Mr. Speaker, I move—

The main budget for 1981-’82 amounted to R15 869 million and was compiled as follows:

The Bill before the House provides for the amount appropriated to be supplemented by R380 million. This in effect means an increase of only 2,7% over the main budget appropriation of R13 825 million.

However, savings of approximately R85 million are expected on all Votes. This amount, when deducted from the gross increase contained in the Additional Appropriation Bill, means that the net increase in expenditure of appropriated funds will amount to only about R295 million, i.e. barely 2% more than the appropriated amount provided for in the main budget.

I should now like to turn to the most important items included in the Additional Appropriation before the House.

†Hon. members will note that some R142 million of the increase is attributable to protection services, namely Defence, Police and Prisons. I feel that, in these difficult times, it is hardly necessary to elaborate on or justify the necessity of funding these services adequately and reasonably.

In the second instance, in the light of the insatiable need for new housing, it has been deemed essential to augment the National Housing Fund by a further R39 million. Also included in the total is a sum of some R24 million in respect of flood disaster relief at Laingsburg and in the eastern Cape. Lastly, the normal deferred tranche payable to the provinces at the end of every financial year amounts to just over R66 million.

The Additional Appropriation sought for all other services amounts to only R110 million, a very low total indeed, considering the cost escalation departments have experienced over the past year. I think it fair to remark that with the full co-operation of all my colleagues we have done well to contain expenditures at this level. It is indeed indicative of our determination to continue along the chosen path of financial discipline and conservative budgeting.

Mr. Speaker, although the Additional Appropriation Bill is a measure rounding out amounts still needed for the present (1981-’82) financial year, it is traditional not to anticipate the main budget, on which occasion the accounts for this year will be fully reviewed and placed in perspective. I will therefore go no further than to assure the House that we will be able to finance this essential additional expenditure in a sound way.

I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in terms of a decision of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, each department must table an explantory memorandum on its Vote. The purpose thereof is to inform Parliament more comprehensively regarding the amounts requested in each Vote. It is hoped that these memoranda will contribute to a better understanding of and a more fruitful debate on the matters now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, as the Additional Appropriation Bill is basically a measure which is discussed in detail in the Committee Stage, I now ask the House to consider approving the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in percentage terms the hon. the Minister is of course quite correct when he says that the actual increase in expenditure is relatively small. He says it is 2,7%. According to my own calculation it is 2,749%. So the hon. the Minister and I are not far apart. In absolute terms we should of course not forget that R380 million still remains a very substantial amount of money. Therefore, even though the percentage may be small, in absolute terms the amount of R380 million is something which needs to be justified.

I also think that the figure of R380 million must be seen in the light of the Government’s professed policy of restraint in respect of public expenditure. Therefore one has to examine the individual items in order to see whether they are indeed absolutely necessary or essential in the circumstances, and also to see whether the Government’s policy of restraint in respect of public expenditure is being adhered to.

The question of exceeding budget appropriations has recently received attention in a number of publications. Allow me to quote from one—

This happens to be the Senbank economic review of February. I think that if these additional estimates show that the amount with which we are dealing represents an increase of only 2,749%, then, if the total expenditure for the year were to increase by some 20%, there must be something wrong somewhere, and it may well be in the estimate of this particular person who calculated this figure. What is significant—and this is what the estimates are based on—is that the actual Exchequer issues that took place during the early part of this year have been substantially in excess of the budgeted figures, should they be taken on a percentage basis. For the first nine months of this year the figure of 20% is about realistic in regard to the actual Exchequer receipts, i.e. Exchequer receipts as against the previous year. Another publication says the following on this matter—

In other words, what has happened is that for the first nine months of this year there has been expenditure at a level which now results in a situation where during the last three months, and in particular the last couple of months before the budget, there is actually a keeping back of expenditure, not a keeping back of expenditure in the true sense of the word, but merely keeping back payments which have to be made. This has become a traditional feature if one looks at the Exchequer accounts. What happens is that in the last period before the end of the financial year it is obvious that payments are being kept back. If one looks at the April figures in every year one suddenly finds a burgeoning of these figures because very high payments are made at the beginning of the financial year. It is obvious that those high payments at the beginning of the financial year are largely due to the fact that accounts which are due for payment at the end of the financial year, are in some cases being kept back so as to be paid out of the funds to be voted in the following year. During this particular phase of our economy it has had an even worse effect, because now at this time we have just been faced with a whole series of withdrawals of money from the private sector through tax payments. We have a situation where it appears that the Government departments are delaying the payments of their accounts, which in turn results in a situation where the shortage of money in the banking sector is aggravated by this practice, and this, no doubt, is a contributing feature to the extraordinary high interest rates to which South Africa is not used and which are prevailing at the present moment in the banking sector of South Africa. I think that attention needs to be paid to this so that we have a more even flow of the payments which are made by the Exchequer in the course of the year.

The other factor which I think is important is that this year for the first time the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Accounts has been implemented as regards the memoranda which have been tabled. I should like to express our thanks to the departments who have taken the trouble to prepare these memoranda. I also think that the Select Commitee on Public Accounts, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Malmesbury, has rendered a service to Parliament in recommending this procedure and for ensuring that these memoranda are now made available. I think it will result in a more meaningful debate. It will result in hon. members being far better informed in regard to the additional estimates than they have ever been. If one may be permitted the dig, it may also result in some Ministers not being embarrassed by not being able to answer the questions that hon. members put to them. So, all in all it seems as if this is going to be a far more satisfactory situation than ever before. The present memoranda, if one looks at them, are much like a curate’s egg. They are good and bad in parts. Some of the memoranda, as will appear during the debate are very good and very thorough. Others are not as good and not as thorough, but no doubt experience will enable the memoranda as a whole to improve in quality.

There is one other point I should like to mention. The hon. the Minister speaks about savings that will be offset against these additional estimates. He says these savings amount to R85 million. It is a very fascinating thing, because if one looks at the budget on a programme basis the savings amount to one figure and if one takes the figures on the basis of standard items then the savings are in fact very much more substantial. Let me give a simple example. If one looks at the Defence Vote and one notes the savings that are effected on the Defence Vote, one will see that the savings there, if one looks at the programme budgeting, amount to only some R20 million. But if one looks at the savings on the standard basis, the total savings there are R114 million.

That figure alone exceeds the total which the hon. the Minister has given as the amount of the total savings on the Additional Estimates. Therefore, it all depends on how this amount has been calculated and I think we have to look very carefully not only at the programme items but also the standard items in order to ascertain the real financial position and the implications of what has taken place here. Therefore I think that the figure of R85 million needs to be examined and we would also like an explanation as to how the hon. the Minister actually arrives at this figure because there are two different calculations that one can make. On the one hand I get a figure of R55 million and on the other hand a figure of R187 million. Therefore, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, we should like him to explain this particular figure to the House.

Finally, it is traditional to ask the question whether or not finances are available in order to meet these amounts which we are now being asked to vote. To some extent the hon. the Minister has pre-empted the question by saying that the money is available. However, he has gone one step further and he has told us that the money is available to finance these amounts on a sound basis. That is the important issue.

That is correct. That is exactly what I said.

That is what I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us. What does he mean by that?

He means “’n gesonde basis”.

That seems to be becoming a fashionable expression. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give us an assurance that these amounts will not be financed by bank credit and that they will not be financed by drawing on the Stabilization Fund. I say this because if he does either of these two things in the present economic climate then we will be forced to differ with him as to whether this is sound or not. To say it is sound is one thing; telling us precisely how he is going to finance these amounts is another thing entirely and is to my mind, if I may use the term, not the sixty-four dollar question but in the circumstances is the R380 million question that requires to be answered in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, as seems to happen in these financial debates, I find myself in substantial disagreement with my hon. friend opposite. How anybody can say that this is not a moderate amount of expenditure, I cannot understand. Is the hon. member querying the extra amount of approximately R140 million on Defence, Police and Prisons?

