I move—

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to supplement the amounts which were made available for the administration of the country by way of the Appropriation Act of 1963. Particulars of the amounts which are required are set out in the Additional Estimates which were tabled on 24 February.

Hon. members will notice that an additional sum of R44,709,749 is being asked for, of which R40,217,039 and R4,492,710 are on Revenue Account and Loan Account respectively. The increase over the amount originally voted comes to 3.9 per cent, and I want to mention here that although this increase is higher than the average increase of 2.7 per cent over the past five financial years, it is nevertheless considerably less than the average increase of 10 per cent over the four financial years up to and including 1949-50.

Furthermore, I would point out that more than half (R22,204,780) of the total amount required for services on Revenue Account, are being asked for under four Votes, namely Defence (R10,023,764), Transport (R6,173,000), Post Office (R3,111,000), and Police (R2,897,016). As far as the Loan Account is concerned it will be noted that the biggest slice (R2,000,000) is going to the Transvaal Provincial Administration to meet the capital needs of that province.

As far as Defence is concerned, the Defence Equipment Account is being credited with a sum of R15,000,000 of which R5,000,000 will be defrayed from savings on the Defence Vote whilst R10,000,000 has to be specially voted. I know that the large sums which are being voted for Defence do create the possibility of misappropriation, but I want to give the assurance that we realize this possible danger, and we are taking the necessary steps, with the co-operation of the Department of Defence, to obviate this possible danger.

A sum of R4,500,000 is being asked for on the Transport Vote to cover the loss on the operating costs of the Railways in respect of Bantu passenger services from 1957-8 to 1963-4. If these two amounts which are of an exceptional nature are deducted from the amount to be voted, the increase comes to only 2.6 per cent.

I am convinced that the amount which the House is being asked to vote is in the national interest and that it cannot be reduced without curtailing essential services. I do not propose at this stage to go into details. My colleagues, as is customary, will furnish full details of the amounts to be voted when we come to the Votes which fall under their portfolios.

I notice the hon. the Minister has seen to it that his colleagues are present so that they will be able to give the Committee, when we go into Committee, details of the increased expenditure under their Votes. I hope his colleagues have heard what he said. There have been occasions where there was a woeful absence of Ministers to give the House the necessary information and the task devolved upon the unfortunate Minister of Finance who, quite naturally, was not always in a position to answer some of the probing questions which it is the duty of this side of the House to ask on occasions like this.

The hon. the Minister says that while these Estimates are slightly larger than usual they still are not very big. I am sorry, I cannot agree with him, Sir. I think the size of the Estimates is the first thing that strikes one when you look at the Estimates. It is all very well to say that they are only 1.2 per cent bigger than they were last year and that they are 2½ per cent less than the average Estimates for the period between 1940 and 1950. I think that is hardly a relevant question to raise at the present stage. The fact remains that the hon. the Minister finds it necessary to ask for an extra R16,000,000 more than last year. He asked for R24,000,000 last year and he is now asking for R40,000,000. That in itself is a matter which should concern members on both sides of this House and prompt them to ask for the fullest possible reasons for these increases. The hon. the Minister said that for the most part the increases were confined to four Votes. But that is not quite so. There are two very substantial increases in two Votes to which he did not refer and there are noteworthy increases in a number of other Votes. One is tempted to wonder whether the hon. the Minister has not, as a matter of fact, been quite willing to see his Additional Estimates considerably larger than usual this year in an attempt to do something to minimize the size of the surplus which he is going to have to announce in this House in a very short time.

Order! The hon. member cannot go into that.

I have finished with that point, Sir.

The other point which strikes one is this, that of the R40,000,000 which the Minister is asking for about R5,000,000 refer to two Votes. The House is being asked to vote this R5,000,000 to make good the loss on two Government ventures: R4,500,000 has been lost as a result of Government policy in regard to railway services to Bantu townships and some R500,000 has been lost in respect of Bantu radio services. So that nearly 10 per cent of the money we are voting to-day is to cover up gross mistakes made by the Government in carrying out their policy. However, we shall have more to say about that when we come to the details of the various Votes. I agree with the hon. the Minister on one point and that is that there is no point in going into details at this stage. As far as we are concerned we are quite willing to go into Committee.

I was very pleased to hear the hon. the Minister mention in his introductory remarks that steps have been and are still being taken in conjunction with the Department of Defence in regard to keeping a general watchful brief over Defence expenditure which is the biggest single item in the Additional Estimates now before us. We on this side of the House have urged that from time to time; we have time and again pointed out the difficulty this House had in attempting to keep any sort of control over expenditure we have to approve, particularly where it is against the interests of the nation to disclose the reason for the expenditure or the strategic value of the venture calling for that expenditure. Therefore it is all the more necessary that the control which the hon. the Minister of Finance himself has mentioned should be there. The co-operation between his Department and the Department of Defence is of substantially greater importance in this Vote than in any other case. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that it pinpoints the value of the requests we have made so often from this side of the House for all possible information which can safely be placed before the House bearing in mind the security aspect, should be placed before the House when we are asked to vote these large amounts.

Order! The hon. member must confine his remarks to the reasons for the increase.

This scrutiny is wrapped up in the reasons for the increase, Sir, reasons which we know full well…

Order!

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

On Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister”, R26,700,

Can the hon. the Prime Minister give us the reason for the increase of R14,200 under D?

This relates to the investigation into South West Africa affairs. It is estimated that the printing costs of the report of the Commission of Inquiry will be R8,500, and there was also an underestimate of R5,700 in connection with stationery. These two amounts come to a total of R14,200.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 9.—“Public Works". R2,122,000.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us what is behind this very substantial increase in J, rent, rates, etc.?

The first is rent R290,000. This is as a result of continual demands from various departments for more accommodation and increases in the rentals we have to pay. There has also been an increase in the wages paid to the cleaners of those buildings. We also have to pay R3,000 in connection with Coloured education in the Transvaal. Then there is an amount of R6,000 which we have to pay in the form of tax.

What tax?

Municipal rates and taxes.

To whom?

I presume to the municipalities. Municipal services, R210,000; electricity and gas, R245,000. That makes a total of R751,000.

Special provision is made for salaries under A. How can the Minister talk about wages paid under J?

J deals with payments made to cleaning personnel.

Not cleaning the occupants?

No, not cleaning the occupants. We have cleaners in the Houses of Parliament too to clean the building and not the temporary occupants of the Houses of Parliament.

Will the hon. the Minister be so kind as to explain the amount paid to municipalities in the form of taxes? We were under the impression that the Government did not pay municipal taxes.

In that case the hon. member has been under the wrong impression. I do not know where—I can tell him that later—but we pay an amount of R.6,000 per annum in the shape of property tax.

Have additional staff to these new buildings cost another R290,000 per annum?

I am afraid I have not got that figure.

It is unthinkable, Sir, that the municipal tax on Government property can only amount to R6,000. Which municipalities are so privileged as to collect taxes from the Government whereas all the municipalities I know of cannot demand payment of taxes from the Government whatsoever?

When we receive rent for premises we have to pay taxes on it.

The hon. the Minister has told us that cleaners’ wages fell under this particular item. Can the hon. Minister tell me whether cleaners were also employed in the Louis Botha Hotel which was purchased for conversion into office and parking space for members’ motor-cars? If so, for how long and how long will it still continue?

The hon. member will have to raise that under the general Budget because that does not form part of the increase.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 10.—“Foreign Affairs”, R10,000,

This is a new item under the Minister’s Department. The hon. the Minister is asking for R10,000—recoverable deposits in connection with the hire of office accommodation abroad. Could the hon. the Minister tell us in regard to what accommodation abroad this amount is required for? As this is a new item could the hon. the Minister also tell us what the policy is of his Department in regard to the hiring of premises? Is the policy to purchase permanent establishments where no rent will be paid or is the policy rather to hire premises on a temporary basis?

The actual expenditure in connection with this particular item amounts to R20,000. It represents recoverable deposits on rental charges in respect of our Embassy in Rome and our Consulate-General in Tokyo. In both those cases we took occupation of new buildings. We are hiring the buildings and, in contrast with previous practice, we are obliged to pay deposits which will be refunded to us when the period of the lease expires. The original amount was actually R20,000 but since there is an anticipated saving of R10,000, the Committee is being asked to vote R10,000.

What is the Department’s policy?

I can only say in connection with the hon. member’s question that it varies from one capital to another. In certain cases we do own the buildings and in other cases it is better for us to hire premises.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the policy is to purchase premises rather than to hire premises?

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 13.—“Provincial Administrations”,—R1,049,317,

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the reference to “subsequent revision of salary scales” applies only to teachers or to other categories of employees as well?

This figure includes a sum of R134,692,62 which is still payable to the local Provincial Council in respect of the financial year 1962-3. It was only confirmed in the present financial year by the auditors that this amount was owing in respect of subsidies. For the rest the increase is attributable mainly to the revision of salaries with effect from 1 January 1963 which is responsible for an increase of R1,156,647 in respect of the Cape, Natal and the Orange Free State. In the case of the Transvaal there is a net reduction of R174,060 as a result of the taking over of Coloured education with effect from 1 January 1964.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 15.—“South African Mint”, R1,065,500,

Can the hon. the Minister explain the reasons for the increase under A?I take it there has been a considerable increase in staff. We shall also be pleased to know the reasons for the substantial increase under F—“Stores, Materials, Plant and Equipment”.

The original estimate under A was R624,200 and the amount has now been increased to R920,000. This considerable increase over the original estimate is attributable mainly to the employment of additional staff and to the purchase of additional supplies of material and equipment to meet the increased ammunition requirements of the Department of Defence.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 16.—“Inland Revenue”, R564,

Can the hon. the Minister explain the reason for the refund in the case of D. Hamilton Investments (Pty.) Ltd.—R532?

This is one of the usual cases we have had over the years where the financial year of the employment company just falls outside the period which is returnable in terms of the Act. The result is that although it has paid out all its available profits, it yet falls within, I am tempted to say, the claws of the Act. In those circumstances it has been usual to give dispensation. They have complied with the requirements of the Act; they have paid out; there is in fact no undistributed profits. It is only because of the date on which their financial year ends that makes it difficult to reconcile it with the actual wording of the Act.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 17.—“Customs and Excise”, R1,214,570,

Can the Minister explain the very substantial increase under sub-head G?

This is an increase of R690,150. This expenditure is authorized by the above-quoted items which provide for a refund to the South African Railways and the Naval Forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the duty included in the price of goods purchased ex-duty paid stocks by these Administrations. The provision authorizes payment of a determined amount to the Administrations concerned in lieu of a refund. Instead of having a series of refunds there is an agreement to pay a determined amount. At the request of the South African Railways Administration the basis on which this payment is made was reviewed. A formula has now been agreed upon whereby the unknown value of purchases by the Administration from duty-paid stocks is determined by deducting from the total value of purchases of imported goods by the Administration the known values of direct importations plus clearances ex bonded warehouses after making the necessary adjustments for the difference between f.o.b. and delivered values. It has been decided to adjust the payment to the Administration as from the financial year 1962-3 as follows: For the first year 1962-3 the old basis was R121,400; under the new formula it is R557,776, accounting for a difference of R436,000-odd. For the year 1963-4, on the old basis, the amount was R250,000 and under the new formula it is R557,776—the same as last year. The additional amount due is R307,000. The total amount required is therefore R744,150. There are savings under other sub-heads to an amount of R54,000. So the net amount we are now asking is R690,150.

I gather that the Railways were not satisfied with the apportionment of charges on duty pre-paid stocks and that they have asked Treasury for a refund. So we are now discussing a reassessment, a new scheme, under which the Railways are refunded the amount of duty they have paid. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out it amounts to a good many hundred thousand rand. The point I want to make is this: Why should the Railways get any refund at all? They certainly do not give the public any refund. The Railways charge full duty-paid prices for all the liquor that they sell and I am not quite sure why, whilst they are apparently not paying duty themselves, they should be refunded duty by the Treasury? Am I quite wrong in the point I am making? Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I see the position judging from his explanation.

It is convention, as I understand it, Sir, to set out the beneficiaries when there are refunds of this nature. Such particulars are given in the previous Vote. Can the Minister tell us why the same practice is not followed in regard to refunds or remissions of grace or favour in respect of excise duty? Apparently there are three beneficiaries here of which the Railways are the greatest. There are two others. Will the Minister explain why that information cannot be set out in the Estimates in the same way as is followed conventionally in the previous Vote?

The hon. member for Constantia is quite correct. The Railways are entitled to a rebate on their imports. That is an arrangement of very long standing and it is not entirely one-sided. There are many contra-accounts. There has never been an attempt to find out an accurate accounting system between the Railways and the Administration.

It is just a matter of not proper accounts?

I cannot give the hon. member the particulars but it is a matter into which the hon. Minister of Transport and I went some years ago. They presented a very imposing list of items which we had to pay them. I was able to produce an even more imposing list of items which they had to pay us. In the end we agreed to call it a day.

Who scored?

I think we called it an honourable draw. These are one of the things they are entitled to. They have clearly not received the full amount in the past. It was on a very unscientific basis. It is impossible to keep an accurate and detailed account of every item which they have bought over the years. So the two Departments came together and decided upon the formula which I have given hon. members. I can only say that we thought this was a fair agreement. I have been asked why we do not give the full basis. The position is not as it is in ordinary cases where there is a remission as of grace—although it is called a remission as of grace or favour. I think that is one of the reasons why we have not given the particulars but I am prepared to give them now to the hon. member. As far as the other beneficiaries are concerned, apparently, although they are entitled to it they have been paid what was due to them in the past. There is no extra amount for that. But in the case of the Railways they have been under-paid in the past. We are now making up that under-payment. This is the way it has appeared in the Estimates for many years. Nothing extra is required in the case or the other beneficiaries. This is only an act of grace in this sense that it was not paid during the year in which it was due.

It was a strange thing to see the hon. Minister of Transport quite embarrassed by the facts revealed by the hon. Minister of Finance. We should have clarity on one point from the hon. Minister of Finance: Does this mean that the public are paying prices for goods supplied by the Railways in which prices taxes are included which are not paid to the Treasury? I think, for example, of the Railway catering department. Are they selling refreshments and other things subject to excise duties to the public, which are not paid to the Treasury, although the public have to pay those charges to the Railways? The amounts to undisclosed taxation? The hon. Minister will agree that that is a most unhealthy situation and that it is contrary to all principles of public finance. We should have some reassurance on this point.

I am afraid that if we were to do what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) suggests, we would have the whole of private enterprise on our heads. The Railways are forced to sell from time to time these articles. If they sell them less the duties chargeable, naturally they will under-cut other people selling the same articles …

You have missed the point.

If the hon. Minister of Transport were to sell these articles less duty, everybody would flock to the Railways and buy whatever they can supply.

The hon. member must be a mind-reader and a very bad mind-reader at that when he says that I was embarrassed. As a matter of fact it is rather late in the day for the hon. member to raise this matter. It has been in operation since Union. It is merely a question of the method of payment. Since Union the Railways have never paid duties on imported goods, and in return for that we render a large number of free and cheap services to the Central Government. We transport mail at a loss, for instance.

Have you been losing money all these years?

We have been losing money but have recouped ourselves by not paying duties. When we compiled a list of the benefits accruing to both the Administration and the Treasury, we found that the two just about balanced. But this is no new thing.

I should like to raise a matter under E. I should like to have some information on this new item, a contribution towards costs of Customs Co-operation Council.

