fire. Then they did not want to make use of the buses any more—in fact, not one Bantu boarded the buses. We had great problems. Do you know that they got onto the trains so that the train coaches buckled because of the loads they had to carry? On top of the roof and wherever there was space to climb, they climbed, but they did not want to travel in the buses. What was the solution we were looking for? That is where the hon. member is wide of the mark. The solution we were looking for, was to try and persuade these people to use the bus service again. If they would use the bus service and were willing to pay the increased tariffs, the problem would have been solved. Then this transport concern would still have been in the hands of Border Passenger Transport today. Then Bantu Administration would never have bought the concern, and that is why it was our first motive to persuade the Bantu who had previously made use of the bus service, to use the bus service again. Therefore we made a joint effort, with the Department of Bantu Administration and its officials, in consultation with the Treasury as far as the financial side was concerned, to keep this bus service going. We did not want to undertake negotiations on behalf of the Department of Bantu Administration to purchase the bus service, but wanted the bus service to continue. We did not succeed in this. We realized that they would under no circumstances do so. Week after week passed and they still did not want to use the buses. The only solution was negotiations through the Department of Bantu Administration with the XDC for the take-over of the bus service. The first step was to then revert to the original fares. After this had been done and the assurance had been given that the XDC would take over the bus service, they immediately began to use the bus service again.

The hon. member alleged that I have no responsibility. I am responsible for transport matters, for all transport matters. I cannot shut my eyes to any of them. The ex gratia payment that has been mentioned, was nothing but a subsidy. If the hon. member wants to object because the money is being channelized through my department, he should also object to bus service and railway subsidies being channelized through my department. I refer here to the subsidies payable under subheads J and L of Vote No. 9.

We came to the conclusion that in accordance with our undertaking to the company—this transaction has nothing to do with the purchase of the comapany—we were morally and legally obliged to give them assistance. Accordingly we arranged to offer them R152 000 by way of an ex gratia payment. This is a new item. If the hon. member wishes to vote against this, he is quite free to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that we now have to take this matter further, but the hon. the Minister raised a point which is of importance to me. As I see the position, the firm asked the Transport Commission for permission to increase their fares. The task of the Transport Commission was to say “yes” or “no”, of course after they had thoroughly investigated the matter. In the end, however, it was the bus company itself that was responsible for the increase.

But surely you have heard what the background was.

However, there is one thing that bothers me. If the Transport Commission were to react, for example, to an application from the bus company of Cape Town and increase fares …

As they have done.

We take it that 50 000 people are concerned. Should the Transport Commission therefore react positively to the application of the bus company and agree that fares may be increased, it may happen that the Coloureds say: “Now we are no longer going to travel by bus, but trample the train floors till they buckle.” How can we, therefore, now establish a principle according to which we can expect the Transport Commission to subsidize the bus company? Surely we cannot do this. I have every sympathy with the hon. the Minister. He acted in the best interests of transport, but the problem still remains that the R152 000 he paid was not his responsibility. It was the bus Company’s own responsibility. If someone had to pay for this, it was the XDC, not the Department of Transport.

And where does the XDC’s money come from?

From the same pocket. However, that is not what bothers me. What does bother me, is that the hon. the Minister by this payment accepts a principle that could cause enormous problems in future. How can the hon. the Minister—apart from the poor bookkeeping—accept the responsibility and subsidize a firm suffering losses as a result of the fact that it raised its fares?

Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that the hon. the Minister should reconsider this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to state quite unequivocally that we have no objection whatever to the action which the hon. the Minister has taken in this regard. In fact, Sir, we approve of it, we approve of it wholeheartedly. We agree 100% with the hon. the Minister when he says that it is absolutely essential that the transport charges as far as the carrying of passengers from the townships, the Coloured and the Black townships, to their places of work is concerned, should be kept to the very minimum.

We agree with the hon. the Minister that high transport costs are a dangerous flashpoint and that it must be avoided and prevented at all costs. I believe the hon. the Minister took intelligent preventive action in this regard. We have seen over and over again through the years—starting with the bus boycott in Alexandra township, in Johannesburg, in Newcastle, in Port Elizabeth and elsewhere—how these things can lead to real trouble. Therefore I believe the hon. the Minister took the right steps. I cannot understand why he should be surprised that the same annoyance and anger are not generated when the prices of foodstuffs go up as happens when the price of transport goes up. The answer is obvious: People cut down on the purchase of food. They have no option. They do not like it, but they have no choice. As far as transport is concerned, however, people cannot cut down on the costs. It is a fixed charge, and they have to get to work. That is why an enormous hostility is generated when the price of transport goes up. It was one of the major causes of the strikes in Durban in 1974.

So we want to make it quite clear from these benches that we thoroughly approve of the action by the hon. the Minister to subsidize transport, and this private company in this case. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will extend the same consideration to Putco, if it becomes necessary, in order to keep that company going in order to provide much needed transport.

Sir, I think it must have been as surprising to the hon. the Minister as it was to me, to discover that he had some new-found admirers. [Interjections.] Yet the hon. the Minister has not really satisfied us, or has given us a proper answer.

Well, vote against it!

I shall probably vote against it. The first point that I want to make clear, is that we agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Houghton. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the payment of this sum of R152 000. In point of fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the justification for the payment of this sum. I really think that the hon. the Minister is trying to pull the wool over our eyes in this respect. If the hon. the Minister had investigated fully the question as to why it was necessary to pay R152 000 as an ex gratia payment to the Border Passenger Transport Company, he would have realized that he should never consider making payment at all. He should never have made that payment. The point about it is this: If any amount should have been paid, it should have been paid to the XDC.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member allege that the hon. the Minister is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the House? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I think that hon. member there must rather stick to agriculture. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is this: When the negotiations for the payment of R152 000 started, the Border Passenger Transport Company has already been paid out for its business, it does not matter by whom. It had been paid out for its business at the time when it was purchased, which was after the obligation the hon. the Minister states he had entered into with this company, i.e. the obligation that he would ask them to continue to run the business. Subsequent to that event, the business was purchased, and incorporated in the purchase agreement in respect of the business, was an amount for goodwill. Goodwill is calculated on the profits made over the previous three years. These are facts. I believe that the hon. the Minister, being an ex-lawyer, will agree with me that that is so. Now, if that is so, how can he pay an amount to compensate a company for a loss that they had sustained previously, when they had already been paid out for the goodwill? If payment was due, that payment should have been made to the XDC, because they bought the company and paid for the goodwill. Now if that had happened the XDC gets something back which it should have obtained for itself, and not the Border Passenger Transport Company. I am firmly convinced that we simply cannot pass this payment.

Mr. Chairman, I notice that an amount of R3 750 000 is required in respect of roads in and around the Transkei. I take it that most of this money is being spent on the construction of the new road from Queenstown to Umtata and from Umtata down to Port St. Johns. Could the hon. the Minister please tell me if there is any timetable in this contract and when the work will be finished?

Mr. Chairman, firstly I should just like to tell the hon. member for East London City that I am not an ex-lawyer. I am still on the roll.

Now, I want to come to the hon. member for Maitland. The hon. member for Maitland looked for reasons for our paying this amount of R152 418. He then came to the conclusion that it has to be paid because the company increased its fares, and that because the company increased the fares and found itself in difficulties, it was the company’s responsibility and not ours. This was more or less the hon. member’s line of thought, was it not?

How could the hon. the Minister be responsible?

Yes, now how could I be responsible? I told the hon. member clearly why we were responsible. The company, quite justifiably, told us that they were not able to continue the bus service and employ people day after day and week after week and that they were going to discontinue the bus service. Because we did not want to face the chaotic conditions that would have resulted if these services had been discontinued, we asked the company not to discontinue the services. Therefore, because we asked the company not to dismiss its people and not to stop its services, we had certain obligations towards that company. We also made this clear to the company. They gave us an ultimatum that they were unable to continue because it was an unproductive service. They said they would terminate the service on 31 December, but we said they were to continue. We were not of the opinion that the solution we had in mind would succeed, if the service were to be terminated. We told them that they should continue with the service and that they could not merely dismiss so many people. We pointed out that if they were to do this, we would experience even greater difficulties. Therefore we put a request to them—the hon. member should understand this well—and assured them that they could apply to the National Transport Commission for a subsidy by way of an ex gratia payment. It is because of that consideration that we want to discharge our responsibility towards this company.

The hon. member for East London City insists that it should be part of the goodwill. However, it is part of the activities of the company, and expenses the company incurred with our knowledge and because of what we did. When the Xhosa Development Corporation agreed to take over this company this was a matter that had been disposed of. Then the company began to function normally again. The Bantu again made use of the bus services. Therefore it was a completely isolated matter that had been disposed of. Therefore, I think that we are quite justified in feeling that we have a responsibility towards this bus company. When they therefore, presented their account, we examined the matter and intimated that we were prepared to honour our undertaking to them.

The hon. member for Griqualand East asked me about the roads in the Transkei. A short while ago I explained that these roads are being built by the provincial administration. We are only the channel through which the finances flow. We are in no way involved in the particulars of where the roads are being constructed, etc. The construction of roads is being dealt with by the provincial administration. All I am able to give the hon. member, are the reasons why provision is made for an increased amount for the financing of those roads. Unfortunately, I am not able to tell him that one road has been constructed and another has not been constructed.

Mr. Chairman, this is a most unsatisfactory position. We are asked to vote this money and the hon. the Minister cannot tell us what the money is being used for. How must we get the information? Where can we get the information if he cannot give it to us? We have to pay the money and yet he cannot give us the information. Surely the province, in stating their case, must have submitted full reasons to the hon. the Minister as to why they needed Parliament to vote this money for them?

That I have told the hon. member

Just that they want it for the Transkei. Is it needed to build a road down to a seaside resort or what? Surely the hon. the Minister can give us some information?

Order! Hon. members may not discuss a matter falling under the provincial administration.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 10, Loan Vote E and S.W.A. Vote No. 5.—“Water Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, there are three items the hon. the Minister must account for in this House. I would like to ask him to motivate the amounts required in respect of subhead G on Revenue Vote 10 and subheads 1 and 3 of Loan Vote E. I particularly want to point out that on Vote 10 an amount of nearly R1 million extra is required over the original budget of approximately R4¼ million. This seems a very large amount. A similar situation pertains in relation to subhead 3 on Loan Vote E. An amount of nearly R1½ million, if one takes the savings into account, now has to be found over and above the original estimate of R3 642 200. Can the hon. the Minister explain to us why these apparently excessive amounts now have to be voted?