You always play this stupid game.

I am asking questions. Do not lose your temper, my friend. He is losing his temper again, Mr. Speaker.

I am not losing my temper.

Cannot we find somebody on that side who is prepared to discuss these matters calmly? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, while I am asking questions the hon. member must please keep quiet. He has had his opportunity to speak.

Well, if you ask questions surely you expect answers.

I am asking the hon. member whether he is querying the amount of R142 million. He says no but in the process he loses his temper.

I do not.

I also want to ask the hon. member whether he is querying the additional amount of R39 million on housing because every time an hon. member on that side speaks about housing we have a tremendous tirade in this regard. Is he querying this amount of R39 million?

I think you are a child.

Answer the question.

My answer is that you are a child.

You cannot answer. You have been caught out and you are not prepared to debate.

You are a child.

You see, Sir, the hon. member tries to become abusive.

You haven’t heard me when I am abusive.

I am asking the hon. member clear questions. He cannot say that he queries the amount of R142 million for security. He cannot say that he queries the additional amount of R39 million in respect of housing otherwise he will make complete fools of the whole of the Opposition. I want to go further. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is querying the amount of R24 million in respect of flood relief. When we add these sums of money together, we arrive at an amount of over R200 million Then there is an amount of R66 million which the hon. member completely overlooked. This is the amount of the “agterskot” payable to the provinces in terms of the formula. Nothing can be done about it because it is absolutely regular. It just happens to be included in the Additional Estimates as a matter of procedure.

You don’t listen to anybody’s voice except your own.

Here we have an amount of R270 million in round figures and I am asking the hon. member whether he is querying one single component of this amount of R270 million. That is what I am asking him. If one deducts R270 million from R380 million one is left with R110 million. So we are talking about an amount of R110 million.

What is he then querying? Where is the overspending? I ask him, where is the overspending? [Interjections.] This is the way in which one has now come to argue on finance in this House.

You do not listen to what anybody says.

I do not know whether the hon. member simply thinks his job in this House is to go on talking continuously when others are talking, but I do not think it is very dignified.

Then the hon. member says that payments are being held back. I should like to ask him to give me examples of that. The hon. member made a statement that payments are deliberately held back in the third and fourth quarters.

That is right.

I am asking for examples. I want to say that it happens year by year that in the first few months of the financial year—it is so, and when one looks back one finds it for years and years—expenditure has tended to be higher than average. The hon. member is basing his statistics on nine months; I suggest that he ought to wait for the full year because then he will be able to make the proper comparisons. It will be a short wait because it is a matter of only a few weeks.

If one analyses the figures, one will find that this is one of the lowest increases for which we have asked this House for very many years. One cannot avoid a small escalation, as it happens, on an item such as Defence which includes manpower, equipment and the running costs of all the operations that are undertaken. Then there are the S.A. Police who are operating on a much bigger scale in the very nature of things. Furthermore, there is the Prison Service. All of these items require an extra R142 million.

I say again, just in case it has not gone across, that one can do nothing about the R66 million; it is part of the amount the provinces get, but it is done in this way year by year. They get this deferred payment after the adjustments have been made in terms of the formula. We ask for R24 million in respect of flood relief and we have a comparatively small extra amount for housing. All the rest, under conditions of inflation and cost escalation, amounts to R110 million.

I suggest with great confidence that the House may care to agree with me that what we are asking for here today in terms of an additional amount is exceptionally moderate.

The Minister is round the bend!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Yeoville entitled to state the hon. Minister “is round the bend”?

What did the hon. member for Yeoville say?

Sir, we have not objected to this debate. We have not said that this money should not be voted. Where he gets that from, I do not know; that is why I say he is round the bend.

But what did the hon. member say to the hon. the Minister?

I said he is round the bend.

The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Sir, I withdraw it. He is not round the bend.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Vote 3.—“Prime Minister”:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister for additional information regarding Programme 4: Associated services. I know it is customary only to give information with regard to additional expenditure. It is referred to in the following terms in paragraph 3.4 of the explanatory memorandum—the following is stated in 3.4—

The commission referred to here has been in existence since 1976. What therefore, does it signify that a further amount of R500 is being voted at this stage?

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it has already been decided not to continue to make provision for this amount, as other commissions have done good work in this connection.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 4.—“Manpower”:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands, who is absent, has asked me to raise a point on his behalf. Can the hon. the Minister tell us more about the decrease of almost R3,5 million in respect of manpower training as mentioned in the memorandum? We are so short of trained manpower in the country that it seems to me that the programme could be extended so as to utilize that additional amount of money.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said one would have expected an increase rather than a decrease under such an important item. Of course, we did not know what the expenditure for the year would be. Hon. members will also recall that during this year, i.e. 1981, we had two sessions. The reason for the decrease in this regard is that we began the programme at a late stage. That is why there is a difference. In future this will not be the pattern.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 5.—“Co-operation and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, I want the hon. the Minister to tell us something more about the bridging finance for essential services in these areas. What sort of essential services has he in mind?

Mr. Chairman, in the case of the West Rand Administration Board and the Community Councils under its wing, which suffered severe losses during the 1976 riots, we are still not able to make them viable. We are also very careful not to levy higher tariffs than the people are able to afford or to do so without the co-operation of the residents. In addition, the housing burden on the West Cape Administration Board is so much greater because, unlike the other boards, it has no neighbouring Black national States, and as a result there is a lower income from migrant labour. Housing therefore has to be supplied on a larger scale. These are the main reasons.

The same applies to the West Rand Administration Board. We are still saddled with the financial burden of millions of rands of damage caused by the 1976 riots. As a matter of fact, since the establishment of this Administration Board it has had a housing account problem because the board inherited an uneconomic housing account from the local authority in its area. I can continue to furnish various reasons.

Against the background of the reasons I have touched on, I want to reply to the hon. member’s question and say that in the case of the West Cape Administration Board there is a deficit of R1,655 million for water. In the case of electricity the deficit totals R187 000; sewerage, R416 000; rubbish removal, R1 985 million; health, R500 000 and community development, R3,5 million. Because I do not often get the opportunity to deal with this aspect and because the question has now been put to me, I should just like to give an analysis of the figures in connection with community development alone. For sport projects there is an amount of R662 000; for a community hall at Hermanus, an amount of R115 000; for a nursery school at Worcester, an amount of R58 000; for the improvement of housing for the aged, an amount of R8 000; for a library, an amount of R87 000; for a swimming pool, an amount of R248 000; for a clinic at Langa, an amount of R150 000; for a nursery school at Nyanga, an amount of R337 000, and for a civic centre at Langa and Nyanga—one each—R300 000. The remainder of this amount for the West Cape is in respect of the following: The improvement and tarring of roads, the provision of power and drainage and improvements to sewerage works, i.e. in general for the creation of infrastructure.

In the case of the West Rand there is a deficit in respect of water of R5,4 million, for electricity, R1,858 million, for sewerage, R1,654 million and for refuse removal R1,941 million. For the maintenance of roads the amount is R3 080 000 and for clinics it is R1,231 million. I think this is a detailed reply to the hon. member’s question.

However, I should like to end on a positive note. In fact, a tremendous achievement is being accomplished here, because in the case of Soweto—and I am using this as an example—as a result of intensive, co-ordinated hard work we have reached the stage where there is a monthly increase deficit of only R7,91. In other words, if tariffs were to be increased by R7,91 over a period of 12 months, two years or whatever the case may be, Soweto would for the first time in its history find itself on an economic footing.

Mr. Chairman, there are two items in this Vote on which I should like some information. I am referring specifically to programme No. 5 and programme No. 6, both involving Ciskei. Programme No. 5 is specific in its terms because it refers to a grant-in-aid to the South African Development Trust Fund for the improvement of settlement conditions at Oxton, Ciskei, involving as it does an amount of R1 250 000. Those of us who have seen Oxton can certainly testify to the fact that there is great need for improvement in any conditions at Oxton. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister what, in fact, the additional amount is for. Is it for the improvement of existing conditions of settlement at Oxton, or is it for the expansion of the existing settlement at Oxton? That is the first aspect, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us that he is about to provide some sort of infrastructure within which the people at Oxton can function.