The Customs Co-operation Council is an institution which has been established for some time at Brussels. As a result of an investigation into the advisability of adopting the International Brussels Tariff Nomenclature, as recommended by the Viljoen Commission, it has been decided to adopt the Brussels Nomenclature. A Customs and Excise Bill incorporating the Customs tariffs in this form has already been published for general information and will be introduced in the course of this Session. In order to obtain the full benefit of the Brussels Nomenclature, it has been considered advisable to join the Customs Co-operation Council. The amount of R5,000 appearing here represents the contribution by the Republic towards the cost of administration of the council which is the body administering the Brussels Nomenclature Convention.

Would the hon. the Minister of Finance please explain the additional amount of R519,420 as payments to the Protectorates and neighbouring territories under Customs agreement? Are there under-payments or adjustments? I believe there have been overpayments on this particular account.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

The increase is due to an increase in Customs revenue. We pay them a certain percentage of the Customs revenue and if the revenue increases, the contribution to them also increases. These payments are made as a result of the Customs Agreement of 1910 between the Republic and the High Commission Territories. The agreement provides for the payment to the territories of a reasonable proportion of the duties collected in the Republic on goods in transit to the territories and vice versa, and payment of the duties—except excise duties, that is on spirits, beer, fortified wine and sparkling wine manufactured in the Republic, which were excluded because the territories wanted to I exercise control—will not depend upon covering documents, but will be made on the basis of paragraph (12) of the Schedule to the South Africa Act of 1909. On this basis these payments represent a fixed percentage of collections in the Republic and the territories of Customs and excise duties, with the above-mentioned exceptions. The percentage is 1.31097 per cent, divided as follows: Basutoland. 0.88575 per cent; Swaziland, 0.149 per cent, and Bechuanaland, 0.27622 per cent. Prior to the financial year 1956-7, these payments were made as a drawback from revenue, as required by the South Africa Act, but as a result of discussions in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, it was decided to make provision therefor in the Estimates of Expenditure and to vote them from time to time. The following additional amounts are due to the territories—I do not know whether the hon. member wants a split-up of the totals—Basutoland, R217,000-odd; Swaziland, R29,000-odd, and Bechuanaland, R50,000-odd, and adjustments amount to R17,000, giving the total as mentioned.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 19.—“Transport”, R6,173,000,

I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will refresh our memories in connection with the item, “Purchase of Motor Vehicles” under G, R400,000. We are being asked here to vote an exceptionally large amount and there also is a considerable increase over the original estimate. We shall be glad to have some indication of the reasons for this.

Then under Item J a grant-in-aid is being made to the S.A. Tourist Corporation. I should like to know whether this increase is over and above the amount which is paid to the Tourist Corporation by the S.A. Railways. The additional amount to be voted is R60,000. Is that over and above the amount of R298,000 which the Tourist Corporation receives from the S.A. Railway Administration? What is the total amount which the Tourist Corporation receives from the Minister’s Department and from the Railways?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to know why a further increase is necessary in view of the fact that the Tourist Corporation is already receiving funds from two sources under the administration of the Minister.

Then I shall be very glad if the Minister will give us some information with regard to Item L, “Loss on Operation of Railway Bantu Passenger Services to and from Bantu Townships”. The loss has risen from an estimated R3,500,000 to no less than R8,000,000. This must be a record increase under any Vote and we should like to know what the reasons are. We should also like to know at which Bantu townships the highest losses were incurred. Where are the losses being incurred which have to be made good by the Minister; where are the highest losses being incurred? What is the attitude of the hon. the Minister in respect of this increase?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

Yes, Sir, I should like to know what the reasons are for this increase and what the Minister’s attitude is in this connection. Which Department is at fault here? Is it the Department of the Minister of Transport or the Department of the Minister of Railways? We want to know what the attitude of the Minister of Transport is in respect of the fact that he is blindly committed to pay such enormous increases, a state of affairs which makes accurate budgeting impossible.

I shall have to forgive the hon. member because he has just become the main Opposition speaker in connection with Transport. But for that fact he would have known how these estimates are made and he would also have known that an agreement was entered into between the Railways and the Treasury in connection with the payment of losses. The agreement provides that the accounts shall be drawn up once every five years. During the intervening years the amount which the Treasury has to pay to the Railways is simply estimated; at the end of the five years the accounts are closed and then the actual amount for which the Treasury is responsible is determined. The Railway Administration is completely covered, of course. The Railway Administration is responsible for the estimates which are made from year to year. The Treasury is then informed every year that it is estimated that the losses in the forthcoming year will be so much; the Treasury then pays over that amount, but the accounts are closed once every five years. As far as the increase of R4,500,000 is concerned, that is the amount by which the losses were under-estimated during the past five years. The actual loss from 1957-8 to 1961-2 was R8,240,696. The period of five years came to an end on 31 March 1961. The accounts were closed as at that date. They were, of course, audited and the account was then sent to the Treasury. For 1962-3 the loss was R4.685.874 and the estimated loss for 1963-4 is R6,533,265. The total for this period therefore is R19,459,835.

As against these actual losses the Treasury made the following advances: For 1959-60—R4,000,000, 1960-1—R2,000,000, 1961-2—R2,000,000, 1962-3—R3,500,000, and 1963-4—R3,500,000. The total amount is R15,000,000, which leaves a balance of R4,459,835. The estimated loss for the first period of five years was R7,890,539, and there was consequently an overpayment of R109,461 which therefore has to be deducted. That brings the amount to R4,569,296. But this amount is not the final figure as at 31 March 1964, because the accounts for 1962-3 still have to be audited and the loss for 1963-4 is an estimated loss. The Railway Administration has asked therefore that a further advance of R4,500,000 be made to cover the losses up to 31 March 1964.

And will that appear in this year’s estimates?

Yes. Is the hon. member not pleased?

That is where your surplus comes from.

I also asked the hon. the Minister to explain on which services losses are being incurred.

The services are grouped together. There are large numbers of services; the accounts for each service are separate, and it is not for the Minister of Transport to give those details but for the Minister of Railways. If the hon. member asks the Minister of Railways under his Vote, that Minister will certainly give him the information.

Then the hon. member wants to know whether this amount for the Tourist Corporation is over and above the amount which the Railways pay to the Tourist Corporation. The reply is “yes”. I have already explained on a previous occasion that in the future the contribution of the Railway Administration will be limited to R300,000 per annum, but the contribution of the Treasury is unlimited and changes from year to year. This amount is over and above the sum which the Tourist Corporation receives from the Railways.

As far as G is concerned, the additional amount which is required for the purchase of motor vehicles, I can only say that these are additional vehicles which are required by various Departments such as Water Affairs, which needs 28 additional vehicles, Coloured Affairs 56 new vehicles, Forestry three new vehicles. Bantu Administration 98 vehicles, Information 11 vehicles, State Advances five vehicles, and then there are 40,000 vehicles required by the Department itself. As the hon. member knows, we are only the supply department.

The hon. Minister of Transport in his reply indicated that for the first five years an additional R8,600,000 was required. I find it difficult to reconcile that with the Auditor-General’s Report for the last year 1962-3 in which he indicates that the agreement which the hon. Minister refers to was concluded in March last year. He then goes on to say that according to the agreement the first five-year period in respect of all lines is reckoned from 1 April 1957 to 31 March 1962, and that the total amount lost in respect of the services concerned together with accrued interest were determined by the Administration at R7,890,000. This leads one to believe that the first five-year period has been paid for, because the amounts enumerated by the hon. Minister amounted to R8,000,000 and the Auditor-General goes on to say—

In other words, the second five-year period, as I read the report, commenced with an amount of something over R109,000 in the hands of the Administration. Yet the hon. Minister tells us that he needed R8,600,000 for the first five years, and he then enumerated what was required for the next two years 1962-3 and 1963-4. I find it difficult to reconcile the explanation with the report.

I explained this fully in Afrikaans. An amount of R109,461 was over-advanced, as I explained, namely, R8,000,000 less R7,890,539. In view of the fact that the final expenditure was R8,240,696 and not R7,890,539, the amount of R109,461 was refunded in error and is now due to the Administration. The total amount due is R4,569,296. But that is not the final figure as at 31 March 1964, as explained.

Is the loss for this second five-year period likely to be double of what it was for the first five years?

It is impossible to say what the loss is going to be. It all depends on the circumstances which may change.

May I also ask the hon. Minister a question in regard to L, “Loss on operation of Railway Bantu passengers services to and from Bantu townships”. What I want to ask the hon. Minister is whether the R4,500,000 includes any losses incurred as a result of Bantu railway lines being completed but not yet brought into operation or only partly brought into operation. Are these operational losses, or do they include losses piled up due to the fact that lines have been completed and have been awaiting operation, or have been only very scantily operated?

That question of course should be put to the Minister of Railways, but I may say that everything is taken into consideration, such as interest on capital, depreciation, and operating losses on all these lines. That is settled against the revenue, and the difference between the revenue and the expenditure must be refunded by February.

Does the hon. Minister’s reply in fact mean that certain of this expenditure is loss incurred on lines which had been completed but which have not yet been put in operation?

Naturally, when a line has been completed, interest must be paid on such a line, and that must be taken as a loss if the line is not yet in operation.

May I put a question in connection with sub-head M, “Construction and Maintenance of National Roads in the Transkei”? This is a new sub-head and the amount is R197,000. Will the Minister be good enough to give us a little more information in connection with this head? Can he also give us an indication perhaps as to what the position is going to be in the future? Will the hon. the Minister outline the policy background against which this amount is being paid?

I still want to ask the hon. the Minister which specific portion of this R4,500,000 represents a loss incurred on Bantu railway lines which have been completed but which are not yet in use?

The hon. member can raise that under a different Vote. He is not in order in doing so here.

At the request of the Department of Bantu Administration, the Cabinet decided that the following provincial roads, parts of which fall within the Transkeian area, be declared as national roads: Queenstown, Umtata, Port St. Johns to Kokstad or Port Edward—actually it was finally decided that it should be to Port Edward and not to Kokstad, and the road from Kokstad to Matatiele, Maclear, Elliot, Indwe and Dordrecht. The Cabinet further decided that these roads should be declared before the end of November 1963, and that the costs in connection with the maintenance and construction must be met out of the Revenue Vote of my Department and not defrayed from the National Roads Fund. These roads have been duly declared and in so far as the roads outside the Transkeian area are concerned, finality is being held in abeyance pending the final alignment of the roads. Construction and maintenance of the roads in question will be undertaken by the Cape Provincial Administration and the relevant expenditure recovered from this Department. The provision of R197,000 during the current financial year is in respect of maintenance and construction of the roads within the Transkeian area, which have been declared as indicated by me. The estimates for 1964-5 as furnished by the Cape Provincial Administration is R580,000.

In regard to this item, I think the usual procedure is for the money to be voted by Parliament to each of the provinces and the provinces undertaking the work.

Not in the case of national roads.

Well, national road funds are voted by the provincial councils also. They go as a globular sum before the provincial councils. They cannot disturb the Vote, but the provincial council concerned actually votes the amount. The construction is done by the Provincial Roads Department, but the money is voted, it appears in their estimates as a globular sum, although they cannot disturb it—they cannot reduce it or increase it, but it is there and they vote it. In this particular case, this amount for some reason or other is standing alone. Is the principle behind it then that in regard to expenditure from national road funds on roads proclaimed within the Transkei, that money will be shown separately on a separate Vote, coming annually before us, and that it will not appear on any other estimates of the Cape Provincial Administration, but that it will appear separately on a Vote before us? Is that the principle that is being established here?

The provinces receive financial assistance from the road fund for the building of national roads and special roads.

That is right.

Ordinary roads they have to vote out of revenue, that is to say the building and construction of ordinary roads. They submit requests to the National Transport Commission, and the National Transport Commission must agree to specific roads and national roads, and then they pay the money out of national road funds. In this particular case, these roads did not have a very high priority. Consequently it was unfair to charge the construction costs to and the maintenance costs to the National Road Fund. The Government decided for other reasons of policy that those Transkei roads should be proclaimed national roads, and the Government further decided that the cost of maintenance and construction should be met out of revenue.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the National Transport Commission was consulted in regard to these particular roads in the Transkei. I think that is an important point to determine, because the Minister says the Cabinet, the Government, decided on them for other reasons of policy. Is there a clash of interests here between the National Transport Commission and the Government? We are now embarking upon a dangerous principle because we are reaching the stage where the Minister of Transport is taking it upon himself in respect of certain areas prescribed by the Government for the purposes of residence by the Bantu peoples, to follow a certain roads policy apart from the policy normally followed by the National Transport Commission in its allocation of road funds. I think we must get a decision from the Minister in regard to this. It is a very far-reaching principle. We must remember that if the Government’s policy is extended also to other areas in the country, this will not in future be a mere R197,000, and we do not know where this kind of thing will end. We already have a formula for our roads, we know how the money is found and how the procedure works. But what is being established here is an entirely new principle where the Government declares the road to be a national road, quite apart from the commission. I hope the Minister will clarify the position, because I think it is necessary for us to know whether the National Transport Commission has had anything to do with the declaration of these roads for which we are now asked to vote the money.

I understood the Minister to say that the amount of R197,000 will be refundable to the Provincial Administration in regard to the construction of these roads. If I understood him correctly, Parliament is now being asked to vote a certain amount of money for the construction of a road, not at the instance of the National Transport Commission or of the Transkei or of the Cape Province, but at the instance of the Cabinet, and the money is being voted not as a contribution to any body but actually for construction and maintenance. Now where is the responsibility for the expenditure of this money going to lie? Will it lie with the Transkei or with the Minister, or with the Administration, and who will be answerable to this House in regard to the use of this money? I hope the Minister will give that aspect of the matter his consideration when he replies.

I should like to ask the Minister quite frankly what the reasons were which actuated this departure from all existing precedents and methods of financing of roads? I understand now from the Minister that this money is being voted from revenue and in years to come it will also be voted from revenue. These roads have not been approved by the National Transport Commission. They have not activated this project; it has come from the Cabinet, and this is merely a method of financing it until such time as the money finds itself going back to the Cape Provincial Administration, as in the case of a road approved by the Commission. But that is not the case here. I understood the Minister to say that this will be the system in future. Is the priority of these roads then to be determined by the Cabinet from time to time? Because if so, what are the considerations which weigh with them? How are we going to grapple with a matter which comes before us in this form, when we do not know what the motivation is, and why these particular roads should be chosen to be financed in this particular manner? Both the province and the National Transport Commission are apparently being left out of it. I think we are entitled to more information in regard to the manner of choosing roads to be built almost in this autocratic manner.

In regard to the building of roads, the National Transport Commission must take instructions from the Minister of Transport. The Commission has never been an autonomous body in regard to spending the money in the Road Fund, or in regard to the declaration of either national roads or special roads. That is all subject to my consent. I can give them instructions if I wish to.

To treat roads as a priority?

Certainly, if I wish to.

Why did you do it in this regard?

If the hon. member would just exercise patience he would get all the information. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I want to make it clear that the National Transport Commission is subject to my instructions. In regard to the building of roads, any recommendation they make must be approved of by me, and their budget is subject to my approval. The amount of money allocated to the different provinces for the building of roads is also subject to my approval. I can instruct the Commission to construct any road out of the Road Fund, either as a national road or a special road. That is the position.

In regard to these particular roads, they are important roads. That they should be national roads is in the interest of the Whites living on both sides of the Transkei, because they run from White areas through the Transkei to other White areas, such as Port Edward. It is in the interests both of the Transkei and of the surrounding White areas that these roads should be declared to be national roads and that the Government should be responsible for their construction and maintenance, and not the Transkei Authorities. Now is that clear? The amount of money available in the National Road Fund has been fully allocated for the next few years. The budget is drawn up on a long-term basis. The amount of money which becomes available to the Road Fund has been fully allocated. Although these roads are regarded as important roads, they do not have a very high priority. When the matter was placed before the Cabinet, I told the Government that the National Road Fund could not afford to spend any money on the construction and maintenance of these roads because their funds had been fully allocated. In addition to that, in the ordinary course of events it would have taken some years before these roads could be declared to be national roads. The Cabinet decided, in the interests of the country, that they must now be declared to be national roads.