Mr. Chairman, the amount requested under Revenue Vote 10 is mainly for the maintenance and operation of Government water works. The increase under subhead G is mainly a result of the increased expenses in respect of the purchase of electricity, as well as the repairing of flood damage to departmental works. I want to give the hon. members the particulars in brief. The department provides water on a large scale to various bodies, inter alia, the Eastern Transvaal/Usutu scheme which supplies water to Escom, Springbok, the Northern Cape, the Free State gold fields, and the Tugela/Vaal River complex, where a larger amount of water is pumped. In the course of last year, Escom increased the tariffs for electricity. This year, of course, we have to bring water tariffs into line with this. The department announced certain tariffs for water at the time, and because the tariffs have been increased in the meantime, we must provide accordingly for the additional cost.

Approximately R257 000 is in respect of flood damage which occurred in the Vaalharts area from 17 January, as well as in the Orange River, at Upington. The damage at Upington amounted to approximately R100 000 and that at Vaalharts to R157 000. We suffered great losses at the outset because of the washing away of storm-water and drainage canals which had to be repaired as soon as possible to enable normal farming operations to continue.

The hon. member also referred to the additional amount under Loan Vote E. Here too drainage and improvements to Government water schemes are involved. This item is mainly concerned with the Hammarsdale area, which is a point of development which does not have a local authority yet. The Department of Water Affairs has to handle the sewerage and all facilities. That area has grown so rapidly that the existing sewerage system and water purification works there have proved to be much too small during the past year, and very urgent attention had to be given to this, or very unhealthy conditions would have resulted. Also, housing had to be provided for employees and so forth.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 11.—’’Forestry”:

Mr. Chairman, under subhead H, which is a new item, an amount of R9 950 of the revised estimate of R10 000 is being met from savings. It appears that the hon. the Minister now has to obtain a special warrant from the State President for an amount of R50. This seems a peculiar way of doing things. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain why it is necessary to do that.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that this small amount has to be obtained in such a complicated way. The position is that the Forest Amendment Act, Act No. 36 of 1975, provides for the building and maintenance of the national hiking way system to be financed from the National Hiking Way Fund. The department was unable to finance it in that particular manner last year. Consequently, departmental funds for recreational facilities have not been used for the building and maintenance of the hiking way system in Government forests since the commencement of that Act last year. Now the national body in control of this hiking way system—I have forgotten the name of the body for the moment—has to draw up a budget and the department is making a contribution. Just to get things going, we are asking for R50. We shall have to request more for the coming financial year to enable that body to build and to maintain the hiking way.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 12.—“Information”:

Mr. Chairman, under subhead F a large increase, almost R500 000, is requested for publicity. Could the hon. the Minister explain this?

The increase is necessary to make special provision for a special information programme which deals with the granting of independence to the Transkei. We want to publicize this very widely.

Does this account for the total additional amount?

The additional amount is a result of cost increases in general. An amount of more that R400 000 is earmarked for granting of independence to the Transkei, which we want to publicize as widely as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us just a few more details about this item. Is this money going to be spent in South Africa or overseas? That is my first question. I should also like to ask him about subhead D—printing, stationery, advertisements and publications. The distinction between advertisement and publicity is often not very clear, as the hon. the Minister will accept. As far as publications are concerned, last week in reply to a question I put to him, the hon. the Minister spoke of saving nearly R1,5 million in his department, most of it on publications. I wonder whether there is not some contradiction in this or whether the time factor explains why further money is now required in respect of publications after he has indicated that there was a saving here.

Mr. Chairman, the shortage under subhead D is chiefly owing to the provision for the printing costs of the department’s annual report for 1974. This could not be paid for during the financial year 1974-’75 because the invoices could not be delivered in time by the printers and therefore had to be transferred to the next financial year. The second reason for the increase is a rise of 35% in the cost of copying paper. This had an effect of the overall situation.

Mr. Chairman, to come back to sub-head F: if I remember correctly, the hon. the Minister said that this amount was required for the publicity they wanted to generate for the granting of independence to the Transkei. Does it refer to expenses which will be incurred within the next six weeks? Should the amount not be incorporated in another budget? In other words, does this represent expenses which are already being incurred in connection with the independence of the Transkei?

Being a person who is acquainted with matters of this nature, the hon. member will realize that if one wants to achieve results in a matter such as this, one must start early. We had to decide well in advance to have the proceedings filmed and for this reason we had to appoint a team of people in time in order to plan such a film. We also have to appoint people in good time to plan the publications required in this connection. In order to initiate these projects we need capital, and for that reason a part of the cost is being provided for in this financial year in the Additional Appropriation, because we did not originally foresee it. A further amount of money will be provided in the normal budget for the next financial year as well. The amount requested here is specifically for the spade work we have had to do during this financial year in order to achieve results in the end.

Has the hon. the Minister considered whether the R500 000 could not perhaps be better utilized for the development of the Transkei rather than for propaganda about the Transkei?

Order! The question is out of order.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister give us a breakdown of this amount of nearly R500 000? This seems to us a lot of money to ask as a supplementary amount for publicity purposes. Could he give us an idea of where and how it is being spent? Then, following on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s question, could the hon. the Minister also tell us how much of this is being spent on publicity in connection with the Transkei independence celebrations?

Mr. Chairman, as I have said, the amount of R420 000 is mainly required for publicity in connection with the Transkei. Perhaps I should say something more about this. For so many years we have been working on a policy aimed at creating independent homelands. The Department of Information was continually faced with the problem abroad that our opponents told us: “You are not honest with your policy; it is just a camouflage, you are just trying to mislead us; it is just a way of getting away with your policy of oppresion and it will never lead to independence.” In October this year the first of the homelands will achieve true independence in terms of our policy, and we felt that this simply had to be given maximum publicity. By this means we want to say, “Here is the proof of our honest intentions.” It must receive so much publicity that the world will know that the policy is being implemented in practice as well. To be able to do this and to publicize as widely as possible the first really big positive fruit of our policy, we felt that there must not be any shortage of money in this connection. That is why we are requesting this money for the initial operations. Plans have already been drawn up—I am not going to announce all the particulars now—for publications, for guests from various countries to attend the independence celebrations, for television teams to film the event with a view to wide publicity and so forth. Films and publications will be prepared in this regard to bring the matter to the notice of the world in a really big way. In order to begin this enterprise we need this amount.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister indicated during his earlier reply that the amount of R420 000 to be spent during this financial year is only part of the total amount that will be spent in this respect. Could he tell us what the globular amount is that he intends spending on publicity in connection with the Transkei?

Mr. Chairman, I should be anticipating the main Budget if I were to say at this stage what the total amount would be. It is being provided for in the main Budget and therefore it can be discussed in due time. But it is true that another amount will be added to this. This is just the initial cost. The final expenditure will be provided for in the normal Budget and the hon. member will be able to raise the subject again during the discussion on the main Budget.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 13.—“Interior”:

Mr. Chairman, in introducing the Additional Appropriation Bill this afternoon, the hon. the Minister of Finance indicated that this considerable sum, R3 170 000, was required by the Department of the Interior for the repatriation of various people. Could the hon. the Minister indicate to us the extent to which this money was expended on travelling expenses, housing and maintenance of refugees and whether there is any possibility of recovering some of this money?

Mr. Chairman, the expenditure with regard to the handling of the refugees consists mainly of repatriation and transportation costs. The heaviest item of expenditure is transportation costs. We repatriated 2 919 refugees by ship from Walvis Bay; 1 422 were repatriated by air from Windhoek and 5 750 by air from Jan Smuts. In addition, 750 refugees left the country at their own expense. With them, of course, we did not have much to do. I am unable to give any indication of the total amount, because, as hon. members know, we are again engaged in such a scheme at the moment. The amount of R3,2 million which is being requested here is therefore essentially an overall provision to cover all the costs. A certain part of this amount is, of course, recoverable from the Portuguese Government. We conducted negotiations with that Government and they accepted responsibility for a certain amount per person. The amount for which they accept responsibility would cover the full cost of the airfares of those whose conveyance it was possible to schedule on the ordinary flights. As regards persons travelling by ship, the Portuguese Government accepted responsibility for only a percentage of the costs. A journey by ship is obviously more expensive, and the Portuguese Government did not want to commit itself to the full amount. We adopted the standpoint that in spite of the fact that we would have to pay for a part of it ourselves it was to our advantage to get the people away as soon as possible rather than keep them here and have to provide them with food and other requirements. What has up to this stage been recovered from the Portuguese Government is an amount of R75 000; The principle that the Portuguese Government accepts responsibility has, therefore, already been established, and we have already begun to negotiate with them about the remaining amounts.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister two things. In the first instance I should like to know whether he considers it necessary for this to be catagorized under passport control so that in fact it will not be highlighted in the public eye that we are spending this on humanitarian services. Quite a different impression is created when it is spent on passport controll. In the second instance I should like to know whether any portion of this amount is being spent on refugees who are unable by reason of nationality to go back to Portugal. In other words, are we spending anything on people who cannot go back to Portugal and what, in fact, are we doing in respect of such people?

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the reply of the hon. the Minister to my question, I notice that under the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote there is no additional amount being sought. I take it, therefore, that the cost of all the maintenance and welfare work that was done by that department has all been brought into the Vote of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. If that is correct, then the amount shown in this respect, I take it, will be the total cost.

Mr. Chairman, it was decided to provide for the whole amount under this Vote, instead of in bits and pieces under the Votes of the various departments. The costs incurred by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions have therefore been included in this amount. We have decided to provide one overall amount. Because repatriation and transportation costs were the heaviest item of expenditure, it was decided to provide the overall amount under the Interior Vote.

So there is merit in the observations made by the hon. member for Yeoville.

It must be remembered that, although the amount is provided under the general head “passport control”, there also is the subhead “repatriation”. Repatriation is what we are in fact dealing with here, and it falls under passport control. Everyone knows that the amounts which were spent in on repatriation, were in connection with refugees. Repatriation normally falls under passport control, and that is why the amount was provided under that head. I do not believe anyone in or outside this country can doubt that it was used for refugees and humanitarian assistance to refugees in the form of transportation, the provision of food, and so on. So much publicity has been given to this that I do not believe there can be any doubts about it. The reason why we are doing it under this Vote, is that the most convenient arrangement for administrative purposes is to keep it here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has not dealt with the second part of my question. Perhaps I should repeat it. Has money been spent from this amount in regard to refugees who are unable to go to Portugal? What are we planning in regard to refugees who are unable to go to Portugal and who are unable to return to Angola?