The second aspect relates to programme No. 6, in terms of which an amount of R11 900 000 is generally required for services emanating from the independence of Ciskei. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what sort of services are envisaged? We know that last year this House voted an amount of R120 million for Ciskei, and now we are to vote an additional R11 900 000 for services emanating from the independence of Ciskei. Could this relate to the independence celebration? We are told, for example, that Venda spent some R20 million of its budget of R60 million on independence celebrations. Is this therefore in any way connected with independence celebrations for Ciskei, and can the hon. the Minister give us a detailed account of what the amount of approximately R11 million entails?

Did it include the flagpole?

Mr. Chairman, in the case of Oxton we first had the Greyling Wentzel report in consequence of the investigation I caused to be made into the entire position in the Ciskei. This investigation was carried out extremely well. This led to our requesting the hon. the Minister of Finance to pay a personal visit to the area, and this he did last year. Immediately after his visit, and against the background of the Greyling Wentzel report, the hon. the Minister and his department then agreed that an amount of R1,25 million in this estimate be utilized specifically for Oxton. In terms of the Greyling Wentzel report an amount of R15 million was requested. This will be distributed over a period of five years in order to try to improve the quality of life of the people there. The hon. member wants to know what it is specifically being used for.

†Firstly, it is for the provision of an infrastructure and housing for 2 100 families. That will obviously be extended over a couple of years. The committee has also recommended that in order to alleviate immediate nutritional problems an amount of R500 000 be made available to the Department of Health and Welfare, Ciskei, for the purchase of foodstuffs. Also, serious consideration was given to the employment of the maximum possible number of people. These are the main purposes for which this amount of money is being made available in the case of Oxton. I want to emphasize that it is now part of an on going programme in an attempt to put the Oxton Township in a very healthy position. I am sure we will succeed in that.

*Finally the hon. member asked me a question in connection with the independence of Ciskei. I want to make it quite clear that things are not as the hon. members opposite suspect, namely that the money is being used for independence per se. Even before independence the Ciskei made urgent representations for the allocation of further funds, and after an on-the-spot investigation it was ascertained that an additional amount of R18,874 million would be needed to continue the services emanating directly from independence, services which could not be financed from their available funds. I want to break down the aggregate amount for the hon. member: There is R434 000 for the Presidency; R800 000 for the Department of Internal Affairs; R3,053 for Works; R150 000 for Education; R2,215 million for Agriculture; R72 250 for Justice; R3,98 million for Health; R4,686 million for Finances; R2,505 million for State Security; R25 000 for Manpower Utilization; R552 000 for Transport; R51 800 for the Auditor-General; R414 500 for Foreign Affairs and R813 300 for Posts and Telecommunications. I should like to impress upon the hon. member that with independence, more departments were created. Except for the Presidency and a few items I indicated, this amount is for the most part being used to get those departments, that came into existence after independence, off the ground properly and to make them strong enough to continue with their task.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to go back to the item that was raised by the hon. member for Houghton, viz. the bridging finance for the Western Cape and West Rand Administration Boards. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for dealing in great detail with the reasons for this bridging finance. If I heard him correctly, he said that in the case of Soweto if the tariffs are increased, Soweto could become an economically viable authority.

That is what we are striving for.

My questions are, firstly, exactly for what period this bridging finance has been granted and, secondly, how these Administration Boards intend to repay the loans. Is it going to be by way of the tariffs, as I would assume?

Mr. Chairman, it will be for this financial year only. In regard to the second question I must point out that, obviously, the idea is to make them economically viable, and to that extent it will eventually be possible to do it. I cannot, however, reply to that question now. Here it is a question of the Government, in close co-operation with these Administration Boards, as well as with the Community Councils— which will now become fully fledged local councils, assisting them to become viable as soon as possible. We are doing our level best, and where we get the co-operation it seems now for the first time, certainly in my term of office, as though it may be possible that over a reasonably short period, perhaps four or five years, we can succeed in increasingly bringing it on an economic basis. It will be a tremendous achievement if that can be brought about, but in the meantime the question is not, in my humble way of thinking, how they are going to repay it, but rather how we are going to assist them to become viable and be in a position to help themselves.

Mr. Chairman, does one assume then that if these Administration Boards or towns find that their rates income, or tariff income, or whatever one wants to call it, is insufficient to repay this, that they are in fact then going into debt? Is the hon. the Minister not concerned that we may be building up a debt as far as these local authorities—if I may call them that— are concerned, something which may not be in their best interests?

Mr. Chairman, that may be possible, but we can deal with that problem when it arises. In the meantime the position is as I have indicated.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply in respect of the amount allocated for the development of the Black areas towards self-determination, with specific reference to Oxton, is he satisfied that the amount proposed by the Wentzel Committee, an amount of R15 million over a period of five years, is adequate to cope with the situation there? We are starting off here with a small amount of R1 250 000. I am sure the hon. the Minister is well aware of the situation there. The Oxton Manor, going north towards the Swart Kei areas is, in fact, in an extremely retrogressive stage. The amount allocated does not appear to indicate the sense of urgency with which this area has to be stabilized. I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware of the situation that I am talking about. This is an extremely delicate and sensitive situation. It is a very highly populated area which, in regard to agriculture, is retrogressing at a dreadful rate, and it appears to me that an amount of that nature over five years is really extending the problem and not bringing about an initial brake on the retrogression. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister whether in fact he feels that we have achieved some form of stabilizing the area by allocating this amount, because I feel that this is not in keeping with the size of the problem.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has raised a very important issue, and I must point out that this R15 million is for Oxton and Silver City only.

The Wentzel Committee has recommended R27 million plus for Potsdam and the other areas that are also badly affected by the situation. We humbly believe that if this amount could be ploughed in as recommended by the Wentzel Commission, we would be able to bring about the necessary stability there and to accomplish an improved quality of life for the people in that region. We have experience of this type of practice in Ciskei in particular. I have emphasized this before. By ploughing into that region something like R7 million we were able last year to create more than 13 000 employment opportunities. That in itself is a great achievement. In my reply to the hon. member for Musgrave, I emphasized the point that a substantial share of this amount would be utilized for the creation of job opportunities so that, if that money is used wisely, a lot can be accomplished. I am sure of that. That is the best we can do in the present circumstances. It is obvious, of course, that should we encounter more problems during the next five years we will have to look at the situation again. Finally, I should like to point out that it is obvious to us that it is of vital importance that economic development should be stimulated throughout the whole of the Eastern Cape area, not only by way of industrial development, but also by way of creating an ever increasing number of job opportunities there. As we all know, that specific area received the highest rating of all developing areas—nine points, to be quite accurate—in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech at the recent Good Hope conference. I made mention of the number of 13 000 job opportunities when I spoke about the development of the Third World part of South Africa earlier. That is the type of course which we must pursue vigorously. If that could be done the reply to the hon. member’s question will be in the affirmative.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Minister could explain to us why there has been a reduction in the amount paid towards social welfare pensions. I would have thought that that amount should go up. I believe pensions were increased during the year, and I would have thought the number of people drawing pensions would also increase.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member for Walmer that the amount to which he refers is a statutory amount. It is therefore not possible for us to budget for a debit. That is quite impossible. It is, however, a very difficult statutory amount to budget for because one does not know in advance how many pensioners there will be, and also what the ancillary expenses will be. Therefore, rather than under-budget—and this is an annual thing; and a healthy thing too—and be left during the course of the year in a situation in which all one’s compulsory commitments cannot be met, the practice of over-budgeting is followed in this specific instance.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 6—“Transport”:

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of items on which I should like to obtain some information from the hon. the Minister. Programme No. 1 reflects an increase of R311 000. The Explanatory Memorandum refers ominously to critical staff shortages, which is, of course, the reason for the need to increase overtime payments. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us how much of this amount is to be paid in respect of overtime. There are of course other items involved here as well. Nevertheless, I am particularly interested to know how much was paid in respect of overtime.