Why?

Because it is in the interests of the country. They link up the White areas on both sides of the Transkei. The Government decided that these were important roads and the National Road Fund could not afford to spend the money for the construction and maintenance, and therefore the Government decided that it must be paid out of revenue. This amount is paid over to the provincial councils, who act as the constructing authorities. Both the National Transport Commission and the Government are merely the financing authorities, but the provincial councils have to do the work. This amount is being paid over to the Cape Provincial Administration and I have already given the estimate of what the cost will be next year.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Minister, he has not answered my question. I do not know of any single case, and I do not think the Minister can quote one, where he has exercised his ministerial authority over and above the recommendations made to him by the National Transport Commission. Now what puzzles me is this. If, as the Minister says, there was a necessity in the national interest to construct these roads, what is to prevent the Minister making a recommendation to the National Transport Commission to give some consideration to what the Government decides is an important or strategic road? But the Minister tries to create the impression here that it is beyond the control of the National Transport Commission even to amend its Estimates or its programme to the extent of a few hundred thousand rand. I have never heard a more preposterous statement. The Minister says he has the final authority over the expenditure of any money, no matter what the Commission says. The Minister has not replied to that. Frankly, I think his reply was very unsatisfactory, because the point at issue is this. This is the first time that such an item appears under the Transport Vote, but we know what Government policy is, and what is envisaged for the future. Is it going to stop here? Is this the first and the last time that this item will appear on the Estimates, or will we be faced in future with increasing amounts of money spent on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport to the Cabinet, quite apart from the ordinary procedures in regard to the construction of national roads? To my mind this is a completely new departure from the established principles. I cannot understand why the Minister has to say to-day that it was necessary to develop these particular roads, irrespective of any recommendation by the Department of Defence. Why could he not go to the National Transport Commission in the normal way and ask them to investigate the matter and to make a recommendation; and if the Commission thinks it is in the national interest to construct roads in this way, they can tell the Minister that they are prepared to revise the programme because there is a national necessity for it? It worries me to think that after many years we are now making this departure from established practice. I cannot understand why this procedure should be followed. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister whether in fact he did ask the National Transport Commission to investigate the question of constructing these roads.

What difference does it make whether we have departed from established practice or not? If the Government decides to depart from an established principle they have the right to do it, and of course the Government has the right to decide that without asking for the hon. member’s approval. In this particular instance they did decide to depart from the usual procedure and to allocate the money out of revenue instead of out of the Road Fund. And if the Government wants to do so again in future, they can do so without asking the hon. member for his approval.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that there is more in this than meets the eye. We are being asked now, as we have elicited from the Minister while he was still in a pleasant mood, to approve in principle the construction of several hundred miles of national roads over the country, some of it of the most difficult and expensive kind. We are now told that in this little item we are giving approval for the construction by the Government of roads from Matatiele to Kokstad and Queenstown, and then right on to Port St. Johns and to Port Edward. Now I cannot believe that this Cabinet sat down on a Thursday morning and had a cosy chat and decided to build all those roads, without having any information as to what it would cost. On the face of it, it is a scheme which must take years to complete and must cost tens of millions of rand. It must be very expensive to build a road from Port St. Johns to Port Edward. I do not say it is not necessary to build it. If the Government in its wisdom decides, for whatever the reason may be, that it is in the national interest that these roads should be constructed, and that it is not in the national interest that they should be constructed in the usual manner through the National Transport Commission, but that the work should be carried out by the provinces, that is another matter; it is a matter of opinion, but I think that before Parliament is asked to approve such a major operation and such a costly operation, it is entitled to have a good deal more information either from the Minister of Transport or from some of his other colleagues as to exactly what is involved and why it is necessary to depart from established policy. As far as the finances are concerned, it does not really matter whether Parliament votes extra money to the National Transport Commission, or votes it direct to the provinces to build the roads, and therefore one cannot help feeling that there is more in this than meets the eye. Whether this whole thing should be placed under the Department of Defence, I do not know, and if it is, I do not see why we should not be told that this is going to be a strategic road. But I cannot see any point in making a mystery of the thing, nor can I see any advantage in the Minister getting up and blustering about what he can and cannot do. That is not in question, but while we in Parliament have the task of supervising the expenditure of public money we are entitled to ask for the fullest details in regard to why the money is being asked for and why this method is being adopted.

The Minister admits a departure and tries to justify this new departure from established practice. I do not want to go into the relationship between the Minister and the National Roads Board.

There is no such body as the National Roads Board. It is the National Transport Commission.

The position is that when money is voted for the construction of national roads it goes to this Commission. There is a sort of agency arrangement between the Commission and the provinces, but the Commission is responsible to the Public Accounts Committee for the expenditure of the money. In this instance, I take it from the Minister’s reply, the province will now be the agent of his Department. If that is so, who is going to be responsible for the actual work? Because road construction is a technical matter.

I have already explained it. Why did you not listen?

Well, there seem to be others who do not understand it either.

You just do not want to understand.

Who will be responsible to this House for the execution of the work? It is a technical job; it is an engineer’s job. The Transport Commission has all the knowhow and the experts at their disposal.

They do not do the work.

No, but they are responsible for it and they are answerable to the Public Accounts Committee. Where is the technical advice to come from? Not from the Commission. Is it going to be excluded from this entirely? That is the other aspect which I think is important.

May I put this to the hon. the Minister, and I hope he will be a little bit patient? Following on the explanation, these particular roads, for reasons of Government policy, are being built out of revenue from the Department of Transport, and the normal procedure of getting the funds from the Transport Commission is not being followed in this case. That is how I understood the Minister’s reply. Now we have figures before us which appear to be the first and final figures, because there is no explanation, but it cannot be the final figure and indeed the Minister himself said that in succeeding years the expenditure on these roads will be carried in this manner. In other words, it is Government policy that these particular roads in the Transkei shall be paid for from revenue by his Department and not in the usual manner. What we would like to know is what is the estimated total expenditure to which we would be committed as soon as we pass the first item? That is the crux of the matter. I should imagine that the final cost should run into millions of rand. Could we have an estimate so that we know where we stand? It is obvious that when the next year’s Estimates come before us, we will be told that we approved of the principle in 1964, and there is nothing whatsoever to tell us what the future commitment will be. Can the Minister tell us precisely what are the estimates on which he and the Government are working, and what he thinks the final figure will be?

I will explain again what the position is. The provincial councils, in the case of all national and special roads, are responsible for the actual construction and maintenance of those roads. The National Transport Commission is merely the financing authority. They have to approve the plans and the routes for the roads and also, subject to my consent, for the amount of money to be allocated for particular roads, especially in the case of special roads where the provinces are responsible for 30 per cent of the cost and for all the maintenance. The same will happen in this case. The province will do the construction. My Department will be responsible to Parliament and to the Select Committee for all expenditure. My Department will have all the necessary information from the Provincial Administration in regard to the construction of these special roads. So there will be adequate financial control, as in the case of ordinary national roads. The hon. member also knows that the amounts spent on national roads do not appear in the Budget. It is paid out of the National Road Fund which obtains its finances from the petrol tax. But again, the accounts of the National Road Fund are subject to audit and the Department of Transport is responsible to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for all the accounts of the National Road Fund and all the other boards such as the Perishable Exports Control Board. That is the financial position. The National Transport Commission makes recommendations in regard to national roads, which are submitted to me. The commission also compiles a priority list. They simply have not the funds to build all the national roads which are required and to assist the provinces in regard to all the special roads they want to proclaim. Consequently, a priority list is compiled and submitted to me for my approval, and the amount of money available to the commission is allocated to these different projects. I explained that in this particular case those roads had already been investigated and inquired into by the commission, but they were not of very high priority. In other words, it would probably have taken quite a number of years before the commission would find it possible to proclaim those roads as national roads and to commence with their construction. The Government decided that it was in the interest of the Transkei and of the surrounding White areas, and these roads have considerable strategic importance. We decided that these roads must now, in November 1963, be declared to be national roads so that the control of those roads can be kept in the hands of the Government and not pass over to the Transkeian Authorities. That is the reason, and it is very simple. They are national roads connecting one White area with another and going through the Transkei, and they are of strategic value. The Transkei Government will simply not be in the position to undertake either the construction or the maintenance of these roads because they do not have the money and the skilled personnel. That is the position the Government was faced with and it it no good saying, “Oh!” What is wrong with it?

Why did it take you so long to tell us that?

When the matter was submitted to my Department, we found that we did not have the funds available to undertake the construction and maintenance of those roads at an early date or within the foreseeable future, and on those grounds the Government decided that the construction and maintenance costs should be paid out of revenue. It is in the interests of the road fund to do that, because it means that the road fund has the money available for other national roads, which are probably even more important.

What is the estimated cost?

No estimates have been compiled yet. These roads were declared only a few months ago, but estimates for the actual construction will be compiled, and in the meantime it is merely a question of maintenance. But estimates will be framed and contracts will be entered into before construction starts. The proclamation is only for the roads within the borders of the Transkei. But obviously those roads go much further than the border, and in regard to the proclamation of those portions of the roads which are outside the Transkei, that is still under consideration. That is the position. Is there anything else hon. members want to know? We will give the estimates as soon as they are available, but there are none yet. That is why we make provision only for a small amount for the Provincial Council to spend mostly on maintenance.

So there was a measure of urgency?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 20.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”, R1,100,000,

Under Item L, Child Welfare, special grants-in-aid where no approved formula applies or additional/supplementary to any formula, there is an increase of R17,000, which is more than double the original Estimates, and I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give an explanation of the increase under this heading.

The position is as follows: In the first Schedule to the Appropriation Act of 1963 the amount in respect of special grants-in-aid was erroneously given as R16,000 instead of R33,000. In order to rectify this position the Secretary for Finance has indicated that a further sum of R17,000 must be provided for under item 6 of sub-head L for parliamentary approval. I might just say that these special grants-in-aid which are being provided under item 6 are intended to raise the standard of child care in children’s homes, particularly by means of better housing, including the maintenance of buildings and equipment. This is a matter, as the hon. member knows, in regard to which complaints are frequently lodged. There are minor works to be done in connection with the maintenance of the accommodation in which these children are housed. This item also includes provision for social services in connection with the child’s personal adaptation in the children’s home and preparatory work in connection with his adaptation in the community and in his family circle once he leaves the children’s home.

I have already given the reasons for the increase.

Under Item J we are being asked to vote R1,083,000 in respect of contributions to pension and provident funds. I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to tell the House which provident and which pension funds are going to benefit by this large amount and how the money is going to be distributed.

Let me give the House the details. This is an increase in connection with the rand-for-rand contributions in respect of pension and provident funds. As the hon. member knows there is a host of these funds. The rand-for-rand contribution to pension funds and to the Government Employees’ Provident Fund amounts to R1,218,000. The Government’s share of the rand-for-rand contribution to these provident funds amounts to R30,000. There are various reasons for the anticipated shortfall. In the main it is attributable to the rand-for-rand contributions to pension funds and to the Government Employees’ Provident Fund. In the first instance there was an under-estimate in respect of the expansion of the Public Service. As hon. members know it is very difficult to estimate precisely what expansion will take place, and it is customary to under-estimate the expansion. In this connection therefore there was an under-estimate. It would also seem that the salary adjustments which were made in the interim in accordance with the Public Service Commission’s circulars Nos. 1 and 3 of 1963 affected this item considerably more than we anticipated originally. Only R500,000 was allowed for these adjustments. The general increase in monthly expenditure shows that this amount has been under-estimated. There is one further important item in regard to which I want to give the Committee a little information. An amount of R250,000 was included in the Estimates for 1963-4 in respect of the rand-for-rand contributions on the pension contributions of Coloured teachers. It appears from a recalculation, based on the estimated expenditure in respect of Coloured teachers’ salaries, which are estimated for 1964-5 at R15,609,000, that the amount required for January to March 1964 will be R335,700. Furthermore, the expenditure under item 6, “Miscellaneous Expenses, including the payment of shortfalls to other pension funds upon the transfer of officials or employees, etc.” has risen considerably during 1962-3. This tendency is still continuing and can be ascribed to an increased number of transfers from Departments of the Central Government to the Provincial Administrations.

It seems to me that nearly every item has been under-estimated. Can the hon. the Minister tell us why there were so many under-estimates?

Order!

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 24.—“Education, Arts and Science”, R1,400,000,

Can the hon. the Minister give us details of the universities to which this assistance is being given?

The allowances paid to universities under the Holloway formula came to an end at the end of 1963. As from 1 January 1964 new additions have been made to the formula, but all salaries were increased as from 1 January 1963 and the Cabinet then decided that apart from the Holloway formula the salaries of university staff should be adjusted as from 1 April 1963 to 31 December 1963 and that university staff should also share in the increased salaries, which they would not have done otherwise under the Holloway formula which was applicable for five years. The total allowance was R771,731, and an additional subsidy of R28,000 was payable to the University of South Africa, making a total of R799,827. Then there was a saving on four items of R89,827, which brought the amount to R710,000.

There is an increase of R14,000 under Item L, “Grants-in-Aid to State-aided Institutions and the National Advisory Council for Adult Education”. Can the hon. the Minister give us some details in this regard and tell us which State-aided institutions will benefit?

In the first place there is a loss in respect of rent from 1 January 1963 to 31 March 1964 rent which has to be paid over to the Department of Public Works in respect of the National Zoo, R1,500; and R8,200 must be paid to the National Botanical Gardens. In the third place the increase in the salaries of non-Whites at State-aided institutions has meant an additional amount of R5,747, but the major amount is in respect of the purchase of works of art, the framing of paintings, the purchase and installation of equipment and furniture and the presentation thereof to the Control Board of the Fehr Art Collection. This amounts to R310,000. There has been a saving of R1,147 on holiday bonuses so that the total amount asked for here is R324,000.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that this is, I think, his first opportunity to tell Parliament about the Fehr Collection, what the connection is between the National Advisory Council for Adult Education and the Control Board of the Fehr Art Collection; what the interrelation is and what control, for example (if any), is exercised through or by the National Advisory Council over this Control Board of the Fehr Art Collection. Then, although I am aware of the procedure for the concession of grants-in-aid and subsidies by the National Advisory Council for Adult Education, this being the largest grant which the National Advisory Council for Adult Education as such has ever had anything to do with, I should like to know whether the Minister or his Department has any link with the Control Board of the Fehr Art Collection; whether there is any continuity of control and, if so, what form that takes in regard to this very valuable national endowment?

This is not really the occasion to say anything about the matter, but seeing that the hon. member has put his question the way he did I can tell him that I do not think there will ever be the slightest objection in this House to the purchase of the Fehr Collection.

No, I am not objecting.

No, I know. I think that collection is a great asset to South Africa. Secondly, when Mr. Fehr parted with his collection, he asked us, because he as an individual was so attached to it, to allow him to act as Director and to retain him in that capacity for two years at a nominal salary of R2,000 per annum. The Fehr Collection is an exceedingly big collection. The Fehr Collection is controlled by a small board of which Mr. Fehr himself is the chairman. The necessary attention is continually given to the collection in order to make repairs where necessary. There were no other items under which we could place this amount and we consequently placed it under the item Grants-in-Aid to State-aided Institutions and the National Advisory Council for Adult Education. This is one of the greatest amounts which has ever been given for this purpose—the hon. member is quite right there—but the object is to bring the value of these works of art to the attention of adults. It will in future be possible to undertake that education of the adults as well as of the school children to a much greater extent than would otherwise have been possible, seeing that these works of art are now being exhibited.