This amount is mainly for the handling of the refugee problem to date i.e. the previous time there were refugees in our country. There were no people among them who were unable to go to Portugal. The 13 000 people whom we dealt with previously, all returned to Portugal. At the moment we have a situation in Southern Angola for which provision is not being made at present. Provision will have to be made for it in some other way. There are people in the refugee camps in Southern Angola whom it will not be possible to repatriate to Portugal, since the Portuguese Government does not regard them as citizens of Portugal. I do not believe the provision which has to be made for them, is under discussion at the moment.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 16.—“National Education”:

Mr. Chairman, I notice that an increase of approximately 25% in the grant-in-aid to the National Monuments Council is being asked for under subhead H. Percentage wise this increase is the largest of the three items for which additional funds are being asked for. Could the hon. the Minister furnish us with an explanation in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, the large bush-fire we had on Table Mountain in February 1974 caused large-scale soil erosion. Repair costs were estimated at R100 000. The Table Mountain Conservation area is a national monument and any State contributions utilized for repairing the damage go through the National Monuments Council. The Cape Town City Council and the Cape Provincial Administration also contributed to the repair costs. Initially provision was made in the 1974-’75 Additional Appropriation and the work was to have been carried out by the Cape Town City Council under the supervision of the NMC. However, owing to a shortage of labourers to carry out this work, it could only be started after March 1975. Therefore, the amount was not spent in the 1974-’75 financial year and because it was too late to make provision for this in the 1975-’76 Budget the Treasury, in March 1975, approved that the amount be included in the revised estimates. Because the expenditure constitutes a column 2 item and the amount voted for 1974-’75 had to be surrendered since it was impossible to use it for any other purpose, the amount as it now appears in the additional estimates, has to be voted again.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a number of question. Firstly there is subhead K, against which an amount of R69 000 is shown. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can deal with that and explain what that represents. In respect of subhead M—Financial assistance to universities and bursaries for university education—I should like the hon. the Minister to break up the amount of R1 774 500 which is being asked for. He should indicate, firstly, what portion of the amount is for financial assistance to universities and, secondly, for which universities. In the third instance he should indicate on what basis the financial assistance under that heading has been calculated. Is it on a basis which is equally applicable to each of the universities, or does it deal with a particular circumstance in a particular university? He should also indicate what portion of the amount is for bursaries for university education and to what universities that has been allocated. I should also like to know whether any special conditions are being attached in respect of the bursaries for university education. In the last instance I should like to know under what items the amount of R800 500 has been saved.

Quite a number of questions have now been asked and if I do not answer them all now, the hon. member will have to remind me again. The first question concerns subhead K, the increase of R69 000. Of this amount, R30 000 is allocated for the construction of camps and camping areas. The position is that years ago a firm, Richardson Citrus, donated 1,7 morgen of the farm Seaview West in Port Elizabeth to the then Department of Agriculture for the exclusive use of the Land Service Movement. Quite complicated negotiations took place in terms of which the Port Elizabeth City Council undertook to make available a piece of land at Sardinia Bay in exchange for the Seaview West land needed for town development, but laid down as a condition that the land should be developed as soon as possible. Because it was impossible to make provision for the amount of R30 000 on the initial estimates, the Treasury agreed, in the light of the condition laid down by the Port Elizabeth City Council, and because this was for this good cause and because it was a column 2 item, that provision could be made for this amount of R30 000 on these additional estimates. That is one portion of the R69 000. There is also an amount of R32 500 in respect of the adjustment of salaries at the regional councils of the performing arts to which 50% is contributed by the provinces, as well as an amount of R6 500 in respect of Pact’s administration costs at the theatre centre on Strydom Square in Pretoria. These are the items which altogether represent the amount of R69 000 under K.

The hon. member also asked some questions about subhead M—Universities. I think the quickest way in which to reply to this would be for me to break up this item in its different categories. The additional provision which is being asked for here by universities is: subsidy payment, R570 000; establishment aid to the Universities of Port Elizabeth and RAU, R297 100; for the training of marine engineers, a subsidy of R9 600; for the dental faculty at Stellenbosch, a subsidy of R199 300; non-pensionable allowances, R74 000; interest and capital redemption on loans, R1 089 000; nuclear research, R14 500; and housing loans, R451 000. This gives an amount of R2 704 500. As against this there was a decrease in the provision for agricultural faculties to the extent of R5 000 and for the supplementary Public Service bursary scheme of R24 500—therefore, a total decrease of R129 500. This gives a total of R2 575 000, minus the savings on services under other subheads, R800 500, which leaves the net additional amount which is now being asked for, i.e. R1 774 000.

I do not know which would be the easiest way in which to answer the other questions. There was a decrease in respect of bursaries, as I have just indicated, of R124 500. The original appropriation was R450 000 and the revised estimate R325 500—a decrease of R124 500. I am glad the hon. member asked the question, because an interesting aspect came to light in this respect. These bursaries are for the training of engineers, architects, quantity and land surveyors, doctors, geologists and economists at South African residential universities for Whites.

Are these ordinary Public Service bursaries?

No, these bursaries other than the ordinary Public Service bursaries. These are in addition to the ordinary Public Service bursaries. They were introduced in 1970-’71. Initially the amount of R60 000 was voted, with a gradual annual increase to R720 000 in 1973-’74 and after that R780 000 per annum. Loans can at any time be converted into Public Service bursaries which can then be redeemed on the usual basis by serving the State. For the first three years the bursary loan amounts to R600 per annum and from the fourth year, including post-graduate studies, R650 per annum. But—and this is the point I should like to draw attention to, for that reason I am grateful that the hon. member put this question—because interest in this scheme seems to be limited interest, only R450 000 was appropriated for 1973-’74, 1974-’75 and 1975-’76. According to applications at the universities for bursary loans for 1975-’76, it is expected that R124 500 will not be taken up. And, Sir, I do not know whether this is the proper occasion to appeal to the public. The hon. member says the situation is incredible, but this is after all the position. It is a great pity that this is so, and one can only hope that the position will improve.

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply I have grave difficulty in understanding that there should be a reduction in the demand for this type of bursaries, because, as he knows, there is a tremendous increase in fees and a tremendous increase in the demand for bursaries at all the universities. Now, what is the reason? Is there a catch in this? Is there some snag? Has it not been publicized? Because it is quite clear that in respect of other bursaries there is a tremendous demand, so much so that the universities cannot meet that demand. Is there something in the conditions which put people off from applying for these bursaries?

There is no catch in it. It is just a fact, and I do not think it reflects very favourably on our society. I think one reason why it is so is that these students do not want to be bound to work for the State for a specified period. That is the only reason I can think of, together with, perhaps, a lack of knowledge that these bursaries are available, and also a lack of interest in these very major fields. I should like to give the hon. member and the House some figures in this respect.

*Since 1971 provision has been made for the following global grants, and the amounts, as indicated that were taken up by the universities: 1970-’71, R60 000, and taken up by the universities, R60 000. In 1971-’72, R300 000 was appropriated and R57 670 was taken up. In 1972-’73, R441 000 was appropriated and R106 000 was taken up. In 1973-’74, R450 000 was appropriated and R235 300 was taken up. In 1974-’75, R450 000 was appropriated and R204 000 was taken up, and in 1975-’76, R450 000 was appropriated and up to date R249 000 has been taken up. Because I am very interested in this matter, and because, like the hon. member, I also thought this was impossible, I asked how much is expected to be taken up this year. My department estimates that not more than R325 000 of the R450 000 will be taken up. I was going to lay great emphasis on this matter under the main budget, because there is definitely something wrong with this state of affairs.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can help the Minister. I know of a case where a student made inquiries at the Human Sciences Research Council for information at the beginning of this year.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to discuss this. He is only allowed to discuss the reasons for the increase.

If in fact there is a reduction in the demand for bursaries, then it falls in line with what has been said about the state of the Public Service. So this has far wider implications.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to discuss the reasons for the decrease.

I will come to the increase in a moment. The saving under this subhead is R800 500.

Order! Hon. members are not allowed to discuss savings here. They are only allowed to discuss increases and the reasons for the increases.

Then I will try to do it in another way. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether in the additional amount any amount in respect of the financial plight of the universities is included because of the implementation of the formula and their difficulty in reducing the staff numbers to comply with the staff-student ratio. Is there any amount included for that, in these particular figures? This plight is one which has affected a large number of universities and indeed creates a very serious problem. That has a relation to the fact that the fees have had to go up, and if the fees go up you have the situation where you should have more money available for bursaries. If the bursaries are in fact not being used, then you have this hardship in respect of the students, and you have the problem that the ordinary individual can no longer send his child to the university. That is why the bursaries become relevant to this, because you need to promote and publicize this issue. That is why I think this has relevance to the very question I am asking.

Mr. Chairman, we had to give Treasury the assurance that we would not exceed the amount of R1 731 500, as has been appropriated for universities in the Estimates. From the nature of the case we shall assist the universities as much as we possibly can, but we shall have to keep within the limits of the amount of R1 731 500, as appropriated. I told the hon. member at the outset that an additional amount of R570 000 had in fact been appropriated under the subsidy formula. This amount of R570 000 was due to errors of calculation, mainly because full details had not been available while calculating the subsidy formula during the drafting of the original estimates. The increase was requested for the following universities: For Rhodes an increase of R100 879; for Natal, R297 875; and for the Orange Free State R238 185. This gives a total of R636 959.

And for Wits?

For Wits there was nothing.

It is a question of bias.

There is no bias. According to the formula this is simply the case. That is all.

The formula is erroneous.

No, I do not think this is the case. In the case of the University of South Africa there was a decrease of R702, and in the case of the University of Cape Town, a decrease of R66 100. This gives a round figure of R570 000. I do not know what more I can tell the hon. member about this, except that I am very sympathetic towards the universities. If they come to me with a sound case, I shall try to assist them to the best of my ability despite the formula—also Wits University.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 17.—“Social Welfare and Pensions’’:

Mr. Chairman, under this Vote there is only one item, namely Contributions to Pension and Provident Funds. In this regard R12 780 000 is to be voted. If one takes into account the amount to be met from savings, the original estimates and the revised estimates differ by something like R14 million. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister could give an explanation of the reason for the large amount now required.

Mr. Chairman, there are four reasons for the additional amount to be voted. The hon. member will recall that in 1974 the salaries of civil servants were increased. These increases, of course, resulted in higher contributions by the employees as well as by the employer, in this case the State. The greater part of the increase was necessitated by this. It was, however, not possible to determine the exact amount until we had had, for at least two successive years, a recurrent average figure.