The explanatory memorandum also—in paragraph 1.3—refers to the appointment of three commissions of inquiry into transport matters. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what the cost in respect of each of those commissions has been.

Then, referring to programme No. 2, which relates to civil aviation, the explanatory memorandum talks about tariff increases in respect of air, rail and Government motor transport and increased subsistence allowances to officials. These are given as the reason for the increase of R829 000. How does the increase in tariffs affect expenditure? This is something I do not quite understand. It does not make sense to me when I read the explanatory memorandum. It gives as a reason for the increased expenditure the fact that tariff increases have occurred. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain that to us.

In paragraph 2.3 the memorandum says—

If there is a critical shortage of staff, there must then, surely, have been a saving in respect of the unfilled posts. What is this saving in so far as Civil Aviation is concerned? I assume that the additional amount which we are voting is in respect of a net amount, allowing for the savings which have accrued as a result of unfilled posts.

I should now like to proceed to programme 3, which deals with a very large amount of R28 million in respect of the item “Overland transport”. It is an amount of R28 million on an amount of R80 million which was originally voted. This represents a 35% increase in respect of overland transport. It relates, of course, to the contribution made to the account for Black, Coloured and Indian transport services. The memorandum states—

I should like to know, what the other unforeseen problems were. I should also like to know how the hon. the Minister proposes to meet this problem and its future escalation. It is quite clearly an item which, from the explanation which has been given is going to escalate. It seems ominous in terms of the budget that unless the hon. the Minister is able to negotiate further massive assistance from the Treasury to operate these services, this is going to be an increasing problem in the future.

The memorandum goes on to say, almost casually—

This is a massive growth rate which I think ought to have been anticipated in some way or another. The memorandum is couched in fairly vague terms as it says “it also transpired” that in some cases there was a 25% escalation in passengers. Surely this would indicate a lack of planning on the part of the hon. the Minister. He ought to have anticipated something of this increase.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked a number of questions. Firstly, in connection with programme 1.1 there is an additional expenditure in respect of staff due to salary increases of R135 000. Provision for overtime amounts to R37 000. Payment of motor vehicle allowances to senior officials amounts to R16 000. Then there is also provision for R130 000 for retirement benefits. As regards the remuneration of officials who are doing their military training, there has been an increase in the number of candidates who entered employment during the year and who virtually without exception, left for their military training. Sufficient provision had not been made to cover this additional expenditure. This amounts to a total of R350 000.

The hon. member’s next question was in respect of programme 2—Civil aviation. In this regard there were salary increases amounting to R550 000. Motor vehicle allowances to officials amount to R22 000. All this is additional. Then the hon. member put a question in connection with tariff increases. The additional provision for subsistence allowances, which is 48% higher, is due to increased hotel costs. Services provided by the Government Garage went up by 11%. Then there are certain other items under the same programme, eg. the purchase of fire-engines. Due to escalation it was necessary to pay more than the price originally envisaged. The purchase of radar and ATC equipment entailed a decrease of R25 000. With regard to the purchase of navigation equipment, it appeared after tenders had been procured, that the purchase price had originally been over-estimated, and it was also clear that the equipment would not be delivered in time for payment within the financial year. These were all adjustments which had to be made under these different heads.

The hon. member wants to know the reason for the additional R28 million for overland transport, and he is justified in asking. Putco and the 15 EDC affiliated transport companies have asked for an increase in the price of their bus tickets. Because there was an increase of approximately 25% in the number of passengers, as well as price increases in respect of fuel, tyres, wear and tear, buses, spare parts, etc., they were entitled to a tariff increase. However, we have had court interdicts and until recently Putco was saddled with a court interdict in terms of which objections are raised to the increase in busfares. There is an amount of R80 million in our estimates which the hon. the Minister of Finance has made available for subsidies for passenger services. The company could have gone bankrupt, and we increased the subsidy, pending a decision to increase bus-fares should the request for such an increase be approved by the court.

The hon. member for Berea also put a question to me with regard to the increase in the number of passengers. There has been a considerable increase in the number of passengers. As a result of industrial development, many more people have started using bus transport. There has also been the question of removal of Blacks to traditional homelands. Here I have in mind, for instance, the development which is now taking place in Lebowa. Many Blacks are now travelling to Lebowa over weekends. Many more Blacks are now travelling to and fro between Pretoria and the homelands, and the number of passengers has increased accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to overland transport and the additional amount of R28 million that is being asked for.

But I have just replied to that.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. the Minister has given some replies but there is one specific question I wish to put to him. I want to know whether he can put a figure to the cost of his department resulting from the boycott. I understand that the amount of R28 million not only involved an increase in the number of passengers whom the State is subsidizing but was also as a result of the boycott. I should like to know whether we can obtain a figure of the cost that has been incurred by the State as a result of this boycott. Secondly, I should also like to know in this connection whether the department and the bus companies concerned have engaged in some sort of public relations exercise with the people concerned and the companies employing this labour to see whether they can overcome the difficulties that they have been experiencing in regard to the passengers. Do the passengers in fact have a legitimate complaint or is this just political action on the part of some of them to try to embarrass the Government? I should like the hon. the Minister to elaborate somewhat in this regard. I say this because this is, after all, costing the taxpayers of South Africa a considerable amount of money and I believe that the ordinary man in the street who pays his taxes should know what this type of demonstration is costing him.

The second point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is in connection with road safety. I see that in this regard there is a decrease of R367 400. In term 3.4 of the explanatory memorandum it is stated that this decrease is in respect of the contribution to the Urban Transport Fund and that it refers to the purchase of equipment for demonstration projects which will not be delivered in time for payment before the end of the financial year. The activities of the Urban Transport Commission have very serious implications for road traffic in urban areas and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is not concerned that possibly the Urban Transport Commission is falling behind in its work, the work which it was initially anticipated it should do in the interests of urban transport.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to the last question first. Certain items were ordered that were delivered late. That is the reason for this decrease. I am also concerned about this item and, as I say, there was short delivery in this respect and that is the reason for the saving.

In regard to the question of the R28 million subsidy for bus commuters I want to tell the hon. member that there was a 25% increase in the number of passengers transported. The hon. member wanted to know what amount of taxpayers’ money is going into this subsidy. The bus companies, in collaboration with the National Transport Commission, tried to increase the tariffs. As I have told the hon. member for Berea, there were court cases, but I think we can solve this problem within a few weeks. We have a propaganda machine, especially with Putco. They organize the people and explain to them the cost increases. We take the commuters with us.

That is the whole idea.

You take them for a ride, not so?

No, I am not taking the hon. members for a ride. The Franzsen Commission’s proposals should be implemented, so that when the employer pays one third, the employee should also pay one third and the Government the remaining one third. If that can come about, we shall save a lot of money. I fully realize that when a subsidy of R80 million is increased by R28 million, it is …

It is a lot of money.

Indeed. It is a lot of money. I think, however, that this can be avoided next year. The people in charge of the bus services fully realize the position. If one should ask City Tramways, they would tell one that the salary increases of the commuters were proportionately much higher than the increases in the cost of their bus tickets. We must convince the commuter to pay more, but we are experiencing a problem at this stage in getting the message through. I think that we shall take them with us eventually.

*I have always maintained that there should be only one increase in bus tariffs. One should give a child castor oil every week; give him one good dose and be done with it. However, it seems to me these people do not understand why there should be such a large increase, and so we have to increase the tariffs once every six months or so to enable us to gain their co-operation. In this way we could perhaps save R28 million.

I really wish the hon. members would finish up now; I want to go.