I very much appreciate the information which the hon. the Minister has given the Committee in reply to the point I made, but I would like him to emphasize one aspect of the matter about which, as far as I am aware, there is a great deal of confusion outside among those people who are interested in art and the collection of masterpieces, and, of course their gift to the South African people—and that is the question of the legal ownership of this collection. Is it clear that the Republic of South Africa, the Government, is the owner of this collection?

Yes.

Yes, I know that that is the position, and I say with respect to the Minister that this should be underscored, because even in this city of Cape Town, to my certain knowledge there are people who are very pleased about this acquisition but who seem to have fallen into the error of believing that all sorts of bodies have some control and some form of ownership. I merely want to make it clear—and the Minister has confirmed it—that this is in fact a national collection owned by the people of South Africa, through his Department.

May I ask the Minister one question arising out of his statement. Will it be known as the Fehr Collection notwithstanding the fact that it has been purchased?

It will be known as the Fehr Collection.

Is that a condition of the purchase?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 27.—“Agricultural Technical Services: Administration and National Services”, R1,127,000.

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the position is in regard to the increased expenditure under A, B and F. As far as A and B are concerned I take it that the increase is mainly due to the increased expenditure in regard to the locust campaign. Under Item F there is an increase from R116,000 to R800,000. Can the hon. the Minister please give us the details?

This increase is due to the outbreak of locusts and the very extensive campaign that had to be conducted in the Cape Province and even in the Orange Free State. That has meant an increase in the purchase of poison and equipment. As hon. members know it is nearly ten years ago that we had such an outbreak. The cost of hiring aircraft is also covered under this sub-head and because swarms of hoppers are still over wide areas to-day the Department must continually have poison and other supplies in readiness.

We realize that the increased expenditure is due to the outbreak of the locust plague and the resultant campaign. However, one cannot but get the idea, Sir, that this additional expenditure is due to the fact that the administration in respect of this campaign was not very efficient, because it seemed that officials lived in camps and that an official left the camp in the morning to go to spray an area 50 miles distant and that he returned to the camp in the evening only to return to the same farm the next morning. I think much better control could have been exercised. In the second place I think this increased expenditure is due to the fact that there was not sufficient co-operation between the Department and the Minister and the land-owners. I do not think we shall ever wipe out this locust plague unless there is much closer co-operation between the land-owners and the Department itself.

Order! The hon. member must not take that too far. Those are points he can discuss under the Minister’s Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am discussing the reasons for the increased expenditure. If the Department does not want to cooperate with the farmers there will continually be additional expenditure and then it will never be possible for the Department to control the locust plague. I think the increased expenditure is due to the fact that the necessary co-operation was lacking and I want to emphasize it very strongly that we shall never wipe out the locust plague unless we call in the assistance of the farmers, unless the Department who supplies the farmers with the poison …

Order! The hon. member may ask what the reasons for the increased expenditure are but he cannot discuss the question in general. He can raise it under the hon. the Minister’s Vote.

I would like the hon. the Minister to give us some more information with regard to sub-head K, “Horticultural Research Institute”, where there is an increase of R33,600.

It is mainly due to orders that were placed the year before but which could not be delivered at the time and to the fencing of new conservatories which was and had to be undertaken as a matter of urgency. Had we not fenced and equipped those conservatories—and that is an expensive job—it would not have been possible to use them. That is the explanation for this increase of R33,600.

I should like to have some further information about sub-head Q, “Veterinary Field Services”. What particular circumstances gave rise to such a fairly large increase of R47,400 in this item?

The increased expenditure is mainly due to additional funds that had to be made available in order to pay riparian owners for providing watering places for their stock where we had erected game resisting fences along the banks of international rivers. I think in particular of the Limpopo River. It was arranged that we should erect a fence, not along the border because the border is in the middle of the river …

Order! The hon. the Minister must not go too far either.

Very well, Sir. Where we erect a fence thus cutting off the farmer’s stock water supply we felt we should provide him with another watering place for his stock, either—and this is preferable—in the form of a borehole or with the machinery to pump the water to his land. That is the reason for this increase.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us some more information in regard to sub-head U, which is a new item and a relatively small one of R702, “Grants-in-Aid, Contributions and Subscriptions to International Office of Wine”. Can the hon. the Minister give us some indications what benefit we get from this International Office of Wine? Is this also one of these items which from a relatively small start is likely to grow? This is a new item and we have no information before us, and we should like to know whether we are possibly committing ourselves now to very much heavier expenditure at a later date.

Mr. Chairman, I shall start with the latter portion of the question. The objections of the organization are briefly to promote international co-operation between the various countries in respect of the wine-producing industry in general, the combating of pests and diseases in vines; technological matters concerning the wine-growing industry; international agreements and problems of an economic and legal nature affecting the wine-growing industry. The subscription to become a member of that International Office of Wine cannot be covered by savings under the sub-head because this is a new item; the amount must consequently be shown separately. In 1963 the Government approved of our joining this International Office of Wine and financial provision for it could not be made earlier.

We have gone wrong somewhere. I want to repeat the question put to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) under sub-head Q, “Veterinary Field Services”. The hon. the Minister said that the money was needed to provide riparian owners with watering places for their stock along international rivers, but surely when you provide farmers with watering places for their stock you cannot call it “Veterinary Field Services”? Something must be wrong somewhere.

That is not the only item; there are many more. If the hon. member wants further information I may tell her that those fences were erected to protect the stock in this country from diseases which cross our borders and which are spread by game. The second item in this connection is the combating of the tsetse fly in Southern Rhodesia and Mozambique, and because the north-eastern parts of the Republic are threatened by that pest it was necessary for us to incur this expenditure. I moreover want to refer to the drastic attempt that is being made to combat rabies. I can mention various items. I can assure the hon. member that we do not spend a cent unless it is in the interests of the country.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 29,—“Water Affairs”, R5,004,

You will notice, Sir, that all these are new items and although the last one is fairly clear I should nevertheless like to know why they are extra statutory subsidies because provision is usually made in the Budget for subsidies to municipalities. I should like to know why they are extra statutory subsidies in this case. I should like to have a little further information from the hon. the Minister in connection with these new items.

Extra statutory provision had to be made, inter alia, under sub-head E, “Miscellaneous Expenditure”, because the S.A. Institute of Civil Engineers had applied to the Department for grants-in-aid so that they could undertake a study of flood expectancies in conjunction with the Witwatersrand University. The project would mainly concentrate on the flood expectancies in these catchment areas smaller than ten square miles. We regard that as very important. The hydrographical division of the Department have already made similar studies but as a result of the pressure of work and the shortage of staff many of the studies that have been made have not yet been analysed in detail. The S.A. Institute of Civil Engineers will be assisted in the project concerned by a prominent hydrologist from the United States of America, a certain Professor Schultz, and the Department of Water Affairs thinks that if this study is carried out by the Institute in close consultation with the Department of Water Affairs, the results would be of great benefit to the engineering profession and particularly to members of the profession who concentrate on water affairs.

The Treasury has approved of it that provision be made in the Additional Estimates for the financial year 1963-4 for an amount of R5,000, because the total amount the S.A. Institute of Civil Engineers requires in order to carry out this project is R16,000. The Treasury has consequently agreed that provision may be made in the current Estimates for the financial year 1964-5 for a further amount of R7,000 in respect of grants-in-aid to the S.A. Institute, etc.

I shall now deal with H, “Minor Water Works”. The Cabinet decided, inter alia, to start a tea industry in the Republic. A company known as Sapiko was formed under the guidance of the Industrial Development Corporation. I can quote a letter dated 12 June 1963 which was received from the Industrial Development Corporation in connection with the above-mentioned matter, but I shall only read a portion of it—

I need not read what they say further on. We were anxious to get this industry going as soon as possible. Tea seed is a type of seed that does not retain its fertility very long. Consequently, when we obtained good seed we acquired land in the northern Transvaal from the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture and planted as much of the seed as we could. The Department of Water Affairs had to step in to make the necessary provision for the cultivation so that we could obtain the mother plants. That accounts for the additional expenditure.

What about L?

We know it is customary to make provision in the main Estimates for subsidies not exceeding 33⅓ per cent, except in the case of flood damages suffered in the North-Western areas in which case they go up to 50 per cent. That really covers the damage suffered by farmers. It is really not customary to go outside the formula when you subsidize municipalities of small town management boards The municipality of Kenhardt is mainly concerned here. I also have in mind a little place like Loxton. They are small communities and we must assist them to put their water supply system in order again. That is why extra statutory provision is made for the assistance you have to give in extraordinary circumstances.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 32.—“Commerce and Industries”, R250,700,

Can the hon. the Minister give us further details in connection with (3)—“Research projects for Government Departments”?

These contributions are in connection with various projects undertaken at the C.S.I.R. The first amount is R51,400. That is a contribution made by the C.S.I.R. in respect of the South African Wool Textile Research Institute. As you know, Sir, the Wool Textile Research Institute is a non-profit-making company which conducts research in connection with the use to which our wool and mohair can be put. The Institute is financed by the Wool Board and the wool-growing industry on the one hand and the Government by way of the C.S.I.R. on the other hand on the R-for-R basis. In the past the Government has contributed approximately R116,000 annually to this Institute. The Institute is growing and they have asked the Government to contribute an additional amount of, say, R110,000 annually. The Government saw fit to contribute a further amount of R110,000 per annum on the R-for-R basis should the expenses rise by that amount. This is the first time that we are asking the House to go beyond the figure of R116,000 because of the fact that the expenditure of the Institute has risen. The amount that is asked this year is R51,400. It is to cover extra research by the Wool Textile Institute.

The second contribution is that of the C.S.I.R. in respect of Government Departments. On the instructions of Government Departments the C.S.I.R. do certain researches. The reason why the House is asked to approve this additional expenditure is not because the projects had spent more than the amounts originally provided for. But it happened that more money was spent in certain years than intended. The reason is mainly this that orders placed overseas were not delivered the previous year. One year R280,000 was poured back into the fund. The orders were, however, delivered the following year and we are now asking for this additional amount of R119,300 to pay for those orders which are now being delivered. As I have said, this is not additional expenditure. We are only transferring it from one year to the other.

The other amount of R80,000 is in respect of the South African Bureau of Standards. It is in respect of the revised salary structure and for the increased salaries from January 1963.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 34—“Mines”, R312,492,

I should like the hon. the Minister to give the House information in respect of Item O, “Financial Assistance to Marginal Mines”, more particularly whether this is additional expenditure not provided for or whether the sum voted covers items in respect of which no information has been given previously. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us full information.

During the Budget debate last year the House was told that the Government had decided to make an amount of R1,000,000 available annually to assist marginal mines which were threatened by floodwater from adjoining mines. We decided to make an amount of R1,000,000 available per annum for that purpose on certain conditions. We estimated that the amount required for this year would be approximately R700,000. We have not got the exact figure yet but it is estimated that it will be approximately R600,000. Of that R600,000 we have placed R200,000 on these Estimates and a further R400,000 will appear in the main Estimates. The reason for this is mainly because the financial years do not quite correspond. The financial year of the mines is from 1 July to 30 June the following year whereas our financial year is somewhat different. We require an amount of approximately R600,000 from 1 July to 30 June of which R200,000 appears in these Estimates and R400,000 in the main Estimates.

Is that the total?

For this year, yes. That is the total amount we reckon will be required from 1 July to 30 June 1964.

May I ask the Minister which mines he thinks will benefit by this?

There are six mines. It is not customary to mention the names of those mines. Nor do the mines like to have their names mentioned. I hope the hon. member will appreciate that.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with Item M, “Interest payable to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in respect of interest-bearing advances”. In view of the fact that the Republic is in such a very strong financial position that it is generally asserted that the money is coming out of our ears it seems remarkable that we are paying interest on money when clearly, under other circumstances, we would not have had reason to accept an advance and pay such a substantial sum of money, especially if it is a high rate of interest. I wonder whether the Minister would give the House the reason for the advance and the circumstances under which we would be precluded from eliminating this payment of interest, when we are in a favourable financial position to carry the item ourselves.

I should like the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to this question of the names of the mines that he does not wish to divulge. Perhaps he could give us the names at a later date. It occurs to me that the mines themselves will have to disclose this in their ordinary accounts. There seems to be no valid reason why the hon. the Minister should not give that information to the House. I am sure we shall all be very glad to know of any marginal mine that is being assisted or that is proposed to be assisted. I should like the Minister to give further consideration to it. He need not give an answer to-day; he can do so during the Budget debate. I think the House is entitled to have that information.

I should like the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the question asked by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). This is a new item, and we should like to know the amount of the advance, when it was made and whether Parliament was advised of this beforehand or was this just a Cabinet decision.

I just want to make this point clear immediately. A complete report was made to this House on a previous occasion. This item refers to the extension of the uranium agreements. As you know, Mr. Chairman, our uranium contracts would have extended to 1966. We eventually succeeded, for the sake of the continued existence of the mines, to have the contracts extended to 1970—another four years—and to sell less uranium per annum. But the Government loses foreign exchange in that way. These contracts were entered into at a time when we were in difficulties as far as our foreign exchange position was concerned. To overcome those difficulties it was agreed upon that a portion of the amount that would only have been payable to us in subsequent years would be lent to us in order to assist us in our foreign exchange position. We only borrowed a small portion of the total amount and interest has to be paid on it. In some cases that interest was higher than the interest we earned on the investment of that money here in South Africa because the interest rates varied here from day to day and from year to year. Provision is only made here for the difference.

Cannot we repay that loan?

We would prefer not to interfere with that contract at the moment. The position to-day is that the interest rate is much better here. I do not think, therefore, that we shall have the same difficulty in future.

In connection with this financial assistance to the marginal mines, could the hon. the Minister tell us whether any provision has been made in this amount for the Research Unit on Marginal Mines of the Witwatersrand University? What has the fate been of that particular research unit, and what is the Minister’s attitude towards their work?

With respect, Mr. Chairman, that has nothing to do with this Vote.

I should like to know from the Minister what interest we are paying on this loan in connection with uranium. I should also like to know what is meant by “Refund of Enforcement of Recognizance” under E.

As hon. members know, the Receiver of Revenue may only issue a certificate to a person to deal in rough diamonds if he is furnished with a certificate from a magistrate that such a person is a fit and proper person to do such trade. The magistrate in turn only issues such a certificate if the applicant supplies him with two sureties to an amount of R1,000. As soon as that person is found guilty in a court of an irregularity the magistrate must declare that surety as having been forfeited. This is a case where the person was found guilty of a minor offence. He had a licence but he dealt in diamonds in a place where he was not entitled to do so. A penalty of 30 days or R30 was imposed on him. He paid the R30. But the magistrate was compelled to call up that R1,000. The board concerned has applied to me for a refund of that R1,000. I hesitated because the person had twice been found guilty of minor contraventions of the law but ultimately, with Treasury approval, it was decided to refund half the amount, namely R500.

What interest are we paying?

Approximately five.

Vote put and agreed.

On Vote No. 35.—“Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services”, R3,111,000,

I should like to deal with a large and extraordinary amount appearing under this Vote, namely, an amount of R550,000 representing losses on Radio Bantu. You will note that this is a new item, Sir. At the same time it is an item which has never before appeared on any Estimates or Additional Estimates. This is the first time that we of this House have been called upon to carry the losses of Radio Bantu and the Bantu Programme Control Board. Indeed, Sir, it is an entirely new principle that the losses on Radio Bantu should be financed out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. There is no statute whatsoever which compels or even allows the Minister to come to this House and to ask us to carry these extraordinary losses of more than R500,000 on Radio Bantu itself. There has even been a change in the name of the Vote itself, as you have probably observed, Sir. In the past it was “Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones”. An addition has now been made and it is called “Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services”. I just want to mention in passing that I hope that in future if such a change is made the procedure should be followed which has always been followed in the past, namely that the Select Committee on Public Accounts should approve of such a change. I wonder whether this was done in this case and, if not, why not?