*The effect of the reclassification of posts in consequence of the Public Service Commission’s policy and the permanent appointment of persons who were temporarily employed in the Public Service, was greater than we could have foreseen at the time when the Budget was drawn up. It necessitated additional expenditure.

Provision was also made—I think the hon. member for Durban Point will be pleased about this—in the course of the year for members of the Defence Force to receive a year’s added service for pension purposes after four years’ service, as in the case of the Police and the Prisons staff. The additional amount required for this, has also been included here. With the establishment of the Bantu Administration Boards, when municipal officers had to become members of the Pension Fund or Associated Institutions, payments had to be made from the municipal pension fund into the Pension Fund for Associated Institutions. It was not possible to determine an amount at that stage, and initially only a nominal amount was voted. It has now become apparent that the amount is R2 300 000 and this is also included in the amount asked for.

The savings which were affected are small amounts under several sub-heads which fall under the Vote.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 19.—“Statistics”:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister motivate the additional amount which has to be made available under subhead D?

Mr. Chairman, over the past year there has been an increase of 12% in the price of paper, for which provision was not made. Then, too, a larger number of questionnaires and reminders had to be printed at a cost of about R7 000. Four questionnaires had to be reprinted to obtain revised information which was considered necessary. This gave rise to an additional expenditure of about R38 000.

In addition, the date of printing of a questionnaire which had to be ready for distribution during July 1976 had to be advanced. This resulted in expenditure of R15 000. According to the original planning those expenses would only have been incurred in the year 1976-’77, but fortunately it was possible to advance this date and that is why the additional amount is now being requested. Purchases of paper were carried out in such a way that a saving of R5 000 was possible. That is why the additional amount requested only amounts to R65 000.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was really asking why the postal, telegraph and telephone services had increased by almost 40%.

Mr. Chairman, this worried me, too. However, not only was there an increase of about 25% in telephone tariffs, it was also essential, owing to the expansion of the establishment and the alteration of office space, to install additional telephones. There were transfers of telephones as well. The increase in telephone expenses amounts to about R13 000. The other R7 000 is for the transfer of telephones and for the provision of connecting points for which compensation had to be paid.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 20 and Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”:

Mr. Chairman, we have here, particularly in the Loan Vote, a number of new services for which we are being asked to vote funds for the first time today. We have previously protested in the House against this type of budgeting. Here we find that we are suddenly asked to vote hundreds of thousands of rand for new works in respect of which we have no information whatsoever. I am particularly referring to Loan Vote B. It so happens that we have a number of items this year for new schools for the Department of Indian Affairs. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us whether he has, in fact, commenced construction of these schools, how far he has got and whether the Indian community is going to benefit from this expenditure during this financial year. Or is it, once again, a case of asking for an additional amount of R50 simply to get the item on the estimates without any answer regarding the total expenditure or when they will become available.

Then we come to the item dealing with Richards Bay. The way it is set out is not quite clear to me. Does the item “Standard Stock Capital” of the Loan Vote refer to Richards Bay? Here there is a total expenditure of R400 000. If it does not refer to Richards Bay, what is the R400 000 being asked for? We have under Revenue Vote 20 an additional amount of R190 500 under item E—Miscellaneous expenses. This seems to be a rather large increase, and I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us for what purpose that R190 500 is required?

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question on Indian schools, I am unable to give a general answer in respect of all of them. It would be better if the hon. member would limit his question to a specific item. I could then give him a specific reply on that specific item.

As far as Richards Bay is concerned, the development of the harbour there has now reached the stage where accommodation will have to be provided there for the Departments of Customs and Excise, Health, Industry, the Interior and Transport before 1 April 1976, so that those departments may be able to fulfil their functions within or on the boundaries of the harbour area. The Department of Public Works intended to rent temporary accommodation from the Railways Administration while awaiting a decision on the final layout of the harbour area and the location of permanent buildings, but the Administration stated that it was not able to do that. In view of the time factor, approval was obtained from the State Tender Board to call for quotations from various firms for the erection of temporary, removable, prefabricated buildings on a site which had been provided by the Railways Administration for this purpose. Based on the lowest offer, the cost of the service was estimated at R260 000. No provision for this service was made in the then current Estimates, and a special warrant was therefore obtained. Only a nominal amount was requested, because it is possible to finance the scheme from savings under Loan Vote B for the current financial year. What was the other question of the hon. member?

It deals with the item on page 42 under Loan Vote B—Standard Stock Capital, R400 000—of which in fact only R50 000 now has to be voted.

The authorized stock-up for the Department of Public Works is R1 200 000. Certain items are purchased against the Standard Stock Account and when they are issued, this account is credited and the relevant subheads of the estimates are debited. Orders for certain stock have to be placed well in advance to ensure timeout delivery. Many orders had already been placed when departmental measures were introduced in October 1975 in terms of the action programme to combat inflation and they could not be cancelled. These orders have since been executed and the cost debited to the Standard Stock Account. Expenditure against the relevant subheads of its estimates, however, has been curtailed to such an extent that the Department of Public Works is unable to issue all items like furniture, etc., which other State departments require. The result is that the authorized amount in respect of the Standard Stock Account will be exceeded by the value of stock held on 31 March 1976. Treasury approval has been obtained to increase the capital by R400 000 to enable the department to meet its commitments.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to Revenue Vote, subhead J—Rent, rates, electrical current, etc. I see that an additional amount of R3 435 000 is required, which is nearly 17% more on items which, because of their very nature, are usually controlled. Rent falls under the Rents Act, rates are controlled and electrical current is something that is controlled too. Perhaps the “etc.” at the end contains a multitude of sins, but I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why there should be this substantial increase in the cost of rented property and the servicing thereof. My other question applies to subhead K, where an increase of R1 185 000 is required for general maintenance services. This is an increase of nearly 40%, and as such seems out of all bounds. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can throw some light on why there should be this enormous increase in something like maintenance?

Mr. Chairman, with regard to subhead J, I am able to give the following explanation: Firstly, the expiry of existing leases where accommodation was leased at 70 cents per square metre and is now being renewed at R1,75 per square metre. Secondly, the escalation basis at a rate of 5% to 6% annually at which leases were concluded. The increase in rental is a result of the increase in rates. Another reason is that more state-owned buildings are being erected and occupied, as well as additional accommodation which is leased where municipal services are rendered. Lastly, there is the increase of municipal tariffs for water, electricity, sanitation services and removal of refuse—in some cases up to 32%. As far as subhead K is concerned, the explanation is briefly as follows: Completion of more state-owned buildings where installations have to be maintained; the increase in prices of material, such as fuel, coal, cleaning material; and, lastly, the modernization of fire-fighting apparatus.

Mr. Chairman, under subhead F, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in regard to the purchase of furniture, safes, plant, machinery and tools for R443 500, whether these items were bought under tender or not?

Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, they were bought under tender.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 21 and Loan Vote K.—“Community Development”:

Mr. Chairman, there are several items to which I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first one is subhead E of Revenue Vote No. 21 where there is an extraordinary increase of something like 100% or more in miscellaneous expenses—from R72 000 to R155 000. Miscellaneous expenses is something like a carpet: You sweep those things under it you do not want to have in sight. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain the increase in the expenditure—more than double the original estimate in the course of a short period of time. Under subhead F, which is also one of these omnibus headings—Losses and other Expenses under Housing and Community Development Legislation—we have an increase amounting to 30% of the original figure, an additional amount of R3 060 000. Here again I ask the hon. the Minister to give me details of the expenditure. Under subhead J there is a contribution in respect of subsidies. Experience seems to be that contributions in respect of subsidies are being cut back, at least in the Minister of Community Development’s department. Yet there is a substantial additional figure here of R3 272 000, and perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain what it represents.

The amount of R3 272 000?

Yes, subhead J. As far as Loan Vote K is concerned, I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to subhead 4—Official Quarters. I do not know what these official quarters are which are to be constructed from the additional R5 500 000 which is being asked for. It is actually R7 million, because there is the saving of R1 500 000 and the additional R5 500 000 required under Loan Vote K. Are these quarters being built in the Transkei, or something of that nature? There seems to be a substantial amount of official quarters being built for his department. This is not a Public Works job.

Finally, subhead 5 under Loan Vote K provides for a contribution to the Deposit Fund for Housing. The amount under this subhead shows an increase of 50%, and I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will explain whether that is in connection with the savings accounts at building societies for deposits on houses and, if so, can he give some indication of the extent to which these are supported and how they have developed in the public sector?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has put quite a few questions, all concerning very interesting matters. The first one, as he pointed out, seems small, the figure under miscellaneous expenses, subhead E, having increased from R72 000 to R155 000. The chief reason for that is that we had to provide another R65 000 for programming services, an item which is suspended under subhead J of the Vote of the Public Service Commission. This is therefore a bookkeeping item, an adjustment between the two departments. Then additional funds were needed for the hire of photocopying machines, because the hiring cost had increased. Money was also required for the levies we have to pay in respect of our Bantu employees to municipalities. These fees almost doubled and account for a considerable proportion of this money. Additional money also had to be found for class and examination fees for the diploma courses in public administration which public servants follow at the various technical colleges. I think if the hon. member looks at these various items, he will find that it is not such a surprising increase. It is, furthermore, the public interest.

As far as the amount of more than R3 million mentioned under subhead F—Losses and other Expenses under Housing and Community Development Legislation—is concerned, I wish to point out that it is impossible to estimate correctly under this subhead, especially as far as the loss on interest is concerned, because of the many unknown factors which influence the situation. The increase of R2 900 000 mentioned under “Loss of interest’’ can be ascribed to the fact that there was a considerable increase in the interest rate during the past year. Then there was a considerable increase in the number of loans granted at the sub-economic rate of 1%. The provision for valuation expenses and arbitration expenses was also insufficient because everything depends on how many valuations are to be made per year and how many expropriations are to be settled by arbitration. It is impossible to determine what these amounts will be until you approach the end of the year. You cannot determine them accurately in advance.

Under “Loss of interest”, cannot the loss of interest in respect of the property, valued at R23 million, lying vacant in District Six be included?

I do not think that the two are related in any way whatsoever. The hon. member has also expressed interest in subhead J—Contributions and Subsidies. This increase is in respect of the interest subsidy on housing loans. It is impossible to make an accurate estimate of the expenditure under this subhead, because it is not known how many properties will qualify for the interest subsidy in a particular year. At the time when the 1975-’76 draft budget was being prepared, the financial implications flowing from the increase of the valuation limit from R18 000 to R20 000 was not foreseen. Also the limit on loans which was increased from R12 000 to R15 000 under this scheme, could not be accurately estimated in advance. That accounts for the difference. Under Loan Vote K the hon. member was interested in item 4—Official Quarters.