Why are you in such a hurry?

Mr. Chairman, in respect of programme 6.2—Oil Pollution Prevention Fund—I see that we had on the estimates an amount of roughly R1,250 million, but we had to spend more than R3 million. Could the hon. the Minister advise me as to whether in fact we do get any reimbursements from any international insurance fund in this regard, whether there is such an insurance fund and if not, whether attempts are made to create such a fund? We are amongst the biggest sufferers in the world today owing to an accident of geography and the fact that most of the oil ships have to pass around South Africa’s coast. This is a substantial sum and it is rising year by year. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister can answer the questions put.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo asked a very reasonable question. We do have an Oil Pollution Prevention Fund to which the oil companies contribute. We have certain boats which we hire out in order to pay for certain costs. The money which we receive in this regard, is paid into the Fund. Initially we asked for R4 million, but since the hon. the Minister of Finance experienced budget problems, he gave us only R2 million. Of course, he is a very careful man when it comes to providing money. Nevertheless, we found that because of certain activities which caused pollution, we had to do some cleaning up work for which we did not have enough money.

*At the moment we have five coastguard vessels and two tugs. These vessels are hired out and from that we earn money for the Oil Pollution Prevention Fund. The companies pay us for the cleaning up of certain pollution. In this regard we have agreements with the shipping lines. The income we derive in this way is paid into the Fund. As a result of certain circumstances the Fund became almost depleted and now we have a shortfall of approximately R2 million. We are going to try to obtain larger contributions to the Oil Pollution Prevention Funds.

Here we also have a nature conservation effort, for several things must be done to keep the ocean free from pollution and to ensure that marine life is not harmed. With this in mind, the hon. the Minister is sympathetically disposed to our being allotted an additional R2 million. Nevertheless I still think that we should try to obtain more money from the shipping lines for the Oil Pollution Prevention Fund, and we are giving this matter our attention.

If hon. members have any further questions to ask, they should preferably do so under the discussion of my Vote, because I have to leave now.

Mr. Chairman, this is the type of thing that is close to the hon. Minister’s heart.

I should like to make mention of the small amount which the hon. the Minister requires for the road safety side of matters. I want to bring pertinently to his attention the situation which exists with regard to the increased number of deaths on the road caused by stock on the road. The position in this regard is becoming ever-increasingly worse in this country. The standards of fencing acceptable by the SA Transport Services and all the people involved in road commissioning, also those not in the House, are something the hon. the Minister and his department must really pay attention to. There is an increasing element of insecurity and real lack of safety as far as the public are concerned and there is an increasing burden on the land-owner. It is a matter which has been shunted from pillar to post over many years. The hon. the Minister’s own officials as well as those in other spheres are powerless to deal with this problem, and it is something that needs urgent attention.

The hon. member is perfectly right. However, our main problem is actually not the national roads, but the provincial roads.

Yes, but the money comes from here.

That is so, but the implementation of the law lies with the provinces. One will not find any livestock on the national roads or highways. But the hon. member can rest assured; I got his message. It is really a very dangerous situation, especially when it comes to night driving. So we shall pay attention to his request. At high speed one may still be protected in a motorcar, but on a motorcycle one stands no chance whatsoever of escaping serious injury when colliding with cattle. So we shall pay attention to the hon. member’s request.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 7.—“Finance”:

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions on this Vote, but I do not propose to put them all at once. Firstly, I refer to “Programme 1: Administration”. The amount that it being asked for is actually larger than the amount that was originally in the budget. The main reason which is advanced for the increase is the further rationalization of the department by way of services transferred from programmes 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 in the amount of R867 700. I would have imagined that if that were the sole reason there would then be savings equal to R867 700, or some amount, under those particular programmes. That is, however, not the case. I should like an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to what is actually the position here. What is the original cost of these services which were in those programmes and how have they escalated in the circumstances? I also want the hon. the Minister to separate those from the ordinary cost escalations which applied to the original amount of R1,329 million. In other words, is rationalization really paying or is it actually causing an increase in cost as it appears on the surface to be the case? If it is so, it is not logical and therefore cannot be right.

The second item which I want to deal with is “Programme 2”. The memorandum states that the increase here is due to a number of factors. One of the factors is that there is now provision for payment to Ciskei. I should like to know how much of the amount of R5 132 000 is payment to Ciskei and, secondly, how much is actually due to the increased circulation of South African coins and notes? In other words, what amount was originally voted for the circulation of South African coins and notes in these territories and by how much has that amount increased?

I now want to deal with “Programme 3”, which deals with the question of provincial subsidies. We have debated this repeatedly, and it appears that we are going to have this item every year in the Additional Estimates because the figures are only worked out at a later stage. Two points arise under this programme. Firstly, is it not possible to have a formula in terms of which there is budgeting for this when the estimates are originally presented? If one has to vote these fairly substantial amounts every year—and it has to my knowledge now gone on for many years—there should at least be a possibility of making provision to cover it to the minimum extent possible. In other words, it should be possible to provide, in the estimates, for an amount which at least covers the portion that normally seems to be cropping up in these figures. That is really the point that arose in the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate. The quarrel was not with the fact that these amounts are necessary or essential for the running of the State. The question is whether they should not have been included in the original estimates and budgeted for. That is the real test of good budgeting. It is therefore no use saying that these amounts are necessary. No one is arguing about their being necessary. It is very unlikely that any department would ask for something which, in the circumstances, is not necessary. The question is, should provision not have been made for these amounts initially?

Although I have further points that I shall raise later, I now come to the last point I want to raise at this stage. I am referring to programme 3’s sub-program dealing with the local loans fund. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does have any plans to deal with the control of the budgets of these local authorities, because I do believe there are some plans afoot. If there are no such plans afoot, one would like to know it, but if there is already some indication of the degree of control—if any—which is to be exercised over the budget of the local authorities concerned, one would also like to know this.

I shall raise further questions when I have had answers to those I have already put.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should start right at the end. As the hon. member knows, we have a representative committee which is continuing to look at various aspects of local government finance arising from the Browne Committee report. One of the aspects that has become quite important in the discussions concerns what one might call the overall control. We do have pretty strict control over Central Government spending and strict control over Provincial Government spending, but we do feel that in the course of time a weakness has developed in the control of Local Government spending. Attention is being given to this. What we have done in the meantime—especially as far as the bigger municipalities are concerned—is to lay down, in the first instance, an overall spending limit within which they should budget. This is an effort to get some sort of overall control of expenditure. This matter is, however, still very much under discussion, and we shall obviously have to discuss it more fully.

In the case of the provinces, all I can say is that this is the way the formula was drawn up. When the agreement between the Treasury and the provinces was reached, provision was clearly made for what are called “deferred payments”. I think the hon. member will agree that these are big budgets, with amounts running to well over R2 000 million. A formula was asked for and was worked out after a great deal of discussion and research, but when one is dealing with provinces whose expenditure runs into so many items and is itemized in such detail, it is very difficult to make provision, by way of a formula, for what one might call the whole amount in one fell swoop. This is what experience has shown to be the case, and so the formula itself makes provision for a deferred payment, or what is often called an “agterskot”. Now if this is regarded as an unsatisfactory way of budgeting, I think one would first have to persuade the provinces that that is so, because obviously one wants to do this in a spirit of agreement. We, however, do believe it has worked fairly well. It does give the Treasury a measure of final control or, if one prefers, final adjustment, for suppose that towards the end of the year the financial position becomes very tight, in fact far more so than was contemplated earlier, one could at least, by way of consultation, try to make adjustments in the deferred amounts. This is in fact what has happened. That is in short the way it is done, but, obviously, if we are to change that, we have to have a whole new round of discussions. In the light of experience it would mean a quite substantial change in the method of the formula.

Then the hon. member asked what the actual amount was for Ciskei under programme 2, “Economic and Financial Agreements”. I hope to give that to the hon. member in a moment. I do not have the figure in the document I have here. That also applies to the second part of that question.