I say this is an extraordinary amount, Sir, and it is an extraordinary fact that the Minister has to come to ask us to pay for the losses on Bantu Radio. You will remember, Sir, that when the original Act came before this House the hon. the Minister indicated to us that he did not expect that there would be any necessity whatsoever for him to come to ask us to pay for the loss on Radio Bantu. I think I should remind the hon. the Minister of what he said on 7 April 1960 in this House. He was speaking about the cost of the Bantu Programme Control Board and he said—

We are not to-day asked to vote the capital; that was asked subsequently under another Vote. Then he said this—

And then comes this most significant sentence—

In other words, Sir, the two items, Bantu licence fees and advertising revenue, which the Act permits the Minister to use for the cost of the Bantu Programme Control Board should be entirely sufficient to cover all the costs of the programme. That was what the Minister told us four years ago. Now the Minister asks us to-day for an additional R500,000. I do not know whether the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) is here because it appears that he too was misled in some way or other because he said this—

And to-day we are faced with an item of R550,000 in this connection! Sir, let us see what has actually happened in respect of the Bantu Programme Control Board and the Bantu Radio. A special independent board was created and the members of that board were appointed by the Governor-General. That board was given the power, firstly, to control all Bantu programmes for the Bantu inside and—this is significant—outside the Republic. It is up to the Minister to explain whether, in carrying out the provisions of the Act, he has taken cognizance of that particular section and whether he has also asked the Bantu, who is paying the same for his licence as the White man, to contribute partly towards the programmes for outside the Republic itself.

The next important point in the 1960 Act in regard to the finances—we are dealing here with the finances of Radio Bantu—is this. The 1960 Act says that the expenditure shall not exceed, without the approval of the Minister, firstly, the total of the licence fees which are collected from the Bantu listeners themselves and, secondly, that the expenditure of Radio Bantu shall not exceed, without the approval of the Minister, further income which might come from any other source connected with the Bantu programme itself. In other words, they have an income from licence fees and an income from advertising. And those two items may not be exceeded without the approval of the Minister. But there is nothing in the Act that says the hon. the Minister may come to this House and ask this House to carry the excess of expenditure over income. After all, the S.A.B.C. itself, apart from the Bantu radio, had a profit last year of R800,000. We now have this dichotomy that the S.A.B.C. can make R800,000 profit, keep it to itself, but when Bantu Radio suffers a loss none of that R800,000 is used, but the Minister comes to this House and demands that we, the taxpayers, should bear this huge loss of R550,000.

Sir, when one comes with an item such as this and one asks Parliament to vote this amount, when one does so in the case of any other item of expenditure, the Minister in charge at least tells the House how much the expenditure was, what the income was, and that he is asking the House to carry the loss. But the expenditure and the income on which this amount is based are even more mysterious, more unknown, than the expenditure and the income of the S.A.B.C. itself, and that is saying a lot, you will admit, Sir. The S.A.B.C. in its annual report gives the amount for administration, and for the programmes themselves, but Radio Bantu does not do so. And if they are going to do so I should like to know when? If we are to be told at a later stage what the expenditure and the income were, I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should not ask for this amount at this stage but that he should let it stand over until we have the required statements, including a balance sheet and a profit and loss account, however meagre they may be—even if they are as meagre as in the case of the S.A.B.C., so that we may know why it is that we are asked to pay this huge amount of more than R500,000.

I may say that we in the United Party are not against money being spent on good radio programmes. Definitely not. If this were to be an item only for the improvement of non-political programmes and solely for the Bantu within the Republic itself and not outside, and solely for the Bantu and not for anybody else in the country, we would have accepted it if the Minister could have made out a good case. But we know nothing more than simply seeing on the Estimates an amount of R550,000 and being asked to vote it. [Time limit.]

When the Bantu Programme Control Board was brought into being we warned the Minister that this sort of thing would happen especially in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister could never give us information as to what was happening in the Broadcast Corporation. When we asked for information or tabled questions the Minister always said that he could not give us that information.

Order!

I shall not continue along those lines, Sir, I just wanted to refer to it. This is a new item, Sir, and I think we are entitled to detailed information as to how this large debt has been incurred. The Minister should be honest with the House and tell us exactly how this large debt has been incurred. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has already reminded the hon. the Minister that he said at the time that no expenditure would be undertaken by the Bantu Programme Control Board that would run the country into debt without his, the Minister’s, authority. If he has given the Bantu Programme Control Board authority to run up that amount of debt then we want to know why he did it? Because it does seem an extraordinary position that this hon. Minister, who will never give us any information about the Radio Corporation, should in this case allow the Bantu Programme Control Board to run up a debt of this magnitude without giving us any further information. This board is completely under his control. It is not allowed to incur debt without his authority. That is the very least that we of this House would have expected of the hon. the Minister. I cannot conceive how that debt has been incurred in view of the fact that the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation already existed; the capital outlay had already taken place; it was only the introduction of a new programme, the Bantu programme. It seems to me that this is one of the most expensive control boards that we have in the country and if they cannot do better than this the sooner they are done away with the better.

I just want to correct the hon. member who has just sat down, as I have to do every year, in connection with his questions concerning the S.A.B.C. We on this side of the House have never refused to give information in connection with the S.A.B.C. as long as it does not concern their domestic affairs. That is the main difference. We do not interfere with the internal affairs of the S.A.B.C. just as little as we interfere with Iscor or Foscor or Sasol or any one of those undertakings, because the moment you interfere with their internal affairs then the responsibility rests on your shoulders if as a result of your interference they incur losses or go under.

Let me come back now to the hon. member for Orange Grove and refresh his memory in one or two respects. The Bantu Programme Control Board is a board to control programmes and not to control finances; it has nothing to do with finances; it controls the programmes, makes the decisions with regard to programmes and is responsible for the programmes which are broadcast. In the Act of 1960, we inserted a provision to ensure that the White listener would not have to subsidize the Bantu listener. It is in the interests of the country that the Bantu should be given a radio service, and the country as such should pay for it, if necessary, but not the White listener. That is why a very clear distinction was drawn in the Act of 1960 between the finances for White radio services and the finances for Bantu services. The White service is a separate service and the White listener can never level the reproach against us that we are using his money for Bantu services.

But let us get down to the crux of this problem. Do hon. members opposite want a radio service for the Bantu or do they not want it? They are the people who year in and year out pose here as the champions of the Bantu, but as soon as one gives the Bantu something which is worth while and which at the same time promotes goodwill between Bantu and White in South Africa, then they are the people who protest. One asks oneself what is the motive behind it. Is it their policy always to incite the Black man against the White man? [Interjections.] Here they are doing so again through the hon. member for Orange Grove. Let us have clarity with regard to this matter. We have a variety of Bantu peoples here in South Africa. If you have the interests of the Bantu at heart, if you honestly believe that the White man and the Black man must live together here in South Africa, if you honestly want the Zulu and the Xhosa and the Tswana and the South Sotho and the North Sotho to live together in harmony, is it not necessary then that something should be done so that we can learn to understand one another? Hon. members on the other side have always contended that we have no contact with the Bantu. Here we have the finest means in the world to teach the Bantu those things which are peculiar to him—his language and his culture—while teaching him at the same time to appreciate the finer things in White civilization. Here you have a means whereby you can teach the Bantu to form a happy entity in South Africa together with the White man, but the moment one seeks to do that, one ges the sort of objections which have again come from hon. members opposite.

Let us look at the position carefully. Do we or do we not want a Bantu service for the Bantu. Every radio service, as hon. members know, costs money. Do you expect an undertaking which costs a great deal of money to be able to stand on its own feet right from the start? If that is your attitude, then you should rather not tackle it at all. Is there any hope at all that it will be able to stand on its own feet right from the start? Nobody would be so foolish as to suggest such a thing.

But you said so.

Oh, please, go and read what I said. I said no such thing, because it would be foolish to say so. You cannot spend millions of rand on such an undertaking—because you cannot do it for less—and then expect it to be able to pay its own way right from the outset. Not even the White service was able to pay its own way initially. You will recall that when broadcasting was started in South Africa it was a failure for many years. It was only in the ’twenties that it first became a bit of a success after having operated for many years at a loss. But when we deal with the Bantu, whose cause hon. members opposite supposedly champion, then they expect the service to be a success immediately, and if it is not a success they condemn the Government. Let us be sensible. You cannot give the Bantu any kind of radio service at all, unless you are willing to bear the losses in the initial years. And the Bantu service is not an established service yet; we have not yet spent all the capital which is needed for Bantu radio stations; more capital is still going to be spent, and the result is going to be that the expenditure is still going to rise and that for the time being the losses will continue to be incurred. But I can say this to hon. members: They are going to find that gradually the Bantu services, as indeed they are already proving, will have an ever-increasing number of listeners with the result that the revenue will increase and that the service will eventually show a profit. I am not going to predict when that day is going to arrive. If it is really your sincere desire to build up friendship between the White man and the Black man, if you want them to understand us and to understand our civilization and to understand the finer things in our civilization, then you must be prepared to assist them initially. Or do you want the Bantu always to be incited against the White man? What is your choice? Mr. Chairman, advertisers and people who know the Bantu will tell you that it was only when Radio Bantu was established that we succeeded for the first time in breaking through to the mind of the Bantu. For the first time in our history we were able to reach the Bantu; for the first time the Bantu began to understand the White man; for the first time the Bantu began to understand that the White man also respected his culture and respected him as an individual. The result is that a spirit of goodwill has grown up in the mind of the Bantu, a spirit of goodwill which no money can buy. Sir, unless you have this goodwill no army in the world and no Police Force in the world can make the Bantu and the White man live together in harmony in South Africa, and here we have the one instrument which is bringing this about—I am not talking about a mere possibility of bringing it about—and then we get the sort of criticism that we have had here from the other side. I hope the Bantu will also come to hear what the attitude is of the other side of the House.

The principle on which the monetary calculations are made is this: It is extremely difficult to determine precisely what the allocation should be. You cannot appoint people specially just for the Bantu service, because there must also be White officials; you must have White officials at the head, and there must also be White engineers. You cannot appoint engineers for the Bantu transmitters only and other engineers just for the White service. The same engineers have to do all the work. The problem is how the costs should be allocated. The Government saw fit to make the allocation on the following basis: Everything that falls under capital expenditure is regarded as belonging to the White service and the cost of the services which are given to the Bantu is worked out separately according to the capital and the service devoted to it; that is how the allocation is made to the Bantu service and to the White service.

Hon. members will see now that the amount of R550,000 is not the actual final amount. It is an amount which includes the losses for 1961 and 1962, but because it still includes estimated items the Treasury has seen fit to make only R550,000 available to us at this stage. The rest will then be calculated later on when it is no longer an estimated loss but an actual loss.

There is much more involved in this Vote than the hon. the Minister has disclosed. We are discussing here not only a Vote of R550,000; we are discussing a very important principle which was debated in this House about a fortnight ago, the principle of accountability to Parliament. Here we have the hon. the Minister explaining to us that there has been a loss which we are asked to pay, R550,000, and he has indicated that there will be further losses in the future. Therefore we come to this item, which is an item for which there should be accountability to this House through the Public Accounts Committee. We have asked for many years …

Order! That is not relevant now.

Sir, we are trying to explain to the House that this was inevitable. We are now asked to vote money blindly. We are not given reasons for the losses. The hon. the Minister has explained a complicated system of financing in the Broadcasting Corporation. He says that the capital amounts come from the White section, from the general section and the charges are allocated according to the advice of auditors. Now, Sir, who should be the auditor? Obviously the Auditor-General.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

The hon. Minister has indicated to us the manner of accounting in the Broadcasting Corporation, and we as a House of Parliament that has to vote this money, demand the right to have the expenses investigated. It is not a question now only of a utility corporation and the manner that the S.A.B.C. has been conducted in the past; we are going very much further now. The hon. Minister has already indicated that he is coming to us in the future for more money. Therefore I think we are right in demanding accountability to this House through the Auditor-General and the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that the last point touched on by the hon. member is not under discussion now.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the hon. Minister this afternoon when we ask for information. He comes with the old bogey that this side of the House wants to do nothing for the Bantu people, and that sort of argument. I have never heard such a lot of eye-wash in my life. The reply the hon. Minister gave this afternoon to the plea of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) was exactly the opposite from what he said in this House in 1960 when he brought in the Bantu Programmes Broadcasting Amendment Bill. We on this side opposed that Bill for the manner in which the Minister was financing the Bantu programme, we took the strongest objection to it, but we were assured by the hon. Minister on that occasion that all we were doing was merely to put up the Blacks against the Whites because we were alleging that White investment in the Broadcasting Corporation was going to be wasted on the Bantu, and here we have the same old bogey that we have had every time from the hon. the Minister when this matter was raised. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: How can he come to this House and ask for this R550,000, because the undertaking he gave when the Broadcasting Amendment Bill was before this House was the following—

There he was referring to the Bantu Broadcasting Board. And how were the amounts received by the Corporation to be determined? They were to be determined arbitrarily by the Postmaster-General, without consultation, but in terms of a subsequent section the Postmaster-General had the absolute discretion to determine the amount of Bantu licence fees to be allocated to the development of the Bantu programmes. When we challenged him on this manner of financing, what did the hon. Minister say (Col. 5074, Vol. 104, Hansard) in reply to the debate and as a result of an interjection on my part criticizing the manner in which the Minister was financing the Bantu programmes—

“The running costs of producing the Bantu programmes”—

Who paid for that capital expenditure? The Whites—

In other words, there is nothing to worry about, because there will be so many Bantu listeners that they will pay for these programmes, and the White man need not worry. Then he went on to say—

And then he said this—

Now I want to put a pertinent question to the Minister. He comes here and asks for R550,000 not for the board, but for the programmes; not for capital investment, but merely for the programmes. Have the programmes been so bad, the Bantu programmes, conducted by the Bantu Programme Control Board, that there has been a decline in listeners and therefore a decline in revenue from licences, that in order to maintain the Bantu programmes the Minister has to come and ask the House to vote this amount? Is that the position? I am asking a pertinent question, because his statement was perfectly clear—

We have been told by the Minister this afternoon that this money is not required for capital development. In other words, this money is required only for the development of the Bantu programmes as such. The development of programmes according to the permission given by the hon. Minister to the Bantu Programme Control Board, is limited, because they may not spend more than their revenue without ministerial authority. I therefore want to put the pertinent question to the Minister, that before we are asked to agree to this amount of money, can the hon. Minister give us the assurance that there are in fact Bantu listeners, that there is in fact an increase in the number of Bantu licences? Because I notice from the latest report of the Board, especially the report of the Bantu Programme Control Board, that they do not know how many Bantu listeners there are, or at least they do not say how many Bantu listeners there are. They tell you of the increase in staff and factors of that nature, but there is no information in regard to the number of listeners, or how the Bantu programmes are received. There is a slight reference where they say that they are investigating now among Bantu listeners whether in fact the programmes are acceptable to the Bantu listeners. Now the hon. Minister made the statements in the past, but what he has said to-day is exactly the opposite. We would like to know from the Minister what is the true position Are there listeners, are the programmes acceptable to the Bantu, and what in fact is this R550,000 to be spent on?