*The excess is attributable to the following unavoidable factors: Projects which should have been completed during the financial year 1974-’75, could not be completed in time, especially as a result of heavy rains and financial problems which were experienced by the building contractors, with the result that payments still had to be made in respect of these projects during the present financial year, something which would not have happened if everything had gone according to the contracts and estimates. The department has no control whatsoever over factors such as these. In terms of a State President’s warrant, a newly erected block of flats was bought at R690 000, on the express understanding that transfer and payment would take place before 31 March 1975. For several technical reasons, inter alia, the subdivision of the area, it was not possible to comply with this condition and the sale price, less R34 000 which is still being held back as retention money, had to be paid during the current financial year instead of during last year. This resulted in unforeseen expenditure of R650 000. At the rate of spending during the previous financial year, R4 million was budgeted for project “Threshold” for the present financial year. This project concerns the construction of homes for Defence Force staff. Due to escalation of hostilities in certain areas, it has become essential for strategic reasons to step up the work on this project drastically and to date, nearly R3 million more than the appropriation has been paid out, with anticipated further spending of approximately R2 million for the months January to March 1976.

†I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is an explanation which the hon. member will immediately accept. The expense was unavoidable and very necessary. I agree that the increase under this item, “Deposit Fund for Housing”, seems to be a strange item, but once he has heard the explanation I think he will understand.

Certain factors left the department no alternative but to ask for these additional funds. We have tried very hard, in view of circumstances, not to ask for additional funds. On the recommendation of the Riekert Committee the Cabinet agreed that collateral deposits in respect of the housing loan scheme for officials and employees of the State, of statutory bodies and of State-supported bodies would, from 1 December 1975, be increased from 50% to 100% of the guaranteed amount, viz. to 20% of the amount of the loan. Apart from this, building societies may now use 30% of their available funds for loans above R20 000. On these loans the department will also fund the full 20% of the loan amount in cash, rather than by way of guarantee, with the result that the tempo of expenditure has increased considerably. The fact that the State now has to pay the building societies, also causes one to expect that building societies will be more inclined to lend money to officials and employees of the bodies I have mentioned, than was the case originally when they only received 10% of the guaranteed amount in cash. This expectation was expressed by the Riekert Committee. As a result of the factors I have already mentioned, and because of the expenditure during the first eight months of the current year, when only 50% of the guaranteed amounts was paid in cash, it is clear that an excess of R2 million on this Vote was completely unavoidable. It is firstly due to the fact that we have to pay this larger amount in cash, instead of merely as guarantees, and secondly to the growing popularity of this scheme for State employees and officials.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether this 20% deposit, which is now paid in cash to the building societies, is paid by way of an interest-earning deposit as far as his department is concerned, and if so, what rate of interest is earned on that money? Is it perhaps an interest-earning deposit, or is it an amount which is paid as additional assistance to the State employee? In other words, is that 20% regarded as an advance from the department to the employee, and are his bond charges then limited to 80% of the total amount of the loan?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to check on this before I give a final answer, but I know that the motivation for this was to assist the building societies in order to make housing available to other sectors of the population as well. I shall, however, obtain the absolutely correct information for the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with subhead F, Vote No. 21—Losses and other Expenses under Housing and Community Development Legislation. Would the hon. the Minister tell us whether or not it is under this heading that the cost of group areas removals is usually put? I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether anything in this amount of over R3 million that is being asked for, has to do with the moving of people, and whether the cost of additional group areas removals comes into this. There is also one other question that I would like to put to the hon. the Minister. Do any of the items under which the hon. the Minister is asking for additional money cover additional funds for Mitchell’s Plain?

Mr. Chairman, as far as subhead F is concerned, I gave a complete answer to the hon. member for Green Point. It was made quite clear that these moneys are required because of the increase in the rates of interest, and also because of the larger amounts that will be given to people under the rent subsidy, on which only 1% interest is being charged. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the removal of people. Secondly, no provision is being made for additional funds in connection with Mitchell’s Plain.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 22 and Loan Vote P.—“Mines”:

Mr. Chairman, there are various questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. The first question concerns assistance to the gold mining industry. The total amount is quite substantial. One realizes, of course, that this has to do with the Gold Mines Assistance Act. Before I put my questions, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the amounts in question were R11 million, R2,7 million and R3,2 million in the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively. Although the price of the gold produced has dropped again, the price is still substantially higher than it was in 1973 and 1974. I therefore want to know from the hon. the Minister to what this enormous increase may be ascribed. Secondly, under the same subhead, I want to know from the hon. the Minister the value of the gold production of these mines which receive assistance.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member referred to the fact—and he is therefore aware of it—that the real aim of the formula drawn up at the time in co-operation with the Chamber of Mines and the Treasury, was to ensure that certain mines which would have had to cease production, continued to produce. There are a number of reasons for this, such as the earnings of foreign exchange and the maintenance of the industry in general. It is therefore essential that the formula be kept in force. The hon. member wants to know why it is that in spite of the fact that the gold price is higher now than it was then, it is nevertheless still necessary to subsidize these mines. I want to put it to the hon. member that it is not the department itself, but the formula which was laid down, which determines which mines come into consideration for assistance.

At first sight it would seem that certain mines which were able to get along without subsidies some years ago when the gold price was substantially lower, should still be able to do so. The gold price, is, undoubtedly, still substantially higher than it was then. However, some mines are still unable to stand on their own two feet. The reason is simple, but nevertheless very important. The operating costs of mines have rocketed in the meantime and although the gold price is varying between 130 and 140 dollars at the moment, there are always mines that are in a difficult position. The hon. member will probably not expect me to furnish the names of the mines in question. However I can tell him that there are 13 mines which are still being subsidized in terms of the formula and at the present gold price.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 74.

Remaining Votes, Schedules, Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

From the document which has been tabled, hon. members will perceive that an additional appropriation of R 15,488 million is requested for operating expenditure. This brings the revised budget for operating expenditure up to R498,101 million.

As a result of the substantial increases in the prices of fuel in December 1974 and again in March and October 1975, as well as the increased railway tariff introduced in November 1974, an additional appropriation of R1,403 million is required for transport under subhead 5. Similarly, increasing prices and higher costs necessitate the additional appropriations of R575 000 and R2 million under subheads 6 and 7.

The additional amount of R1,174 million requested under subhead 11 is required mainly to cover the losses on foreign payments caused by exchange fluctuations, especially as a result of the devaluation of the rand in September last year. The effects of devaluation and further substantial price increases since April last year also necessitate an increase of R4 million, from the existing R23 million to R27 million, in the standard stock capital, which is required for financing the stock spares and materials used for the maintenance and extension of the telephone system. The appropriation under subhead 19 is required for this.

The biggest appropriation for operating expenditure, namely R6,321 million under subhead 16, is required for the payment of interest on investments by the public in the savings facilities of the Post Office. These investments were bigger than had been expected.

†In respect of capital expenditure an additional appropriation of R 15,365 million is requested. This will bring the revised estimates for capital expenditure to R228,402 million.

Under subhead 1—Telecommunication Services—an additional amount of R11,572 million is asked for. Higher prices of equipment, the effect of devaluation, the stepping-up of efforts to reduce the backlog in the provision of telephone services, and works carried over from the previous financial year are the main reasons for the increased expenditure on telecommunications services. Price increases, and the delivery of equipment sooner than expected, necessitate the additional appropriation of R2,193 million under subhead 3. The additional amount of R920 000 under subhead 6 is necessary as a result of various building works progressing more rapidly than expected.

Seen against the background of the Post Office’s original estimate of R695,65 million for operating and capital expenditure for the present financial year, the various factors that affected prices and costs since the estimates were drawn up, and the increased interest burden resulting from the additional investment in the Post Office’s savings media, I think the essential additional expenditure of R30,853 million, for which appropriation is requested, may be regarded as very reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the hon. the Minister delivering his first additional appropriation speech, I should like to congratulate him from this side of the House on the new position he has assumed. I hope there will be a very happy period of co-operation between him and this side of the House.

It is probably fortuitous that the amount to be voted for operating expenditure in terms of these additional estimates and that to be voted for capital expenditure are more or the less the same, i.e. approximately R15,4 million. I do not believe that this phenomenon is the result of the fact that 50% of our operating revenue must actually take care of capital expenditure, but it is rather strange that the additional amounts for both capital and operating expenditure are more or less the same. Perhaps the hon. the Minister, in replying to the Second Reading debate, will explain why it is that the figures are so similar. Perhaps there is some reason. On the other hand, this may be completely fortuitous.

The increased expenditure in respect of operating expenditure is approximately 3% higher than the original estimate, but the increased capital now to be voted is 7,2% higher than the original estimate. Since 3% is already high, in relation to a budget of this size, a 7,2% difference in capital amounts originally voted and now found necessary seems to me a very great difference indeed. I think the hon. the Minister must give us some explanation as to why this additional amount is so very much higher.

The hon. the Minister has not said how he proposes funding this expenditure. I believe, however, that he will apply the same rule as has been applied in respect of the original budget. He will take out of operating revenue approximately R15½ million for operating expenditure, and then he will also take from operating revenue 50% of the capital requirements of almost R15,5 million, i.e. R7,7 million. The total amount he will therefore require out of operating revenue will be R23,2 million, and the amount he will then be taking out of Loan Funds I assume will be in the vicinity of R7,7 million. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to enlighten us on this point, because I do think it makes a difference to how we view the future. If he is taking the whole amount out of operating revenue, I wonder whether he can tell us at this stage if his revenue is more buoyant than he thought it was. When I look at the statement of revenue and expenditure for the period April to December of last year, I find that it shows revenue at R404,2 million and expenditure at R345,2 million. The last monthly figures are for December 1975, and they show revenue at R46,2 million and expenditure at R32,3 million. Now if the revenue and expenditure for the months January to March of this year are in the same ratio as for the month of December 1975, the year should end with a total revenue of R542 million and a total expenditure of R442 million, giving the hon. the Minister a rather delightful surplus of R100 million. If it is a fact that there is going to be a surplus of R100 million, then perhaps the hon. the Minister can now tell us whether he is going to use that surplus for the whole of this capital expenditure or whether he is going to borrow the R7,7 million from Loan Funds.