Coming back to the first one, the question of rationalization, the hon. member will appreciate that the Department of Finance as a whole with all its ramifications is an extremely large department while the rationalization is of course proceeding apace. As to the precise saving or otherwise involved in the transfer of the items he referred to, I am afraid that all I have in front of me is, I think, the document he also has in front of him which sets out the various details relating to the amount of R1 429 000. I shall have to try to get the relevant figures for the hon. member.

I do not have the details in the document that was provided.

Do you not have those details?

I only have the explanatory memorandum provided.

I see. Perhaps I can at least give the breakdown I have here, although I do not think it gives a complete answer.

*It relates to the total increase of R1 429 000. For personnel expenses the amount is R215 000. Provision for the salaries of 33 officials in respect of programme 8 is now being made under programme 1. So that is just a transfer. Secondly, there are administrative expenses. Sessional allowances were increased and more overseas visits were undertaken. That takes care of the amount of R100 000. Provision for certain telephones in respect of programme 2 and programme 8 is now being made under this programme. The amount involved is R91 000. Increased entertainment costs amount to R15 600. That gives a total of R209 600.

As far as stocks are concerned, provision for stationery in respect of programmes 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are now being made under this programme. The amount involved is R501 600. Provision is also being made for price increases in respect of paper, the under-estimate of stationary and handling charges of 5% payable to the Government Printer. The amount involved comes to R354 000. Thirdly, according to current expenditure the provision for publications is inadequate and this is now being adjusted by R8 500. That gives a total, under stocks, of R864 100.

As for equipment, I have the following particulars: Provision for the purchase of additional word processing equipment, R74 000. Provision for the hiring of equipment in the African Eagle Life Centre in respect of programmes 2 and 8 is now being made under this programme. The increase in tariffs in respect of the hiring of copying machines amounts to R57 100.

Finally we have professional and special services. According to current expenditure the provision for the servicing and repair of appliances and the rendering of special services is inadequate. This is now being adjusted by R9 200. If one adds up the amounts R215 000, R209 600, R864 100, R131 100 and R9 200, a total of R1 429 000 is arrived at. These are the details that I have in this regard. Perhaps I could try to get a little more information about those transfers for the hon. member. I do not have it with me at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I think the answer we have just had in regard to programme 1 actually seems to prove the point that in some cases rationalization actually increases expense. If one takes the first explanation in regard to personnel, that R215 000 was moved from programme 8 to programme 1, then we do not see the saving of R215 000 in programme 8. We only see the increase. We do not therefore get the saving there, but we get the increase in programme 1. To my mind that is a worrying feature. The same applies in regard to the amount of R501 600 in respect of stocks and equipment under programmes 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8. The savings do not appear there. What is therefore happening is that one is increasing under programme 1 because one is rationalizing, but one is not saving under the other programmes when one takes the expenditure out of there. Subject to somebody giving a different explanation, it looks at the moment as if rationalization in this instance is costing us more money.

I await an answer in regard to programme 2. In regard to programme 3, it may be necessary to re-negotiate a formula. In any case, I think the formula is somewhat archaic and will have to be re-negotiated one of these days. It has been in existence for a long time and is continually being slightly modified as we go along.

It has been fully revised.

How long ago? A few years ago?

I would say two to three years ago or so.

I think the basis of the formula still remains. What worries me is that there is also a problem of provincial budgeting. If the provinces do not know how much money they are going to get, they also have a problem. One can listen to virtually every Administrator, perhaps with the exception of the Free State where for some reason or other they seem to be happy …

[Inaudible.]

They get less money than the other provinces in accordance with this, yet the other provinces are all complaining. Obviously, they have serious financial problems, and I believe that that needs to be looked at.

The answer that the hon. the Minister has given on the subprogramme on the loan funds does cause us some concern, because, if I understand the hon. the Minister correctly, the idea is to have an overall control of the spending by local authorities.

To monitor it.

This, I think, is news to the public at large, and it is news to the public that are concerned with local authorities, even though it may well be that there has been some degree of consultation in respect of some of the local authorities. It is however certainly not public knowledge that this is what the intention is. I believe that there must be a considerable body of opinion that believes that they may well be an encroachment upon the autonomy of local authorities as such, because if a local authority wishes to spend from its own revenue, that to some extent is within its own rights. It is only when the question of State assistance arises that the question of State interference should become material. I think it is very significant that the hon. the Minister says now, and says it today for the first time in this House as far as I am aware, that there is an intention to have an overall control over the spending of local authorities, to monitor their spending, as the hon. the Minister has now interjected. I believe that this is a matter that at some time will have to be debated in greater detail, and this does not appear to be the occasion for it.

I then come to programme 7. Here I should like a statistic which, from the point of view of the public, I think is important. What actually has been the increase, in theoretical terms, of the bank charges that are being paid? Initially the idea was that the service was rendered free. Then the new system came in, and there is no doubt that the public feel that in many cases they are paying much more for this banking service than they did before. We are faced here with an amount of close on R300 000. That is a total additional amount, because before we did not pay at all. How much would we have paid, and what actually represents the increased amount? There, Sir, one will have a test as to whether in fact the banks are not making considerable more money out of this service than they were making before the new tariffs came into existence.

Are you talking just about the State?

I am talking only about the State now. I want to use the State formula—what the State is paying more in theoretical terms—in order to show that that is also what has been the effect on the public. That is why I am asking the hon. the Minister to deal with the State figure.

[Inaudible.]

Well, if the hon. the Minister would read the explanatory memorandum—I assume he has a copy of it—he will see that it says that the existing concession of a free bank service by the banks to the Government departments was withdrawn simultaneously. In other words, it would be unfair to say that the increase represents R299 500. One has to assume that one would have paid a certain sum of money.

The second point which arises under the same programme, is that in connection with the cost of the Southern African Development Bank. There are many people in this House who would like to see that bank get off the ground quickly and render its services. I see the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs nodding his head. I assume he agrees. What worries us, however, is that it has not got off the ground. It has been talked about. It was talked about at the first Carlton Conference and at the Good Hope Conference as well, and I think that the time that has lapsed is what is really causing us concern. Here we are now being told that the department is training staff. What is the department actually doing? Who is being trained by the department? On what is this money being spent and how are these people going to be available within a short space of time to render a service to the bank, because the bank, we hope, will be in existence one of these days? We should like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication about when this bank is likely to be in existence.

Then I should also like to refer to programme 10, which relates to coin manufacturing and related services. The question of the late delivery of a coining press has given rise to a peculiar problem. I do not want to become involved in the general sales tax argument with the hon. the Minister again. As a result, however, of the increase in general sales tax, for instance, coin operated machines by means of which cigarettes are sold have all had to be adjusted. It has turned out that there is a tremendous shortage of 1 cent coins. As of 1 March 1982 all these machines had to give the correct change. I understand, however, that the coins are only going to be made available in adequate quantities from 1 April. What is actually happening in connection with this? Is something being done about it? How does one deal with this situation when people have to receive change and the necessary coins are not available? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance is aware of this problem. I pointed it out to him right at the beginning of the debate on the Bill in terms of which general sales tax was increased. I should therefore like to hear from the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister or somebody else whether something is being done in order to solve the problem of the shortage of 1 cent coins in South Africa.

One cannot only get four bits of bubblegum instead of change.

Well, I should think it would be very difficult to put bubblegum in those slot machines instead of change.

Referring to the decreases under programme 2, the explanatory memorandum says that the situation in regard to the International Development Association changed. What actually changed? I am referring now to the final paragraph on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum where it says—

What actually happened which caused that to change? What were the circumstances? Can the hon. the Minister tell us what has changed in our relationship with the International Development Association that caused that payment to be made?