I think it might be as well if at this stage I refresh hon. members’ minds a little, because they are still living in the period before the developments of the last few years. Hon. members forget that when I said those things to which they have referred it was in respect of the old medium wave system as it existed in those days. The great developments only came later. At that time it was intended for the old system, with a small potential expansion. However, as we have to incur capital expenditure now, surely it is necessary for us right from the start to help to bear the burdens connected with the new development, even though we are to be recouped from the Bantu programme later on. Surely every new business requires capital expenditure at the commencement. Once the undertaking is a going concern, perhaps long afterwards, it begins to show dividends. Surely that goes without saying.

In other words, what you said in 1960, is out of date now?

May I ask a question? The hon. the Minister has said that there will be revenue in connection with F.M. radio, but that capital expenditure will first have to be incurred; but did the hon. the Minister not four minutes ago say that the capital cost will have to be borne by Bantu Radio?

I rise in the first place to correct something. The hon. the Minister is in the habit, as soon as questions are asked, of attacking this House with all kinds of absurdities, as he has again done to-day. That is an old technique, but we are dealing here with a new Vote and a new item and the House is now being asked to approve this principle, and when we ask for information the hon. the Minister starts with his old story that this side of the House wants to do nothing for he Bantu. Then he even grows sentimental and talks about the soul of the Bantu. But did the hon. the Minister not think of the soul of the Bantu when he spoke in this House in 1960, and said the following, which the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has not quoted yet—

And then the Minister asks us for R550,000, and he does not want to say what it is for. He now says it is for programmes which are broadcast, but in the same breath he says that the capital expenditure is borne by the Whites and remains in the name of the Whites, and he says there is only one more Bantu programme which is being broadcast. The longer the Minister talks, the more obscure the matter becomes for me. One of the hon. members here says that the Minister is like a jukebox which has got stuck. That story about this side of the House not wanting to do anything for the Bantu, etc., has been told by him so often that we really do not take any any more notice of it. But I want to remind the Minister that he is recorded as having said that the White man will no more have to pay for the Bantu programmes which are broadcast than he is expected to pay for the cigarettes of the Bantu, and I think we can expect a better reply from the Minister than he has given hitherto.

Surely the position is quite clear. I want to start with what the hon. member has just said. I want to repeat that one has to pay for one’s privileges. I want to ask whether Bantu Radio is not of importance to the White man because through the medium of Bantu Radio the Bantu gets to know the White man, gets to know his civilization and in this way mutual goodwill is built up? Or is this not a good thing? [Laughter.] Do hon. members want to laugh this whole matter off? Is that the mentality displayed by hon. members? The Bantu have to make a contribution towards this service because it is a service which has been established for their convenience. In this case the service is not so much in the interests of the White man. Of course, radio is of just as much advantage to the White man as it is to the Bantu. Do I still have to explain that fact? Surely it is not necessary for me to explain to hon. members that radio to-day is the only means of getting through to the Bantu? Surely it is not necessary for me to remind hon. members that wherever trouble has arisen with the Bantu throughout South Africa, that trouble has ceased the moment the Bantu have been given the true facts of the situation through the medium of the radio? I can mention numerous cases where this has happened. Do hon. members want to tell me that this is not to the advantage of the country?

But what did you say in 1960?

Radio Bantu was started in 1960 for the convenience of the Bantu, but as time went on we in South Africa realized that the radio was a tremendous asset to us in gaining goodwill and in bringing about a better relationship between the Bantu and ourselves. We realized that in radio we had the means whereby we would be able to foster that feeling of goodwill. Surely that is to our advantage? Must we close our eyes to these advantages? It is not our duty to make use of radio for this purpose? I want to repeat that in 1960 when I made that speech we still had the old system. The position was that we wanted to start an additional service for the Bantu. It was only afterwards that we made use of the new system by means of which we have been able to reach the whole of the population, a fact which is just as much to the benefit of the White man as it is to the benefit of the Bantu, although for some time to come it may still mean more to the White man than it will to the Bantu. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) now says …

Will the money be used for the compiling of programmes or for other purposes as well?

The expenses that will be partially covered by these funds will be the current expenses of Radio Bantu. There is nothing wrong with that. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) provoked a great deal of laughter on the other side of the House when she said that the Whites should supply all the capital in this regard. Yes, but it is simply a question of calculation. Things run more smoothly if the capital is supplied by the Whites. The costs as far as capital requirements are concerned are shared and the Bantu services must provide their share. It is a matter of bookkeeping. It is far better this way than to have one official for the Bantu service and another official for the White service, or to have one transmitter for the White programmes and another transmitter for the Bantu programmes, or to have one engineer for the one service and another engineer for the other service. Everything has to be shared. The apparatus is shared, the cables are shared and the staff is shared. And because this is done we now have a scientific apportionment of expenses which the Bantu have to meet in connection with the Bantu programmes and which the Whites have to meet in connection with the White programmes. It is simply a question of calculation. There is nothing wrong with that. It is true that the licensing fees of the S.A.B.C. are collected by the Post Office. To-day the Post Office continually tries to ascertain whether licences are Bantu or Whites. But that was not the position previously.

It is seldom that one has the privilege of witnessing an hon. Minister performing as the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs carried on this afternoon. He has mounted his horse and ridden off in all directions at the same time, and frankly, I do not think he is getting anywhere with his explanations. I will confine myself to the explanations given by the Minister, but I wish he would confine himself to the points raised by us in regard to what he said when the establishment of Radio Bantu was before the House. So far two of my colleagues have read from his Hansard speech, but that does not exhaust the subject at all. In the course of his statement to the House on 7 April 1960 the Minister made at least two other significant statements. He said—

The he went on to say—

The Minister limited it virtually to the expenditure involved in the salaries of the members of the control board, and then he said—

And then he added what was quoted by the hon. member for Drakensberg: “That is after all not a necessity of life.” Yet he tells us this afternoon that this is a necessity of life for the Bantu, that it is there in the interest of the White man, and then he says “in a certain sense” it is a luxury! In 1960 this service was a luxury, but now he says it is indispensable, if not for the Bantu, then for the White people. In 1960 the Minister said—

But to-day the position has changed completely, and I think we are entitled to ask the Minister: why has this tremendous change in his attitude come about? For example, in the Act itself Section 5 (6) (3) says—

That refers to the Bantu programme. This is a very explicit assurance that this service is going to be self-supporting, and it says that the Minister will have to give his approval in advance if there is any intention on the part of the corporation to exceed its revenue, in so far as the Bantu services are concerned. But now the Minister seeks to brush all that aside, and whereas we are very often told: This is the traditional policy of my party and of South Africa, and the other goes back to 1911, we can no longer depend on an assurance given to this House as recently as April 1960; and it goes even further, because this afternoon the Minister said that these losses would grow. Whether or not the Minister meant what he said in 1960 is for him to tell the House this afternoon, but he must not lightly brush aside our questions and our complaints and say: Do you not want the Bantu to have a radio service? We have not said that, and we did not say it in 1960. What we say is this: You, the Minister, made certain statements and gave certain undertakings and limited yourself in the legislation by saying that you would have to give your approval before the costs of this service exceeded the revenue. Therefore, one is entitled to ask the Minister when was he first apprised of the fact that either the costs had already exceeded the income or, alternatively, that the expenditure was going to exceed the income? Because in terms of the Act losses could not have been incurred without the Minister’s prior knowledge and consent.

The Minister has said that the Bantu must get a programme in the interests of the country. When he says that, he opens up a very wide field for speculation—because the interests of the country and the public interest are defined in one way by hon. members opposite, and in another way by hon. members over here. Therefore one is entitled to ask whether, if the House votes this R550,000, this money has been properly spent in the interests of the country. There is evidence to suggest that it may have been spent in the interest of a certain political point of view which was disseminated amongst the Bantu of South Africa, but whether that is in the interest of the country is a point which can be argued very extensively. I believe we are entitled to ask the Minister to show how this money has been spent in the interests of the country, when you consider the country as a whole, and not a particular and sectional point of view.

May I know from the Opposition whether they are going to vote this amount or not? Are they against it or not? And if they are not against it, why all this fuss? Are they in favour of this amount being voted for Radio Bantu or not? Or do they want Radio Bantu to be financed at the moment only from the licence fees paid by the Bantu?

That was the policy in the past.

The hon. member says that was the policy in the past, but is he in favour of it? I think it is time the Opposition tells us where they stand in regard to Radio Bantu. The Minister has given us the assurance that, judging by the tremendous increase in the number of Bantu licence-holders, there is not the least doubt that in the course of time the Bantu will pay for their own radio services, and what is wrong with our now advancing R550,000? As far as I personally am concerned, I am prepared to advance a much larger amount for this service. It is not an unknown principle that in order to get such a service going this Parliament advances sums of money. That is what happened in regard to Sasol. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, who is making this speech?

Order! The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) should not make so many interjections.

I say it is no new principle. This Parliament voted large amounts of money for Sasol, which was always opposed by the Opposition, with the eventual object that the petrol consumer in this country would carry Sasol, and precisely the same principle is now being applied here. Why do they not want to do it? In the first place, the Opposition is clearly in favour of this amount being spent, and secondly they are in favour of the Bantu programmes not being limited to the sum of money obtained from their licences. Now, who must pay all this money? There are only two groups of people who can pay it. Either Parliament must vote it, and it must come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which will mean that the whole country will be paying for it, or else the White listeners must pay for it. That is all they have to decide. Either they want a Radio Bantu programme, or they do not. Quite clearly they want it. Now they just have to decide whether we should vote the money, or whether the White listeners should pay it. Which of these two things do they want? But they themselves do not know what they want. Then the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) asks a stupid question. The Minister must say whether there are now more Bantu listeners. Does he not see in the streets every day how the Bantu walk about with radios? Does he not know what is going on? Does he not know of the 30,000 letters which the S.A.B.C. receives from Bantu every week or every month? Does he not know how much his servants like these Bantu programmes? But he asks that foolish question.

I want to congratulate the Minister and the S.A.B.C. Never before has there been such a break-through to the minds of the Bantu as by means of Radio Bantu, and that is what annoys the hon. members so much. They are not angry about the R500,000, but about the fantastic success Radio Bantu has achieved. [Laughter.] They are angry because the Bantu are being given the correct information. But they have not the courage to say that they are against that service, nor have they the courage to say that the White listener should pay for it. They are just making a fuss and then they will vote for it, and then they will take the credit upon themselves for the fact that they played a part in establishing this successful Radio Bantu. And seeing that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) will be the next to speak, I just want to put this question to him: Is he going to vote for this amount or not?

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) makes a practice in this House of trying to sell us on this side red herrings. [Interjections.] We have been trying to get from the hon. the Minister, as we usually try, and almost invariably fail, a clear, straight answer to the questions we ask and we never can get information from him. We are not simply going to accept the excuses and the sidetracking we get from him, and in order to prove that I wish to move—

I do so not because we are opposed in any way to the Bantu having radio services …

Oh no!

I am only sorry I cannot move a reduction in the Minister’s salary. I am doing this solely as a protest not only on our behalf but on behalf of the Bantu people as well against the Minister’s inability to give this House a full and complete story of what is going on in regard to Radio Bantu.

I think the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) got his reply in record time. It will probably teach him not to ask foolish questions. The hon. member for Vereeniging said that it was time that we of the United Party should define our attitude to Radio Bantu. We have done so. We stated that we were not against the provision of a good, non-political service for the Bantu, but that we believed that Radio Bantu went much further than that, and was aimed also at propaganda for apartheid, not only in South Africa but outside our borders. We believe that there is a wastage of that money through the payment, in terms of the Act, of the members of the Bantu Programme Control Board, whose salaries have to be paid out of this amount. The allowances of the members of the Advisory Committee have to be paid out of these losses. Therefore I want the Minister to tell us what the income and expenditure of Radio Bantu is, so that we may know why we find R550,000 on the Estimates as a loss.

The hon. member for Vereeniging asks us to define our attitude to Radio Bantu. I hope he remembers his own words in this House when he said it would be criminal negligence on the part of the Government not to use Radio Bantu for propaganda purposes. I leave the hon. member for Vereeniging there. Our objection to the hon. the Minister is that he is not giving us the information we are entitled to in terms of the Act, which says that he can get income from certain sources, from the total of the licence fees paid by the Bantu. Surely this is a fair question to ask him: Here you have a loss; is it due to the fact that you did not have sufficient income from Bantu licences? How much income did you get from Bantu licences? I have figures here to show that at one stage there were, according to an estimate, 78,000 Bantu licence-holders, namely at 30 March 1962. A year later, in April 1963, there were according to statistics given by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, 170,000. In other words, the income should have doubled from licence fees from the Bantu. In addition, there was revenue from advertising. Why then is there this sudden huge loss of R500,000 to-day?

You will remember, Sir, that when the Minister got up in this House and explained why we had to have this particular Bill dealing with the Bantu Programme Control Board, he did not in his second-reading speech once mention the words “Bantu Radio” or “Bantu Radio Control Board”, with the result that next day the Burger referred to him as “Albert die Swyger” and objected to the fact that he did not give the required information. Why cannot he give the information in this particular instance, too?

The Minister tells us that the Bantu Radio Programme Control Board only deals with programmes and not with finances. Did he not read the Act and see that the income and the finances of this Bantu Programme Control Board must come from the sources mentioned in the Act itself? Surely he has to explain to the House why there is this loss. Where would it come from otherwise, if not from this Control Board? Is it from the S.A.B.C.? I trust we will not have a debate on the S.A.B.C. now. The Minister has no right under any statute to ask that Parliament should pay this R500,000. The Minister used these words in 1960—

In other words, there would not be a loss on Radio Bantu. He said so and he cannot get away from it, but to-day his excuse is that the White people also get benefits from Radio Bantu and that therefore it is quite right that other sections of the community should also carry this loss. Surely the opposite is also true. The Bantu people for their part get great benefits from the ordinary programmes of the S.A.B.C. Does that mean that the Bantu have to bear any loss incurred by the White programmes?

Our attitude when this Bill was introduced was that we would get a financial mess, which we have to-day, if we split the S.A.B.C. into a White section and a Black section. We warned that this would lead to financial chaos and that is what we have to-day, simply because we have split the two. The Minister would have been satisfied as to the value of the services to any section of the community if we had retained the old system we had originally, of having one central Broadcasting Corporation, and not a corporation split as this one is. It is essential for us to know where the income comes from on which this loss is based, and what the expenditure is. Do we know whether anything is being spent on the Africa service, on propaganda outside the Republic, which may have resulted in these losses? The Minister must remember that the Bantu Programme Control Board is empowered by the Act to broadcast programmes for Bantu also outside the Republic. Have these losses resulted partly from that?

The Bantu Programme Control Board is responsible for the broadcasts to the Bantu schools. Fair enough, but I want to know to what extent were losses carried by the Bantu Programme Control Board which might just as well have been carried by the Department of Bantu Education. I am sure the hon. member for Vereeniging would be satisfied if the Department of Bantu Education paid a greater share of the losses. It is not that we are against the losses being paid, but we are against the way in which it is being done, and the way in which these losses were incurred. We are told that when the Bill was originally introduced, and F.M. was introduced, the Minister did not know that there would be all these expenses on F.M. He knew about F.M. in 1960 when he spoke about its possibilities. How can he tell us now that he did not know what would be entailed for the Bantu Programme Control Board?

I have referred to the expenditure, but what about the income? we hear to-day that this expenditure is for the years 1961-3. Why did the Minister not come to this House in 1961 when the first losses were incurred and explain that there was something wrong with the finances of Radio Bantu? Why did he not come in 1962? Why does he only come now? I am not even sure that he is following the correct Treasury procedure in coming with piles of losses over three years and asking us to pay for it in one year.