Some of the items in this additional appropriation are quite surprising. One would probably have expected the item “Transport” to have been higher than it is now. One must, however, bear in mind the fact—and the hon. the Minister did not tell us this—that transport has been very severely curtailed, and as a result of the curtailing of transport the actual postal delivery service has suffered. In other words, he is now providing a lesser service than the one provided before but it is costing a great deal more. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to the House to explain to us just how he has curtailed the services, what saving has been brought about by the curtailment of the services and what this figure would have been had he not curtailed the services.

Then there is a bit of confusion, I believe, in regard to subhead 7, Material, Stores and Maintenance Service, for which an additional amount of R2 million is to be voted and in regard to subhead 19, Increase of Standard Stock Capital. The latter is a new subhead. The hon. the Minister, in his opening remarks, mentioned that in respect of standard stock capital, there was already an amount of R23 million. However, I did not quite follow—the hon. the Minister was too quick for me—how he relates this additional R4 million to the R23 million. I think it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to explain to us to what different uses the R4 million under subhead 19 and the R2 million under subhead 7 are to be put. As I see it, the R2 million is in respect of the stock, material and stores required in order to operate, i.e. to keep the telephone services, the telecommunication services and other services going. One must have the necessary material at hand at all times. Therefore, if the stocks run down, they must be replenished. Apparently his stocks in this regard have run down and he is now replenishing them with R2 million. However, an additional R4 million is required in regard to standard stock capital under the new subhead 19. It seems to me that the standard stock capital fulfills more or less the same function. I do not know why it should appear under a separate subhead. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain that to us because it is very confusing. It is very difficult to determine whether the standard stock capital is related in any way to operations and operating expenditure or whether it is regarded as a capital item. If it is to be regarded as a capital item, one wonders why the hon. the Minister has inserted it in the estimates of additional operating expenditure and not in the estimates of additional capital expenditure. There appears to be some reason for it, but unfortunately the hon. the Minister was silent on this when he introduced the additional estimates. We do not know why a distinction is made between subheads 7 and 19. We do need to know what the difference is and why the standard stock capital is shown as operating expenditure and not capital expenditure. If in fact it concerns capital perhaps to be kept for future use, it seems to me that it should not be shown as part of the operating expenditure, but rather under capital expenditure.

There are certain other points I should like to raise. I am not quite clear on the hon. the Minister’s explanation in regard to subhead 1, Telecommunication Services. Does this deal with telecommunication services generally or does this refer to a particular service of the telecommunication services? Does it refer, for instance, to subscribers’ telephone equipment or does it perhaps refer to electronic exchange equipment? I think we would all be very happy if we knew exactly what it refers to. I think the hon. the Minister did make the point of saying that devaluation had a great effect on the budget. According to information I and other members on this side of the House have, devaluation has not really shown its effect yet on the equipment that is being used at present. I take it that this additional expenditure refers to equipment that is already in use and has already been purchased and is not to make provision for the future. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain just how devaluation has in fact affected telecommunication services other than in respect of goods still to be imported from abroad. I am under the impression that a great deal of our telephone subscribers’ equipment is actually manufactured here in South Africa. Consequently, devaluation will only have a very small effect on that sort of equipment because the parts that have to be imported form only a very small component of the telephone subscribers’ equipment.

The hon. the Minister rather glossed over subhead 3, Office, Electronic Data Processing, Mail Handling and Stores Equipment, under capital expenditure, in respect of which an amount of just over R2 million is to be voted. When I saw this figure I thought it referred more particularly to mail handling. We now have a system of expeditious mail handling in Cape Town and I believe another one is being installed or has just been installed in Johannesburg. I thought the sum to be voted was in connection with those systems, but apparently it may be in respect of something else. I would be very grateful if the hon. the Minister would explain that to us.

The hon. the Minister made a great deal of the price increases. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us in reply to this debate what effect price increases have had. Just the bald statement of fact that we are subject to price increases is not very illuminating. I believe we should be told just how price increases have affected us, what price increases there have been, when the prices were increased and whether we planned for such price increases. Did we budget on the basis that all prices would remain static during the year or did we take into account the fact that there would be price increases? I would be very grateful indeed if the hon. the Minister would enlighten us in regard to these matters.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches would also like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his assumption of this very important portfolio. One sometimes wonders whether one should not commiserate with him rather than congratulate him. I say that because the hon. the Minister and his advisers have inherited a situation from the past which means that they are battling against tremendous odds because of a good deal of political myopia that existed in the past. I am now talking about a decade or more ago. Anyway, we wish him well. He is in a hot seat and there are few tasks that are more important than the task he has today to give this country the telecommunication service it needs.

While we are voting this money today, I think it is only fair to say something about the incredible achievements of the Post Office in the past 12 months. We know about the criticism of the Post Office and I shall deal with one or two criticisms in a moment. However, I think too little is known by the public of the really magnificent work which is being done by the Post Office in certain fields. I refer particularly to such things as the earth satellite station. I do not think people realize the extent of the Post Office’s contribution to television. I think that the Post Office’s contribution is not generally appreciated. Anyone who has read the annual report of the Postmaster-General will realize that the Post Office’s contribution was a very vital one. I think the Postmaster-General and the hon. the Minister, as the political head, deserve credit for the work they have done. Unfortunately, the man in the street and the woman in the home particularly look at the Post Office primarily from two angles: One is the quality of the telephone services and the other the quality of postal deliveries. I want to raise this question briefly and not waste too much time of the House. I think it is the quality of the telephone services in the bigger centres that is exasperating people at present: The failure to get a dialling tone, the frequency of wrong numbers, the deafening silences, etc. The lack of telephones is bad, but it is too often the quality that falls short of what the public expects. I am sure that the Postmaster-General and his staff would like to provide a better quality service. I hope the hon. the Minister when he replies to this debate, will try to explain to us and therefore to the public outside, why there is such a difference between the quality of the international telephone service and the domestic service. I think it has been the experience of lots of hon. members that it is much easier to get through to Toronto than it is to get through to Taaibosspruit.

In any case, we should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether any of the money we are voting today is in fact going to be used to alleviate the desperate shortage of telephones in the Black areas. In reply to a question I asked the other day, the hon. the Minister told us …

Under which Vote are you speaking now?

I am speaking under the Additional Estimates of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. The hon. member must wake up.

†This money we are being asked to vote will, I hope, go to the provision of this kind of service. What one really wants to know is how much of the money we are being asked to vote today will be used to wipe out the backlog of telephones, and how much will be spent on improving the quality of the telephone services. I think these are the questions the public would like to have answered.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon. members who have taken part in this debate for their congratulatory messages. The hon. member for Parktown was doubtful as to whether congratulations or sympathy should be conveyed. In any event, this attests to sympathy as regards my task, and I should like to thank them sincerely. I believe that we shall cooperate well with each other.

I am not quite sure, but I interpret the fact that the hon. member for Wynberg spoke here this afternoon as an indication that he is acting as the chief spokesman for his side.

No.

Then it was purely fortuitous. I had intended to congratulate him, too, if he had been appointed as the chief spokesman of his party. The hon. member asked a number of questions to which I shall attempt to reply to the best of my ability. To begin with, he said that it had struck him that the amounts required on the operating side and on the capital side were almost the same, and asked whether there was any explanation for that. I do not know whether he thought that perhaps there had been manipulation, but I can tell him that it is purely coincidental that this should have occurred. When we discuss the individual items at a later stage, it will be clear to him that we can motivate all these points. But it is purely a coincidence that the amounts are much the same. He then went on and, in his own way, calculated the expected revenue of the Post Office. In fact, he painted a fairly rosy picture, and I hope that his fortune-telling is as good as his efforts at fishing here this afternoon. I can tell him that the revenue of the Post Office is quite promising, but it goes without saying that I do not want to anticipate my Budget and consequently I do not want to react to the figures he mentioned here.

He asked how we were going to finance the additional expenditures. I want to tell him that the promising revenue of which we have had indications thus far will assist us to a very great extent in financing them, and for the rest we shall, of course, adopt other methods as experience leads us. The hon. member also referred to subheads 7 and 19, and to subhead 19 in particular, which relates to standard stock capital. In the first place he asked whether this belonged under “operating” or under “capital”. I want to tell him that as far as that aspect is concerned, it is ruling by the Auditor-General that it must fall under the operating side. We therefore have no choice in the matter. To deal with the facts as regards these two subheads, I want to put it to him as follows, that the standard stock capital of the post office amounts to R23 million at present; in other words, in the past. Parliament has voted R23 million for this stock. Owing to the increases that have occurred and the withdrawals from this pool, if I may call it that, it is necessary to supplement those funds, because I want to tell you that no fewer than 23 000 different catalogue items of spare parts are provided from that fund or pool. These are stocks which the Post Office must have in store in order to maintain its services. The hon. member must also take into account that in our telecommunications network we make use of a number of systems—some are already quite old and others reasonably modem—and that we are at a transitional stage, as he well knows. However, this requires of the Post Office that it be capable of supplying all requirements from the standard stock capital. To be able to do this, we decided to request Parliament to vote an additional amount of R4 million for this purpose, and to increase the R23 million to R27 million to enable us to supplement what must be supplemented and in addition, to be able to reckon with increased expenses and other increases which have taken place.

Why, then, is it a new subhead?

It is a new subhead in the Budget before us, but in the main budget of the Post Office, of course, it is not a new subhead. As I said, R24 million had already been budgeted previously. In the previous budget this fell away since there was no increase in the amount requested. We now want to increase the amount and that is why we are bringing this subhead back. It is therefore a new subhead in the sense that it did not appear in last year’s main budget, but if one looks at Post Office budgets in previous years, one will note that it is not a new subhead.

I now come to the connection between subhead 19 and subhead 7. In the case of subhead 7, the main components of expenditure are general stores, viz. stores which are purchased from the standard supply pool, if I may call it that. Specific requirements may develop in a specific region. The spare parts required have then to be purchased from the central pool in order that the service may be provided. This relates to material and spare parts for the maintenance of the telephone network and the carrying out of smaller jobs to the value of not more than R1 000. This is the only connection between the two matters.