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to refer briefly to the question of local government. The hon. member for Yeoville should not jump to too quick a conclusion. These matters are being thrashed out very carefully by the Croeser Committee, on which local government is fully represented. We obviously want to do these things by consensus and by agreement. The hon. member might know that in countries like Great Britain and elsewhere on the European continent that is in fact exactly what happens. In Great Britain, for example, the central government maintains a very tight control over local government spending, especially where the amounts have now become so large. What is the use of trying to be as effective as possible in overall control of central government spending, as well as provincial government spending, while the same overall control is not simultaneously exercised in the case of local government spending? This is an item which, as I have already mentioned to the hon. member, we shall obviously discuss. It will be bought to the attention of the House when the further important recommendations which the Croeser Committee are now dealing with are decided upon. I can assure the hon. member that a good case will be made out and it will be done in consultation and by agreement.

Money being tight in most parts of the world, the International Development Association has asked us to pay as soon as possible. There is no more to it than that. We thought it would be a question of paying a little later, but in fact we have received an appeal from the IDA; so we went ahead and paid.

With regard to bank charges, the hon. member has set me quite a little exercise in this regard. I must compare the figure of the latest dispensation by the banks with what it would have been. We shall try to do that exercise and I shall let the hon. member have whatever we can work out, but I do not have it with me. I also have a note here which states that as far as Ciskei is concerned we shall need notice of that. We do not have that separate figure with us.

As far as the proposed development bank is concerned, I can assure the hon. member that we are all very anxious to see this bank in operation because, after all, a very important part of the bank is that it should coordinate the allocation of funds and the provision of funds to the member States. That, of course, means various Black States. We believe that by doing it in this way, by having this fund-allocating mechanism done by a body which will obviously apply a great deal of expertise in this field and will have considerable autonomy to take it, as it were, away from political considerations, it can be done very efficiently. As the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned not long ago, we are going right ahead and we have a representative committee of, one might say, public sector representatives and private sector representatives looking very closely, not at the position ab initio at all, but at the whole concept as we have been evolving and developing it for some time. I can assure the hon. member that a great deal of work, a great deal of thought and indeed a great deal of consultation with prospective member States have been put into this. What we have now asked this, I think, very senior and authoritative body of people in the public and the private sectors to do is to look at the whole concept as it has been developed up to this point and to give us their considered views. Once we have that, and I hope it will not be a very extended operation, we shall go right ahead. However, it is something which is a new concept to us. There are already a number of these so-called development banks around, but not all of them have been a very great success. There have been some excellent exceptions, but I think these are perhaps in the minority. We want to ensure that we start on the right footing and ensure that we really have an efficient instrument here, because we think it could help us to save a great deal of money by the co-ordination of the whole effort in the hands of people who ought to acquire a great deal of expertise. Some of them, I think, will start with that knowledge. Indeed, it will be an instrument which can also relieve the South African taxpayer to the extent that this bank can raise money from abroad as well. There is a considerable amount of interest in certain financial areas abroad.

Where do you train them?

I am coming to that. With regard to this particular item, we already have a certain small nucleus of staff, and, among others, Benso, i.e. the research organization of the Department of Co-operation and Development, is assisting with the training of these people in the light of their long experience of the allocation and use of funds in the Black States, and so forth. There is also the question of the remuneration of these people and, of course, payment to agencies like Benso for the work they do in training. There are also certain incidental expenses. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that reply.

What about the question of the one cent coin?

All I can say in that regard is that the Mint is working overtime. It is really astonishing how many one cent pieces are used in this country and how they disappear. However, I can assure the hon. member that every effort is being made to fill that gap just as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise the question of the provincial “agterskot” referred to in programme 3 of the explanatory memorandum. These “agterskotte” bear no relation percentagewise to the subsidies or grants that are made available to the various provinces. Even when I was involved directly in provincial Government I was always confused in regard to the way in which these subsidies and subsequent “agterskotte” were worked out. I wonder whether when the estimates are next drawn up, the main estimates, it would be possible for the hon. the Minister of Finance to give us some indication as to how this provincial subsidy or grant is worked out. Perhaps he can give us some simple details as to how it transpires that provinces receive these “agterskotte”. I can remember many an occasion when we were sweating on the top line in regard to this sum of money because we did not know what amount we were going to receive and, in fact, whether we were even going to receive it at all.

The next point I should like to touch on— and I only propose touching upon it because it will doubtless be discussed at some stage in the future—is once again in respect of local Government. I read an article in a Natal newspaper the other day to the effect that there was to be a 13,5% embargo on local authorities in respect of rates increases. I do not know where the 13,5% came from but I am rather surprised that in an instance such as this—again, I am only going by what I read in the newspaper because I have nothing else to go on—the provinces were in fact by-passed, if they were, because it is very clearly the function of the provinces to investigate the matter of local Government funding. I cannot, of course, answer for the other provinces but in Natal, if the local authorities wish to increase their rates beyond a certain point, they have to obtain provincial authority and they have to be able to motivate and substantiate their request. Perhaps at some stage we will receive an answer in regard to this particular point.

There is a third point I also wish to mention and that is in respect of programme 7 of the explanatory memorandum. Apparently there was an overestimate in respect of the amount that had to be paid for postal and telecommunications services on behalf of Government departments. All I can say is that in this respect I am absolutely amazed that it would appear that there is in fact a department somewhere along the line that is saving money very seriously. This does rather surprise me because the administrations are getting bigger and bigger, correspondence is increasing and, presumably, the cost of postage and petty expenses is increasing accordingly. The only point I want to make here is that I hope there is no question of reducing the funds in this respect and thereby reducing the profits of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications thus enabling them to justify any increases that may be forthcoming.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to his last point, I can assure the hon. member for Umbilo that these figures are based on the calculations of the Post Office itself. There is therefore no question of our trying to do them down. If there has been any need to adjust, then this has come about as a result of the exercise done by the Post Office itself. They do what they call a count roughly, I think, every four years or so.

That is why after a while it obviously becomes very difficult to be accurate. This adjustment, however, takes two years into account, and the figure for this year ought to be about R8,8 million or perhaps even R9 million.

In so far as local government is concerned, I should like to give the hon. member an assurance. This has been one of the most important elements in the whole situation. We are not, from the centre as it were, trying to force our view on to anybody, but we are doing this in consultation with a large number of people and bodies. All we have laid down is a sort of rough guideline, but I know of no embargo on the question of the upper ratio of rates at all. To me that does not sound correct. I have not seen that report. I shall look into the matter, and if it is in the report …

Specifically 13,5%.

What we have done is that we have given a rough guideline and we take that as an overall sort of limit, but that is all. There is absolutely no intention—I do not think it has been done in any shape or form—to try to bypass anybody involved. We are in fact trying to get an as broadly as possible representative view and to find consensus if we can.

Will you also deal with the “agterskot” provincial funding?

Yes. The hon. member for Umbilo said that the provinces are left in a rather uncertain position as to their funds, but the whole question of the formula is something which the provinces very strongly supported, as the hon. member will know since he was involved in some of these discussions with Dr. Du Plessis originally, and since then Mr. Dednam. We have a senior officer of the Treasury working full time on this. We are constantly trying to improve and refine the formula in consultation with the provinces. If there is a better method of doing it, we shall jump at it, but up to now, notwithstanding all the hard work that is going on and the constant consultations and calculations, this is the best the two parties have been able to do.

In connection with this element of deferred payment, let me point out that if one takes the total of R66 million and bears in mind that the total budget of the provinces is well over R2 000 million—unfortunately I do not have the exact figure available—the deferred payment represents a very tiny percentage, and I think the hon. member will agree. We try to keep the provinces informed of what roughly it could be. We are therefore trying to put them in as little an uncertain position as we can. If there is a better way of doing it, I can assure the hon. member that we shall jump at it. Unfortunately I do not know of it.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister misunderstood me in respect of provincial funding. I am not criticizing the system; in fact, that I am perfectly happy to accept. The question is that I do not think most of us understand how it operates, and even being involved with it for so many years, I have doubts as to how it works. This is why I should like to have some idea of how the formula operates.