Let us take the income of Radio Bantu. We should like to know what the income is from Bantu licences. The Minister told us that he can distinguish between the income from Bantu licences and White licences, but I telephoned his Department and they told me that no distinction whatever was made. The Bantu comes in and pays his licence the same as a White man does, and he gets the same licence, and there is no way of establishing how many Bantu licence-holders there are. But the Act says that the Postmaster-General has to estimate the number of Bantu Radio licence-holders. Surely it is a legitimate question to ask the Minister, where the Postmaster-General in terms of the Act must estimate the number of Bantu licence-holders, to give us those figures. Why must he be “Albert die Swyger” again? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) says I want to drag red herrings over the floor of the House, or sell them to them, but I have had much more success with my sale of red herrings than I hoped to achieve, because very clearly they did not intend to move that motion. They have been discussing this matter for the last hour and it is only when I put that pertinent question to them that they suddenly decided to move. The hon. member for Yeoville says we are jumping from the frying-pan into the fire, but I wonder whether he realizes how they have fallen from the frying-pan into the fire. The hon. member for Constantia need not think that he can get away with the nonsense he spoke by saying that it was only to show their dissatisfaction. He has now moved a specific motion which can have only two possible effects. The one is that Radio Bantu will now have to be curtailed so as to remain within the scope of the licences paid by the Bantu. The other possible effect is that this loss will now have to be recouped from the licence fees paid by the Whites. I can attack the hon. member for Constantia on both those standpoints. I can put both those matters to the electorate until such time as he says what their policy is, whether he wants this House to vote this amount from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or whether he wants the White listeners to pay for it. Because that is all that is relevant here. I will draw my own inferences, and my inference is that they are opposed to Radio Bantu because Radio Bantu is destroying the propaganda made amongst the Bantu by sections of the English Press. That is why they refuse to vote this money. The hon. member for Drakensberg made it very clear that she is not in favour of the licence fees of the Whites being used for the Bantu services. Now she keeps quiet and does not cackle. She made it clear that she definitely refuses to allow any White licence fees to be used for the Bantu programmes. Is that the hon. member’s standpoint or not?

May I reply? The hon. member has now put that question to me three times.

The hon. member has enough time to reply to it. She can get up when I sit down. This is just an attempt to cut short my turn to speak. I make that accusation against her. She is opposed to White licence fees being used for Radio Bantu.

Another red herring.

It is not. She does not want, no more than I and this side of the House want, Radio Bantu to be financed out of the White licence fees. Then there is only one other way to finance it if one in any way wants a decent Radio Bantu, and that is that it must come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Who pays for it?

The taxpayers of the whole of South Africa, whether they are listeners or not—Bantu and Whites. But hon. members opposite just a moment ago, through the hon. member for Constantia, moved that this motion be not voted. In other words, they are opposed to the country as a whole paying for it, and they are also opposed to the White listener paying for it. In other words, they want a small Radio Bantu which in the beginning would be financed only from the revenue derived from Bantu licences. That is why I say they are against the expansion of Radio Bantu. They are opposed to it because ever since we have had Radio Bantu we have no longer had bus strikes and riots; one no longer finds the consequences of the scandalous propaganda of newspapers like the Sunday Times among the Bantu. Radio Bantu was able to expose the terrible stories told by the Sunday Times that there would be slave labour among the Bantu. They want the Bantu to believe those stories, and because Radio Bantu has succeeded in destroying that pernicious propaganda, the Opposition is opposed to it. Does the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) blame me for saying that it would be criminal negligence on the part of this Government if they did not use Radio Bantu properly to inform the Bantu and to make propaganda among them and to warn the Bantu against the leftists and the communists in this country; to warn the Bantu against the Alan Patons and the Hamilton Russells of this country? Mr. Chairman, I hope that Radio Bantu will counter that propaganda with conservative propaganda which will improve the relations between the Whites and the Bantu in this country. But the Opposition wants to disrupt the relations between the Whites and the Bantu, and I am very glad that I was able to succeed in compelling the hon. member for Constantia to do what in their hearts they really wanted to do.

It has become the custom for Nationalist Party members in this House to ask questions and then, when one tries to answer those questions, not to give one the opportunity to do so.

You have the opportunity to answer now.

Mr. Chairman, in future I shall appeal to the Chair to allow me to reply to questions which are put to me. I want to reply now to the argument which has been repeated so often by the hon. member. Not only did the hon. member try to introduce a “red herring” into this debate but he tried to introduce a stinking fish. Just like his Minister, the hon. member says one thing now and another the next moment; he jumps from subject to subject without knowing what he is talking about. He challenged this side of the House to say whether we were opposed to radio programmes for Bantu listeners. Of course this side of the House is not opposed to those programmes. We have never been opposed to them. What we object to is the fact that we have an incompetent Minister who cannot give a proper explanation of the items appearing in these Estimates. We object to the fact that we have an incompetent Minister who gave us certain undertakings here when he introduced a particular measure into this House. I want to point out that once again we are dealing here with legislation in respect of which a Minister has again told us that we should not pay any attention to the provisions of that legislation; we must simply accept his word. That is an old habit of Nationalist Party Ministers. They are continually telling us that we should not pay any attention to the provisions of legislation but that we should simply accept their word; they say that they will never do this or they will never do that and they expect us to believe them. When the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs introduced this legislation setting up the Bantu Radio Control Boards, he gave us the unsolicited undertaking that Whites would never be asked to pay for this service. [Interjections]. He cannot deny that. He will find these words in Hansard, Volume 104, col. 5072/3 of the Afrikaans text. That is where we will find the undertaking that he gave when he said that it would never be necessary for the White man to pay for Radio Bantu. Why did the hon. the Minister not then advance the argument which has been advanced here by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee)? Why did he not say to us then, “These people are poor; they cannot pay for their own services; we shall pay for their services”? He gave us that unsolicited assurance and to-day he comes along to this House and he cannot tell us why he needs this amount of R550,000. What are the reasons he gave us? He says in the first place that times have changed since 1960. In what respect have times changed? He says that we now have F.M. radio, but in this same speech in 1960 the hon. the Minister referred to F.M. radio. In the same speech he also told us how the radio network was expanding and he said: “We do not pay for the cigarettes of the Bantu; why should we pay for his radio services?” The hon. the Minister does not know what is going on. The cost of the capital expansion that has taken place, on the Minister’s own admission, has been met by the Whites of South Africa. We have no objection to doing this but then the hon. the Minister should tell us the reasons for this loss. If this loss is due to the rapid expansion of radio services and, generally speaking, to the improved services which are being provided, why in heaven’s name is this item reflected in the Estimates as “Losses on Radio Bantu”? Why is it not indicated as a loss on radio services generally; why separate the two services? Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with the hon. the Minister? He does not know whether he is coming or going. I honestly feel that the hon. the Minister is treating this House with contempt. Surely he ought to know what is going on? He ought at least to ask his officials to inform him and then he ought to remember what they tell him. He should not come along here and tell us all sorts of things without being able to give us any proof. He says this side of the House is opposed to radio services for the Bantu and that we do not want the Bantu to listen in. Sir, if there is one side of the House which realizes that we must have radio services for the Bantu it is this side of the House. [Interjection.] Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether you heard what the hon. member over there has just said. I am very sorry you did not hear what he said. I do not think he used parliamentary language. That hon. member does not have the courage to stand up and repeat what he said but the pity is that people in the Gallery heard what he said.

What did he say?

No, I shall not repeat it.

Order! To which hon. member is the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) referring?

I refer to the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker).

What! That is an insult. I said nothing.

I was saying .. .

On a point of order, the hon. member must apologize for having said such a mean thing.

Order!

I was saying that this side of the House …

On a point of order, if an hon. member alleges that another hon. member said something disgraceful, something that is unparliamentary, and that people in the Gallery heard him say it, and the hon. member accused of having made that statement then says that he did not make such a statement, I submit that the hon. member who makes the allegation must apologize to the House.

Order! The hon. member probably heard incorrectly.

Mr. Chairman, I do not blame hon. members opposite for being so nervous. I would also be nervous if I had committed such a faux pas. [Time limit.]

For the third time I should like to explain clearly once again in a very simple manner what happened. I do not know whether the memory of hon. members opposite is short or whether they have been doing this deliberately, but they are presenting a very distorted picture here.

In 1960, when the Act was amended here, we were discussing the existing system of medium wave which reached only a small part of South Africa, and which was very ineffective, but at that stage we did not envisage any other plan, and at the time we contemplated giving the Bantu facilities, but it would be an amenity for the Bantu and if it is an amenity for the Bantu, he must pay for it himself. Surely the principle is clear; and so it was said also that in order to ensure that we did not do the White man an injustice, the White man would never be asked to foot the bill for the Bantu service. That was the consensus of opinion, because the White man too had to be secured. If there had to be a service for the Bantu which would be an amenity for him, he had to pay for it. If it is a service which is established in the interests of the whole country, the country must pay for it. That was the basis. Later in the year, after the Session of Parliament had ended, the proposals in regard to our broadcasting services were examined not only by me but by experts, and towards the end of December 1960 the Government decided to introduce a completely new service in South Africa, namely the F.M. service, for during that short period we had come to realize the value of the Bantu service to the Bantu. We realized that if we want White and non-White to live together in South Africa, we must use the radio so that the White man and the non-White man may learn to know one another; we must teach the Black man to learn to know the White man’s civilization, and we have to reach the Bantu so that we may provide him with adult education, for the radio is a medium for adult education. The Government then decided to appropriate an enormous sum of money, which was announced during that year, and was explained in the House of Assembly the next year, to tackle that great scheme. But it is a new scheme; it is not the old scheme. It is a scheme that will cost millions upon millions. At the time it was estimated to cost R34,000,000 in all. Now it was no longer only a service primarily intended for the pleasure of the Bantu for which he had to pay for as he would pay for his cigarettes; it is a service that is intended to enable the population groups in South Africa to learn to know one another and to live together. That is the great value of this service; it is adult education. Since that time the service has been expanded every year. From the nature of things you have to have the radio service before you can get the radio listener to purchase his radio set. In other words, it goes without saying that the cost has to be incurred first, and the revenue will only follow upon that. Therefore I say that the cost will continue to rise until the service has been perfected in South Africa, and then hon. members will see the expenditure diminishing. If hon. members had asked me sensibly, what is the revenue and what is the expenditure I would have given them that, but they simply came here with a wild attack.

I asked that.

Let me give hon. members the figures now, and let us see whether it will have any effect upon their attitude. At the present time we have 128,000 Bantu listeners according to the returns that are being kept regularly.

Is that the figure after the issue of the last licence?

I am not quite sure when the figure was determined. I am merely taking the round figure.

Will the Minister tell us how that 128,000 has been arrived at?

It is according to the returns of people who take out licences.

It is an estimate.

As I have said, from the nature of things the whole matter of calculating the expense is a matter to be left to the auditors. It has been checked to ensure that the apportionment is correct. If hon. members are interested in the revenue and expenditure according to this apportionment, I may tell them that the revenue for the year 1963 is estimated to be R880,000.

Is that in respect of Bantu radio?

Yes, I am dealing with Bantu radio only. The expenditure on Bantu radio amounts to R1,372,000 according to the estimate. So that leaves a deficit of about R492,000.

The R880,000 is for the preparation of programmes.

That is the total revenue.

What is the expenditure in connection with the preparation of the programmes?

No, I cannot give the. hon. member the details. When the statements are submitted, he will find everything there that has to appear in the statements according to law. From the nature of things I cannot say how much has been spent on this or that transmitter and how much on this or that item. I do not know whether those are the figures the Opposition desire to have.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) again said that I gave an undertaking that the White man would never be required to pay for the Black man’s services. Where did I ever give such an undertaking? I simply said that in that case, where it was an exclusive service for the Black man, the Black man would have to pay for it. But when in subsequent years we came along with a service in the interests of the welfare of the whole nation, a service entirely different from that small medium wave service of the past, then from the nature of things you have to operate on business principles; from the nature of things you first have to incur expense and then only can you have revenue. Whence must the capital expenditure come, if not from the State? It is in the interests of the State as such, and it is the State as such that must provide the capital, and must bear the initial losses, and eventually the State may be able to recoup itself from Radio Bantu.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) raised Cain because there is not one Vote, but that the cost of the White service and that of the Bantu service are estimated separately. But the Act provides that the two accounts must be kept separate. Why this attack upon it now? It is a principle that is laid down in the Act.

It was your policy.

That is the policy laid down in the Act. It is an Act of Parliament; it is not my Act, and if it is an Act of Parliament, that Act must be carried out, and I am causing the provisions of the Act to be carried out.

Let us go back for a moment. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) who is not here at the moment, again came along with his du e fixe that the statements of the S.A.B.C. should be audited by the Auditor-General, and the hon. member for Orange Grove is now emulating him. The statements of the S.A.B.C. have always been audited by prominent firms of auditors. They are checked by one of the oldest firms of auditors, which also acts as the auditors for the B.B.C. in England. In other words, in respect of the audit, the hon. member does not have the slightest reason to complain. It is the best in the country, and the hon. member surely will not impugn that. But now the hon. member comes along and he says that the statements should be audited by the Auditor-General. What difference is it going to make? I admit that the Auditor-General renders eminent services, but I do not admit that the Auditor-General will be able to find things there that will not be spotted by the auditors of the S.A.B.C. They have to observe a code; they have to observe certain principles. In other words, the auditors of the S.A.B.C. are doing their work splendidly. You may be able to find other auditors that are equally good, but you will not find any better. Why now this insistence that it must necessarily be the Auditor-General? I know hon. members of the Opposition do not like the truth and facts, but permit me to remind them of this fact; as soon as the audit is done by the Auditor-General, the report of the Auditor-General goes to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and then hon. members of the Opposition turn up there and they cross-examine the heads of the S.A.B.C. and they ferret out all the business secrets of the S.A.B.C… .

Order! The hon. the Minister need not argue that; the Act provides that it need not go to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I am merely explaining why the Opposition are adopting this attitude.

We say you are not adhering to the Act.

The Opposition are advocating an amendment of the Act, because they say it must be the Auditor-General. When the Auditor-General’s Report comes before the Select Committee, members of the Opposition could find out all the business secrets of the S.A.B.C. and divulge them to rivals. That is the motive behind it all. It is typical of the attacks that have always been launched by that side of the House upon all Government institutions. They are still busy breaking down Government institutions. In the same way that the hon. member for Kensington carried on against Sasol, so he is to-day carrying on against the S.A.B.C. He has always wanted the affairs of Sasol to come before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, so that he could become aware of the business secrets of Sasol, and so also he now wants to find out the internal secrets, the business secrets of the S.A.B.C. Those are secrets which no proper business dare reveal, for otherwise it will retrogress.

Hopelessly wrong.

That is the motive behind it all. We on this side have repeatedly stated that we accept the principle that our utility institutions are separate undertakings, and their internal arrangements are their own affair; we are not going to permit hon. members opposite to go and interfere there.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) again said what the other members tried to hide; he said exactly what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) had said. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that they are opposed to Radio Bantu because it propagates the Government’s policy of apartheid. That is the motive behind it. Radio Bantu may not tell the Bantu what is his own. That is the motive behind these attacks. These attacks are not attacks on the efficiency of the control over the S.A.B.C., no, these attacks are simply launched because they realize that there you have a powerful instrument that will not permit the influences of their Press to undermine the Bantu.

I think I have now dealt with all the points that have been raised here.