The hon. member also asked how we compiled our budget. He wanted to know whether we took increases into account. It would be an unwise financial policy for the Post Office not to take into account a possible escalation of prices. The hon. member knows that in his personal requirements, his personal budget, he does not always find it possible to make exact estimates which correspond to the actual increases which may occur later. The same applies with regard to the effect of devaluation. I have already replied to questions by the hon. member for Constantia in the course of this session and furnished figures relating to the additional funds required as a result of devaluation.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the achievements of the Post Office and I am very grateful for that. It is true that there is in fact a great deal for which we can be grateful and about which we have a right to be proud. However, he complained about the quality of the telephone service. He asked how it was possible that our international telephone service was better than our internal service. I want to explain this to him. I do not know whether this is the full explanation, but our international service has of course been modernized in the sense that we have a modem cable at our disposal. Furthermore, the satellite earth station was inaugurated recently—the hon. member attended the inauguration. The cable and the satellite connections, of course, make it possible to provide a good international service. As far as the interior is concerned, as I have said, we have various systems which have been introduced over the years, systems which were very suitable and sound in their time, systems which still function reasonably well today and, in some cases, still function well and give reasonably satisfactory service.

If one wants to look at the overall picture, one will note that on the Witwatersrand, where widespread floods occurred this year, serious interruptions occurred for shorter periods and to a lesser extent. The reason for this is that the Post Office has introduced a system of preventive maintenance. It is one of the achievements of the Post Office and its technicians that in terms of the policy it is now following, it has already achieved so much success with preventive maintenance at this stage. This is a problem which we shall probably still have to live with for quite some time, but seen in general terms, and taking into account the overall picture, we shall see that substantial progress has been made.

The hon. member referred to the ‘‘desperate need for telephones” in the Bantu residential areas. We must, of course, take into account an increasing demand which will develop in the Bantu residential areas and which, to a lesser extent, already exists. I do not know whether the need is as great as the hon. member stated here. I replied to questions in the course of the present session and in my replies I furnished figures indicating that the demand was not yet so great.

Then, too, there is the fact that one must determine priorities. Both the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Sandton put questions and are very concerned about the telephone situation in their fast-developing areas. If one were to ask them to which area they would give precedence and whether they would prefer the telephone requirements of Bryanston and Sandton or those of the Bantu residential areas to be met first, then I think they would probably have a very difficult task. I think the hon. member for Orange Grove is right. We must try to meet the telephone requirements of all areas. This is a service which we must make available wherever there is a demand. However, the question is how one is to do this and at what rate it can be done with the means at one’s disposal. I think that I have now replied to all questions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 24—

I take the opportunity of invoking Standing Order No. 24 to raise the subject of the proposed development of Sandy Bay before the guide-plan for the Greater Peninsula is completed for two reasons. One reason is that I have an interest in this as I am the member of Parliament for the constituency in which Sandy Bay is located. I also represent the urban community of Sea Point which today is suffering as a result of social problems created by short-sighted planning in the years that went before. I chose today because it is the date on which the Administrator of the Cape said a final decision should be made in respect of the Sandy Bay development.

I am aware that the mere name of Sandy Bay arouses different mental pictures in the minds of different people who have not been to Sandy Bay. There are the township developers who see this in terms of houses and apartments rising up the cliff-side and ending up with hotels, clubs, funiculars and tourists. There are others who see secret sessions of the Cape Divisional Council deciding on what should be done. Others will see it in the form of student protests and the protests of environmentalists. Others will recall the satirical and humorous cartoons of the late David Marais.

I am sure there are others, even in this House, who will associate Sandy Bay, most unfortunately, with nudism. This has undoubtedly aroused a considerable interest on the part of the public; in the Cape and around the country this has been reflected in the Press. Nearly all the national newspapers have dealt with the issue of the development of Sandy Bay. In the Cape The Cape Times, The Argus and Die Burger have all given extensive editorial and news coverage to this development. I cannot believe that this is centred on the issue of nudism. The editor of The Cape Times is a keen surfer, but no nudist. Mr. Wally McKenzie, the editor of The Argus, with his Scots and Orange Free State background, is hardly going to take to nudists cavorting on beaches. I think of that pillar of the Cape Nationalist establishment, Mr. Piet Cillié of Die Burger, who received his “erepenning” for good services to the party from the Minister of Defence last year. I can hardly believe that Mr. Piet Cillié is now going to be accused of having gone soft on nudism.

There are two reasons why this has attracted public attention and why it is important. One has to do with Sandy Bay and the other has to do with the mood of people towards the issue of the protection of their natural heritage. I would like to deal with these two very briefly. Firstly, Sandy Bay is unique. It is unique in that here we have a magnificent, secluded natural amphitheatre with the unspoilt slopes, which form one of the edges of the Table Mountain massif, sweeping down towards an unpolluted coast with, in turn, rock and sand and sea combining to provide a perfect natural habitat for a rich variety of marine life. That is the scene, that is Sandy Bay and its environment as it exists today. It is unique because it is the only part of the Table Mountain massif that reaches all the way down to the sea unencumbered by existing or future commercial development. Add to this that it is located within 20 kilometers of the central business district of South Africa’s oldest city, a city of a population of one million inhabitants, to grow to two million inhabitants within the next 25 years, and one realizes that one has to do with a situation which is not only unique in itself as a piece of natural beauty, but unique in its relationship to the future urban development of the metropolitan Cape Town. Because of this, because of its uniqueness and because of the uniqueness of the opportunity it provides, I believe that everything should be done, particularly by the Ministry of Planning, in terms of environment and in the field of planning and priorities, to see that this important piece of the South African natural heritage is not going to be cut up by bulldozers and, eventually, covered by brick, tarmac and concrete. This is the first reason why it is important.

The second reason is the attitude of the people. There is no doubt that the people of South Africa are changing in their attitude towards the preservation of our natural, historical and cultural heritage. There is a big move in this direction amongst all people in this country and in all parts of society. This is a new mood, and it is reflected in the brochure which was issued by the Department of Planning in 1973. I refer to the foreword by Mr. J. J. Loots, the present Speaker and former Minister of Planning, who said—

This is a recognition that there is a new mood in relation to the protection of our environment. The case of Sandy Bay, because it is associated with the question of environmental control and preservation and with the question of urban planning, has aroused the interest, very largely of younger people, but also of older people who are concerned with the whole question of man in his habitat, whether natural or developed. It has aroused widespread public interest and it has caused organizations of a wide variety to make representations. I shall mention but a few. There is the Hout Bay/Llandudno Ratepayers’ Association, which has made its representations to the Cape Provincial Administration on the basis that any development which affects our natural heritage of mountain and coast should first be preceded by a careful survey of resources available. The South African Institute for Town and Regional Planners has gone to considerable expense and has spent much time in preparing memoranda on this issue. The South African Institute for Architects refused to take part in a competition for the development of this area, because they found that the very concept of the development of that area offended against their approach to urban planning and the preservation of the natural environment. We have the Council for Habitat, a very prestigious organization, link ing together some 50 organizations concerned with the environment, with development and with planning, which has co-ordinated the opposition to this scheme and which has made representations both to the hon. the Minister and to the Administrator of the Cape. I would like to believe that the Government shares the concern of all these organizations for the preservation of places of scenic beauty, and sees this as a question of the natural environment in relation to urban planning. I quote once again from this preface by the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment, when he said in 1973—

This was the philosophy of the Department of Planning as expressed by the hon. gentleman who is now the Speaker of this House. In all these circumstances, I believe that in the case of Sandy Bay and its projected development, the Central Government, being the custodian of national planning, of the protection of our environment and of our natural heritage, has a very special role to play. The objectives of the Department of Planning were set out in the planning and environmental brochure of 1973. Added to its general objectives, it has special powers and responsibilities, which have been given to it by this House. In 1967 we had the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act and last year the hon. the Minister asked for amendments to this Planning Act. He changed the name to the Environment Planning Act, and it is an Act under which he could operate in relation to the development of Sandy Bay, firstly under section 5 of the Act, which allows the State President to declare controlled areas. Once an area has been declared a controlled area there can be no sub-division or further development without the approval of the Minister of Planning and the Environment. Secondly, last year the hon. the Minister asked us to include in the Environment Planning Act a special provision, Section 6A, setting up guide plans. He indicated to us that there had been guide-plans of an informal nature before. He said that committees had been set up since 1971 and then he said—

So, the hon. the Minister came to the House for specific authority to set up statutory guide-plans. We now have a situation in the Cape where the hon. the Minister has set up a guide-plan committee, which produced its first report in November 1975. It is a hopeful report, but it is essentially a collection of data and information and it does not do much in the way of forward planning. I think the hon. the Minister realizes that it is necessary to take this guide-plan, and from the existing position set out in it to develop a plan for the future. On two occasions the hon. the Minister, in reply to questions I put to him during question time, said that there was a guide-plan committee. He stressed the need that work had to continue and he stressed the fact that he would consult with the Administrator of the Cape in the interim period should there be any apparent conflict between his department, which was responsible for preparing the guide-plan, and the views of the administration, which would be responsible for giving authority for the proclamation of a township.

Now circumstances have arisen that the hon. the Minister has said that there must be a guide-plan for the coastal areas of the Cape Peninsula. He said we already had report No. 1 but not a final or detailed report relating to matters like Sandy Bay. I believe that in these circumstances the hon. the Minister must step in to steer the whole argument about Sandy Bay away from nudism—which, I think is irrelevant to the central theme—and to take it away from the party political arena. He must particularly see that there is no mutilation of the area and that no damage is done to this unique and sensitive bit of natural scenery in the Cape Peninsula until the proposed developments can be assessed for desirability and for need against the guide plan for the coastline of the Cape Peninsula.

There are two major considerations why the hon. the Minister should act. The first is for reasons of environmental conservation. The area is unique. It is the terminal of the Table Mountain massif in the south-western area. It is a unique combination of mountain, shore and sea in an unspoilt condition. It has a sensitive ecological balance, and I think the hon. the Minister is aware of this. Reference is made to the ecological balance in the report of the Cape Metropolitan Guide-Plan Committee, wit is an area which is set out in the present guide plan partly as an existing open space on the lower reaches and in the upper areas where the slopes are more than one in three, it is earmarked as a possible open space. Every effort should be made to see that this area is kept in its natural state, to maintain it, if need be as a wilderness area, a place for outdoor living where there can be walking trails, climbs and marine exploration. The Sandy Bay area together with Karbonkelberg and the forward slopes going around to the harbour at Hout Bay provides an area which is large enough to be proclaimed as a wilderness area under the Department of Forestry. It must be steered away from nudism but also away from commercialism, away from apartments, away from plastic living. There must be tourists there, but not the fat cats who jet in and out of South Africa from one five-star hotel to the other, who demand to see our splendid scenery from air-conditioned buses, but tourists consisting of local and foreign citizens who want to escape from the claustrophobic environment of modem urban living and who want to enjoy some of the peace of outdoor living in an environment of nature.