At 6.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Pursuant to Standing Order No. 25, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity that you have afforded me to raise a matter which in my humble opinion is serious enough to merit attention by this House. My motion reads as follows—

I believe that I am speaking on behalf of the House in expressing my sympathy on this occasion with one of our cricketing Springboks who lost almost his entire family in a road accident quite recently. I can only imagine what his feelings were when he had to wait for an aircraft to bring him back home and only arriving yesterday when the funeral of his family was already over. We hope that the only surviving member of his family will recover speedily and completely. But if 1 express my sympathy with him, then I must also do so with the families of 56 people who, during February alone, died on the roads in the Western Cape; or with the families of 3,886 people who died during 1963 on the roads of South Africa. In 1963 there were 118,658 accidents on our roads. The hon. the Minister of Transport said recently that 4,000 people had been killed during the past 10 months, 9,000 seriously injured and 25,000 slightly injured in more than 100,000 accidents. It is estimated that during 1963 road accidents cost us nothing less than R130,000,000 in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to give the House any further information in this regard. I think that hon. members are fully aware of the seriousness of the matter and it is a matter that has also been given a great deal of prominence in the Press recently. Let me just add that at the moment more people are being killed on the roads of South Africa than we lost soldiers over a comparable period on the battle-fields during the wars in which we were involved. The tragedy is even greater because the people being killed on our roads are mainly people under the age of 25 years and are mainly women and children. We are spending a great deal of money to bring immigrants to South Africa and in the meantime we are annihilating the cream of our nation on our roads. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into detail and to refer to various recommendations that have been made in this connection but the Press and the radio have given a great deal of publicity to recommendations in regard to this matter. Quite recently various organizations and road safety associations discussed this matter in all its ramifications. I want to confine myself mainly to discussing two aspects of this matter—the question of the uniformity of legislation which I consider to be a matter of cardinal importance, and secondly, the question of uniformity of policy in the application of the provisions of that legislation. I want to express my disappointment on this occasion that the hon. the Minister of Transport has been compelled to withdraw draft legislation that has already been prepared. For the sake of clarity I would like to quote the statement of the hon. the Minister made on 18 February—

I am sorry but I am not at all optimistic about the appointment of that committee. This statement of mine has nothing to do with individuals or their desire to find a solution to this problem. We have had numbers of commissions over the past few decades, many of them having virtually the same terms of reference. We have had numbers of reports and yet we are no nearer a solution. I am afraid that this committee will only be able to add one further report to the already voluminous series of reports that we have.

I want to refer briefly to a number of these reports and recommendations that we have had over the past few years. In the early ’thirties the Automobile Association stated that uniform legislation should be passed by this Parliament. In 1945 a commission of inquiry into road transport was appointed under the chairmanship of Major Page and the present Secretary for Transport, Mr. Danie Joubert, was the secretary of that Commission. In paragraph 706 of the report of that commission they emphasize the great need that exists for more uniformity and they say that some witnesses consider that the only adequate way in which to have uniformity is by means of legislation passed by the Union Parliament. In paragraph 712 of that report they say that the present procedure is open to criticism, that it operates slowly but unsurely. In paragraph 715 they advocate the drawing up of a draft ordinance to be drafted by the Department of Transport for the four provincial authorities and they say very clearly that if this draft ordinance is not effective and does not provide a solution to the problem, consideration should be given to the introduction of legislation by the Union Parliament. That was already the position in 1945. One of the recommendations of that commission resulted in the establishment of a Provincial Advisory Council on road traffic legislation having amongst its members four members of executive committees. But in spite of the fact that since that time they have met each year, we have not had any worthwhile results from that Committee. From 1955 to 1957 we had a committee of inquiry into road safety and on this occasion Mr. Joubert was the chairman. In paragraph 204 of their report they say the following;—

In paragraph 206 they refer to the provisions that differ from province to province and from urban area to urban area. Then they say that to say that a citizen of the country is supposed to know the law applicable to him has simply become a legal fiction in respect of this sort of legislation and that it is very difficult for the courts to function under these circumstances.

The report of the Shand Committee appointed in 1962 uses stronger language in this regard. They refer to Chapter VII of the Cape Traffic Ordinance and they have the following to say in this regard—

If one reads the Ordinance, Mr. Chairman, one finds numbers of examples to support this contention. Between 21 and 23 August of last year a National Road Safety Congress was held in Johanesburg under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister. The passing of uniform legislation was again advocated at the congress. This was also advocated in numbers of resolutions submitted to the Congress by other bodies. The general complaint appears to be that it takes too long to have measures adopted and then to have those measures embodied in legislation. Apparently some years elapse from the time that a good idea is submitted until it eventually appears in the statute book. A large number of practical road safety measures have been proposed which, if they are applied, will save hundreds of lives and avoid injuries to thousands of people. They have been repeatedly discussed; they are well known but nothing is done to have them embodied in legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to confine myself to two provisions of the draft bill which the hon. the Minister has held over. In my opinion the most important is the establishment of Central Traffic Bureaux coupled with a penalty point system. This is a universally known system and it is regarded as being one of the most effective means of tracking down bad drivers and getting them off the road and also of making useful users of the road of rehabilitated drivers. As things are at present, a person is expected to make a declaration when he applies for a new licence in another province. In practice it is quite possible for him to obtain a new licence. If this licence has been withdrawn for an offence in one province, he can obtain a licence in another province, a licence that is unendorsed, and it will only be by chance that he is found out because there is no machinery for ascertaining whether such a person has already been issued with a licence or not. The uniform application of the law, if adopted, is very important. We need a central co-ordinating authority to ensure that the differences in the policy applied by city and town traffic police, provincial traffic police and also by the South African Police who are concerned in this matter during the investigation of an accident, are removed, that their action is co-ordinated and that facts are correlated in order to give a clear picture of the position.

On this occasion too I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us the opportunity in this House to discuss the draft bill that has been framed for introduction. I am not unsympathetically disposed to the principle of provincial autonomy but I feel that hon. members will agree with me when I say that the circumstances of the case are urgent and serious enough to warrant the introduction of legislation into this Parliament. I do not think that it is fair on the part of the provinces to try to put a spoke in our wheel—perhaps I ought to say, a nail in the tyre!—at this stage. I am convinced that if we were to hold a referendum, 95 per cent of the people of South Africa would express in favour of such legislation. It is not a new principle; we already have precedents in this regard. I refer here to Act No. 41 of 1962 in terms of which certain powers are delegated to the provinces. In the Cape, Ordinance No. 6 of 1963 was passed to be complimentary to Act No. 49 of 1962.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, our imagination is gripped by campaigns for the combating of poliomyelitis; we have campaigns against cancer, so much so that we poor supporters of the tobacco farmers are becoming more and more involved; we have the shark danger in Natal which claims fewer than a dozen victims each year. This particular evil of road accidents claims more victims than all these things put together and yet it is not given the support it deserves either by this Parliament or by the people of our country. It is because of this fact that I feel appeal to the hon. the Minister to make use of every means at his disposal to combat this evil and to introduce legislation, if necessary, in order to put an end to this senseless slaughter of our people, to this genocide that we are committing on the roads of South Africa.

I think we are all very grateful to the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg for introducing this motion. My view I’ll put very shortly, because I want to give other members a chance to speak before the hon. the Minister replies.

The only way that the rate of accidents can be stopped is by creating a corps of honorary traffic officers of specially selected civilians, men and women of standing. Their duty would be to report, when they see any breach of the road code, to a central bureau, giving the number of the car, the date, the time, the place and a short summary of the breach. This bureau will write to the owner of the car giving details of the report received and warning the owner that a dossier has been opened in his name for future reference. The recipient of the report can reply and deny the allegations, and this will also go in his file. If, however, similar allegations are made against him by a number of different special officers, giving other instances, the validity of his denial will lose its effect. Legislation would be necessary to allow such a dossier to be produced in court as evidence of the driver’s driving character, and that could be used against him. A special traffic officer making a report must undertake to make an affidavit or appear in court if called upon. This would obviate frivolous, spiteful or malicious reporting against people. The effect would be largely psychological on the bad driver on the roads. He will never know when he is being watched, he will never know when he is being reported on, and he will know that the evidence of his bad driving is building up against him and can be used against him, should he be involved in a future accident, or should the police bring a case against him for bad driving, or for a breach of the road code. That will have a definite psychological effect on him. With our small population and with the ratio of thousands of miles of road to our population; and the ratio of the number of traffic officers that we have compared with other countries in the world with a much denser population, it is impossible for us to have sufficient traffic officers to patrol those roads. Therefore the only way it can be done is to create a special bureau. Let the citizens of the country themselves take a part in this serious matter. They see a man committing a breach of the road code, they report him. He is warned, two or three or four reports come in against him. He realizes that he is being watched and that the dossier is building up against him, and if legislation is passed to make it possible for the dossier to be produced in court if he should ever have to come to court for an accident, then I am sure the psychological effect will be such that he will mend his ways.

I do not want to take up more time of the House, although there is a lot I would like to say about it, but time does not permit.

I think we should be grateful for the opportunity that has been afforded to us this afternoon to deal with this very serious issue, but I would like to say that although this issue has received attention for a considerable time, this is nothing new in so far as the toll of tragedies is concerned. This has been going on for some time in our country, and in other countries of the world as well. The toll of accidents has continued to mount and it is a matter which has been the concern of the governments of other countries as well. But I would like to say that in 1961 I did raise this matter in the House and I drew the attention of the hon. Minister of Transport to this very vital and important problem, and in the course of the discussions attention was drawn to some of the new methods that have been thought out, similar to that raised by the hon. member for Green Point just now and other methods which have been evolved in order to try and keep some check on the toll of tragedies and motor accidents which continue to mount year by year. The hon. Minister at that time said that the South African Road Safety Council established under the Act in 1960, had not as yet had a chance of getting into its stride, but he did give us an assurance at the time and he said that he was well aware of some of the important suggestions and some of the important schemes that had been thought of in other countries, and that he knew of many of the systems that could possibly be tried out, and he said that as soon as the council had had a chance to get going and to settle down to its work, he hoped he would be able to then deal with the matter.

Order! I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must now give the hon. Minister an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Speaker, when one considers that an average of 12 people lose their lives and that 170 people are injured on our roads each day, one is completely horrified. It is not only the financial loss that our country suffers, but it is also the loss of manpower and of young lives. About 65 per cent of the accidents are to persons between the ages of 25 and 49—people who are in the prime of their lives. Efforts are made by bodies, organizations, the Press and the radio to reduce this toll, but it seems as though these appeals simply make no impression on people. It is a tragic but true fact that 90 per cent of accidents are caused by human error. The number of accidents caused by mechanical failures is comparatively small. Human fallibility, negligence, indifference and thoughtlessness cause 90 per cent of the accidents. We can find no easy and simple solution to our problem. All the developed countries in the world are burdened with this problem. All of them are seeking the solution to it but as yet none of them has found it. There is a great deal that can be done and is being done by the Road Safety Organization. One can never analyse the results it achieves and say that because of what it is doing there are fewer road accidents, because the number of miles travelled is increasing and the number of cars on our roads is increasing. All we need ask ourselves is what the position would be if we did not have an organization such as this. It is doing its best but there is no easy solution to this problem. There are so many factors that must be considered and so many aspects of the matter that must receive attention. There are so many different courses of action that can be taken. I would like to mention a few of them. It is important and necessary that people should continue to be educated to try to make them more safety-conscious. This education has to start from an early age. It must become part of them so that their first thought when they get into a motor vehicle will be to drive safely. Propaganda is also necessary. It is often necessary to make people afraid and to shock them so that they will realize what it may mean if they are careless. The strict application of the law is also a requirement. One of our difficulties is that the law is not always applied strictly enough. It is as I have said on a previous occasion. A person may be an absolute coward, a complete nonentity but when he gets behind the steering wheel of a car, he becomes a confident hooligan. The only way to deal with that sort of person is to apply the law strictly. That person ought never to be allowed behind a steering wheel. If a person drives a car while under the influence of liquor, he is guilty of murder if he runs somebody down and kills him. If he kills a person in any other way while he is under the influence of liquor, he is very severely punished by the court. Drunken drivers who kill people are actually guilty of murder and the punishment imposed by our courts is sometimes completely inadequate. I say that the strict application of the law is a must. We must have safe roads and this brings me to the question of the elimination of crossings. All these things are necessary. These are all factors that contribute towards reducing the incidence of road accidents. Motor vehicles must be free of serious mechanical defects. Another very important point is that research has continually to be done. One cannot prescribe a remedy for an ailment until one has first made a diagnosis. That is why research into and the analysis of accidents is so necessary. Hon. members suggested the setting up of a Central Traffic Bureau. I hope this can still be done. I think it is a necessity. I do not know whether the Road Safety Council, a good organization which is trying to obtain the co-operation of everyone, is really effective. I hope that this committee that is investigating this matter will perhaps be able to advise us further in this regard. But every means possible must be used to reduce the number of accidents. We must realize one thing and that is that there is a psychological approach to the matter. The entire psychological approach to this matter has to be investigated. The tragedy is that the majority of people who are injured and killed are innocent parties. A man may obey the traffic rules and drive carefully but it is the other man who kills him. All these factors must be considered.

I wanted very much to introduce the Central Road Traffic Bill—not that I thought for one moment that it would reduce the number of accidents because one cannot reduce the number of accidents by means of legislation—but I did think that it would contribute to that end. It would at least have been a start, not only to bring about uniformity because we already have a reasonable amount of uniformity to-day as far as the ordinances in the various provinces are concerned but it would at least have eliminated the long delays that take place when those ordinances have to be amended. There are sometimes long delays in having sound proposals that are made embodied in those ordinances, proposals that will assist in avoiding accidents, and a law of this nature would eliminate those delays. We now have five provinces and the ordinances in each province have to be amended separately while, if we had a Central Traffic Act, it would mean that by one Act of Parliament all these delays could be eliminated and we could have uniformity. Furthermore, Parliament is in a better position to pass provisions which are not popular with a section of the voters. The position in Parliament is different to the position in the Provincial Council. I think that the members of Provincial Councils are more aware of the pressure that can be brought to bear upon them by their voters, while Parliament can adopt a far more objective attitude. I thought that it would be a start. The Bill was drawn up. From the nature of the case my Department could not administer an Act of this nature. We do not have the machinery to do so and it would also be undesirable to usurp the authority of the provinces in this regard. But I thought that if this Act could be passed, the provinces could administer it because they would retain all the powers that they have to-day except that they would not have the legislative power that this Parliament possesses. I tried to obtain the support of the provinces for it. I had discussions with the Administrators of the various provinces, not only recently, but prior to that as well. But the provinces feel very strongly that the principle that this Parliament should pass legislation which they have to administer is a completely wrong principle. They think that certain powers are being taken away from them. In spite of the objections of the provinces I can nevertheless have the Act passed by Parliament but I do not know whether it will serve any good purpose. One can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. They have to administer the Act and if they cannot do so enthusiastically and if they do not have the necessary interest in it, it will be of no assistance to have an Act of this nature. When one forces people to do something, it is impossible to have the enthusiasm and interest that is so necessary. That Committee has now been appointed. The provinces agree that there must be uniformity as far as the regulations are concerned. Secondly, they will investigate how delays can be avoided, particularly if recommendations for necessary amendments are forthcoming. Thirdly, they will inquire whether the Road Safety Organization can act more effectively, and fourthly, they will investigate any other matter in connection with road safety. I hope that something good will come of this. I just want to give the House the assurance that this is a matter which is very close to my heart and if I had the power I would perhaps be able to take very drastic action. But to-day I am virtually powerless. I have one road safety organization with no executive powers and which can only make recommendations. The provinces are responsible for the application of the traffic laws. They are prepared to co-operate and I hope that some good will come of it.

Discussion having continued for half an hour,