Secondly I believe that every effort must be made to hold up this development in the interest of sound urban and regional planning. I do not want to criticize the development in detail because if you want to have development of that kind it may be adequate. But this is a development for placing on 283 ha, 2 100 housing units—a population in size roughly the size of Fish Hoek. It is going to create problems. There is, first of all, no priority need for it. There are 40 000 erven vacant and available for White ownership in the Cape Peninsula. This is mentioned in the Guide-Plan Report. There is no need to add to this at this stage. Secondly, there are already up to 2 000 coastal erven in the area from Camps Bay through to Oudekraal, Llandudno and Hout Bay. Thirdly, it is away from areas of employment and it is off the main access of transportation and is going to increase both the commuter population and the motor-car numbers and with that it is going to have concomitant effects on the cost of the services in that area. Finally there is the question of priorities. Because of the topography the geological formation and the location and the effect these will have on costs, this will be a very costly development. It will only be used or occupied beneficially by people of the higher-income group. This is a time when we are cutting back expenditure on Coloured housing in the Cape Peninsula. If reports are correct, housing for lower-income group Coloured people has been cut back from R38 million to R15 million, and yet in the same week it may well be that the Government will give the green light to the start of a housing project costing R80 million for higher-income group people in an area in which it is not really required. We ought to get our priorities right. In the field of priorities, in the field of urban planning and in the field of environmental conservation, Sandy Bay has become a test of this Government’s earnestness.

Mr. Speaker, the request to investigate the possibility of proclaiming Sandy Bay a nature and recreation area and protect it, was debated in the provincial council as far back as two years ago—in May 1974, to be exact. Members of the United Party raised the matter, in particular the leader of the United Party, Mr. Cyril Brett, and also Mr. Kent Durr and Miss Annette Reinecke. This matter, therefore, is one which has been under consideration for some time, and I am pleased that the hon. member for Sea Point is also associating himself with this important matter now. Right at the outset I want to say that these pleas have nothing to do with nudists. In the past, nudists have been used as a smokescreen by means of which to evade a difficult decision. There are laws of the land under which action can be taken against nudists. The protection of our coastline against township development and over-commercialization is being advocated by conscientious scientists and also by their associations. The hon. member for Sea Point has already mentioned that the council for the Habitat has made representations, and it represents a number of other associations. The chairman of their Sandy Bay Advisory Committee is Dr. A. V. Hall, a botanist at the University of Cape Town. They strongly recommended that this area be protected. The Association for the Protection of the Environment at Stellenbosch, under the chairmanship of Dr. R. C. Bigalke, also made representations. He is a professor of nature conservation at the University of Stellenbosch. These representations, therefore, do not emanate from eccentric individualists who want to promote their particular eccentricity, but from thinking, balanced scientists and from the public as a whole, too. A number of representations have been made by various organizations, inter alia the Cape Institute of Town Planners. Architects, too, submitted objections, as did the taxpayers of Camps Bay, and there were about 2 000 people who were willing to give money and make donations to purchase this area. Consequently these are not people who run around with a desire to display themselves there, but people with an inherent interest in our country and its flora, and in nature conservation.

To me this looks like a confrontation between the Cape Provincial Administration and the Government on the one hand, and citizens of South Africa who are true nature lovers and who appreciate our country as it originally was, on the other. It is in the interests of posterity that this exceptionally beautiful area be protected. Sandy Bay falls within the Cape fynbos area, one of the six best-known botanical regions in the world. This Cape floral kingdom attracts botanists from throughout the world to come and study plants here. It is estimated that the size of this region has already dwindled by about 60% as a result of the activities of man—ploughed lands, roads and townships development. Where such regions still remain I think it is in the interests of the country that they be preserved. It is known that plants in this region occur in very limited areas. There is the well-known case of the blushing brides, which have almost been exterminated in the Franschhoek Valley by afforestation. The same applies to certain varieties of erica in the Simonstown area which only occur on one hectare. This species has also been threatened by afforestation. I also have in mind the meadow-sweet, which grows high up on the mountains and which is very vulnerable and easily destroyed. If one disturbs this delicate ecology by irresponsible township development before a proper ecological survey has been carried out, I really think that we are not acting in the interests of South Africa. Sandy Bay is a particularly pleasant beach. It is surrounded by the Karbonkelberg and the great amphitheatre. It is unique in that it is as yet undeveloped and is still within easy reach of Cape Town.

Mr. Speaker, the time at my disposal is very limited, and hon. members will therefore understand that I shall not be able to reply to all their questions. I shall reply to the remaining questions with pleasure when the Vote comes under discussion later on. To begin with I want to say at once that it is actually a pity that the debate on Sandy Bay—which has been going on for some time now—has gone as it has.

As an outsider in this matter, but as a person who is nevertheless aware of the correspondence and the people involved here, I sometimes get the impression that we are dealing here with the battle between the nudes and the prudes. There are those who want to see the region developed, and there is the other group which opposes the proposed development. It would appear that each group regards the other as bad. The nudists and those who are opposed to the development of the area, are accused of harbouring evil motives in this regard.

As far as the department is concerned, we welcome the interest of all people who have the conservation of our nature and our cultural heritage at heart. I should like to convey my appreciation and that of my department to those people who have played a part in this matter in an honest way. We are grateful for people who are honest in their dealings.

I believe that we shall also have to take into account the fact that if our intentions are sincere, we should not ascribe different intentions to other people whose opinions differ from ours. Unfortunately I have noticed recently—I refer to this merely in passing—that such things have in fact occurred. That is why I am putting it clearly—and I am speaking on behalf of my department, too—that I dissociate myself in the strongest possible terms from any suggestion or insinuation made by individuals in respect of the Administrator of the Cape and members of his Executive Committee, insinuations which amount to their having acted negligently, to their having ridden roughshod over the wishes of people and taken no notice of the representations addressed to them. I have been into the matter thoroughly, and I want to state clearly that the Administrator and the Executive Committee, and the Divisional Council, too, gave their due attention to this matter and that they acted with the greatest responsibility. However, people may differ from the conclusion which they reached. Allegations to the effect that certain people or bodies had allegedly been favoured, is something my department dissociates itself from entirely.

I find it a pity that the hon. member who introduced the motion advanced an argument which, in my opinion, was worthy neither of him nor of the rest of his speech. He argued that this was a case of “providing for the rich at the expense of the poor”. That is not true. Nor, it is certain, did the Administrator and his Executive Committee view the matter in that light when they considered it.

Furthermore, I state on behalf of the Council for the Habitat, a body which is subsidized by this Government, that the members of that Council, too, dissociate themselves from the insinuations made and the kind of action taken recently. I believe that all members of this House will agree with me—and I do not say this merely in order to sound pious—that they cannot associate themselves with the methods adopted by certain opponents of the development of Sandy Bay, about which there have been reports in Die Burger. I investigated the accuracy of those reports, and I am satisfied that they are correct. According to these reports, after certain concessions had been made by the Administration, a meeting nevertheless took place, attended about 1 000 naked people at which, inter alia, a decision was taken to boycott the owners of the land—who happen to be a commercial undertaking. I hope I have the approval of everyone in this House to say that methods of that kind—whoever adopts them—are unacceptable. A person who uses such arguments to state his case, can only come off second best. [Interjections.]

Mention has been made here of affiliated bodies. I want to say that the Council for the Habitat does good work, and I hope they will continue to do so. I also want to point out to hon. members that you can assist the Council for the Habitat—particularly in future, if such a case should occur again—by joining it or becoming affiliated as members of the Council for the Habitat. I feel it to be my duty to point out that allegations such as those made recently in a newspaper—that the Council for the Habitat made its representations with the full support of all its affiliated bodies—were untrue and misleading. In the execution of my duties it was necessary for me to check whether this report was correct or not. I do not want to mention the newspaper in question by name, because I believe that the people who wrote that meant it sincerely. However, I regard it as my duty to point out that there were misleading reports. It was mentioned that the Vrouelandbou-unie was an affiliated member of the Council of the Habitat, and associated itself with the appeals made. The Vrouelandbou-unie gave me the right to say here that it dissociated itself entirely from the representations. Quite apart from the merits of the case, the matter has nothing to do with the Vrouelandbou-unie. The mouthpiece of the South African Agricultural Union said the same thing. The Voortrekker movement, which was also mentioned by the newspaper, stated that it dissociated itself entirely from the representations. The Automobile Association not only dissociated itself from the representations, but added: “We have said to them in writing that we do not want to be associated with this type of thing.”

†Sir, is all this relevant? It was mentioned by the hon. member for Sea Point. When he introduced this motion, he said that the Habitat Council was being supported by the affiliated organizations. I say that all the organizations that were mentioned, dissociated themselves from the representations lodged by the Council of the Habitat. I now want to get back to the merits of the case.

*I just want to say this: As far as this department is concerned, everything will be done to allow only proper development there, development which will afford the protection requested as far as possible. Everything will be done to preserve the amphitheatre, the scenery and other things worthy of preservation there as far as possible, and even, where possible, to improve them. Consequently, certain decisions have already been taken and there is a continual process of consultation, between my department and the Administration as well, to ensure that no disfigurement of the environment occurs. However, disfigurement of the environment is taking place at the moment. I have no wish to be crude about it, but I do want to ask this: Do you regard the provision of certain facilities as important or not? We must at least provide certain facilities.

Would you believe me, Sir, if I were to say—and I say it on acceptable authority—that the vegetation there is being destroyed and that the lack of public facilities is giving rise to a situation there which no decent person could feel happy about?

†I do not say this to belittle the hon. member who moved this motion. I agree with so much of what he said, but if civilized people feel that they even have to provide facilities for their dogs in a certain constituency, I think we must at least provide facilities for people at Sandy Bay too. I can assure the hon. member that these things can also get out of hand, as it did in fact happen at Sandy Bay. There are certain conditions there with which no decent civilized person can ever associate himself.

*We shall continue to negotiate with the Administration to the best of our ability, and to ensure that the things which the hon. member asks for, things with which I agree, will be preserved. I want to assure the hon. House that this department—although it has no statutory powers to do so, and although at this stage, when the guide plan has not yet been completed, it does not have the statutory power to stop certain things happening there either will as far as possible see to it that this development is carried out as well as possible to the satisfaction of all people of South Africa, and bearing in mind the preservation of our fine heritage. I give that assurance to hon. members and to the hon. member who introduced this motion. I hope, too, that the heat will go out of this argument, and that we shall be able to go ahead in a sober way to ensure that what is to be allowed there will be of such a nature that everyone will derive satisfaction from it.