Mr. Chairman, if we can be of any assistance to the hon. member, we shall be only too pleased to ask the expert, Mr. Dednam, himself to discuss the matter with the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, arising from that last point, let me point out that in the Cape Provincial Administration it would appear, certainly in the last few years, that they do not have the opportunity of actually checking the formula calculations to see if they are happy with them and whether any errors have crept in. Questions asked in the provincial council clearly indicated that the staff of the provincial department of finance and the Administrator’s staff were not in a position to see or check the details of the formula.

Mr. Chairman, I am not fully aware of precisely what that complaint in its original form is. I am a little surprised to hear that because the Treasury officer concerned is a senior man— he has Director status—and is constantly visiting the provinces. He is constantly discussing the working of the formula and the calculations. This is therefore something which I very much want to take up. I am somewhat surprised to hear that.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 9.—“Internal Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, under the heading “Programme 3—Civilian Services”, the alarming aspect is the drop in the estimated expenditure because of a decrease in staff expenditure. It is alarming that there is such an acute shortage of staff. It is stated in the memorandum that out of an establishment 496 posts, 233 are vacant. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in this regard. We are aware that delays occur in obtaining documentation handled by this section of the department, but the impression one gains is that it is by no means the case that the department is only functioning 50% effectively; in fact it is functioning at considerably more than 50% effectiveness in spite of the fact that there is a staff shortage of almost 50%. Does the hon. the Minister not think that the establishment was possibly too large originally and that he should consider reducing it now? Should one not, adopt the general approach that those who are rendering the department good service as a result of the staff shortage, may claim higher pay, instead of appointing the full complement of staff?

Under the heading “Increases”, the revision of the borders electoral districts is mentioned. I find it a little difficult to understand why it should lead to an increase in expenditure, especially since the revision of the borders of electoral districts did not take place as usual. It is mentioned in the memorandum that an in-depth investigation into the question of the revision of the borders of electoral districts is taking place. Is this in-depth investigation of such a nature, and is it already so advanced, that in spite of the fact that the normal revision did not take place, it will indeed lead to an increase? May we assume that the increase we are speaking of here is responsible for the greater portion of the increase of R43 000?

I also want to refer briefly to the court case F. S. D. Mpangele et al versus P. W. Botha et al. This court case resulted in an additional R19 000 in legal costs. I should like the hon. the Minister to clarify certain aspects. How was the question of legal costs approached? Was a court order issued to the effect that the respondents had to pay the legal costs? If not, was there a settlement and if so, what were the provisions of the settlement?

There is one last aspect on which I should like clarity as well. The memorandum declares that the legal costs in this regard of Opposition members were defrayed out of Government funds, as well. I should just like clarity on the matter. To the best of my knowledge, there are no Opposition members—certainly not in this party—who gave notice of intention to defend. In the light of this, and in the light of the fact that authority was not given to act on behalf of Opposition members in this specific court case, could the hon. the Minister please tell me what the nature of the legal costs was, which includes the interests of the Opposition members in this regard?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by dealing with the last item which the hon. member referred to: The hon. member will note from the explanatory memorandum that the Cabinet decided on the specific date—I think it was September 1981. It was decided that the expenses of all parties if any, would be paid. The Cabinet took the decision after I had personally consulted the leaders of the Opposition parties. Why we have decided on the payment of the costs if any, is merely because people were not cited in their personal capacity, but in certain official capacities. According to legal advice, it would only be fair to pay the costs for all the members from the date on which they were officially cited in the documents.

Should costs be incurred, of course.

Should there be, yes. However, there is a further point I wish to make. In terms of the latest ruling, every department must itself pay the costs of any action against the department or a Minister, while the legal costs which are recovered, are deposited in the general account. In other words, there is no contra item in this specific regard.

In reverse order, the hon. member’s second question related to the amount of R43 000. If the hon. member were to look at the available information, he would find that the greater part of the amount of R43 000 relates to three items. In the first place it relates to the question of the revision of the borders of electoral districts. We had to purchase drawing boards, work stands and storage stands to the value of R27 000. Secondly, there were essential maps for the adjustment of the borders, and those came to an amount of R5 000. There were also ballot boxes and polling booths which had to be used, and this represented an amount of R10 000. There was also the hire of a printing machine, and the amount involved was R1 000. This represents the full amount of R43 000 to which the hon. member referred.

The hon. member also referred to the percentage of posts which have not been filled in the section concerned. However, I want to point out that this refers to permanent posts. Approximately 50% of the posts of the department concerned have not been filled. Because the officials in the department concerned work overtime, however— and we have also supplemented them with temporary units—the work will not lag behind to the same extent that there is a shortage of permanent posts.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer again to the question of the item on legal costs. I just want to make sure that I understood the hon. the Minister correctly. Did he say that a provisional amount was being budgeted for here? There have therefore been no legal expenses incurred (to date) in this specific case?

No, expenses have been incurred.

Oh, expenses have indeed been incurred, but not yet the full amount. I should just like the hon. the Minister please to give us more clarity on that.

This brings me to programme 5, which concerns the question of immigration. As I see it, the amount budgeted clearly has to do with the fact that immigration has taken place far more rapidly and to a much greater extent than was originally envisaged. I see that at the same time, there is an amount which is once again being deducted from the additional appropriation, and it is indicated that this amount is attributable to a saving on salaries. I should just like to comment that the fact that we are saddled with a staff shortage here as well, is a very unfortunate situation, for this means that we are not in a position to exploit our high immigration potential to the full. I venture to hope that something can be done about this shortly.

Then, too, mention is made on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum that since September 1981, firms have begun recruiting Polish immigrants to an increasing extent. In this regard I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the recruitment of Polish immigrants goes any further than the Polish members of the fishing fleets along the coast of South West Africa. Are any other efforts being made to recruit immigrants from Poland?

As far as the administration of Walvis Bay is concerned, it is mentioned that additional amounts are being voted in respect of the protection of lagoons and in combating dune sand. As representative of that area, and also as spokesman on the subject of this portfolio, I should like to pledge my support for the expenditure of that amount. It is indeed a worthy cause, and I understand that much damage has been suffered over the past year as a result of exceptional weather and wind conditions in that area. In fact, some of the projects for combating drifts and have been destroyed to such an extent, that they have had to be built up from scratch.

Mention is made in the memorandum of the precedent created of granting Government aid to a local authority as in the case of Walvis Bay. I believe that this is a precedent which we on this side of the House can support, especially since in this instance the municipality is carrying out functions, which do not normally fall within the scope of the duties of a local authority. Moreover, that municipality is doing a thorough job. There is only one question I would like to ask with regard to the administration of Walvis Bay. A saving of R124 000 is mentioned, which is mainly ascribed to an over-estimate of the salaries and allowances of teachers at primary schools. Is the concept “over-estimate” being used here merely as an arithmetical term, or do we indeed have the situation that education in the area has not been up to expectations, in other words, that education there is not continuing as expected and as one would prefer it to be.

Mr. Chairman, the amount voted for legal costs is an amount which has in fact been paid. The hon. member will understand that we must pay the expenses in the meantime. Where the order for costs is awarded against the applicants, it is recovered after the court case. The amount concerned, is therefore an amount which has actually been paid out. There is no counter-item for the amount recovered, because it appears in the revenue documents and is therefore not reflected in the estimates.

As far as the immigrants are concerned, the hon. member will allow me to make a general remark. Estimates with regard to financial aid to immigrants are carried out at the time of the drafting of the estimates according to the pattern of immigration, i.e. on the basis of evaluation of the pattern in previous years, including estimates of immigrants who will not be entitled to assistance due to a specific pattern of claims in accordance with the historical course of events. I can say that last year we had 40 000 immigrants, which represents a net profit of 29 000 in round figures. As a result, the additional amounts are chiefly required in respect of three items. The first is for travelling expenses, which amounted to R4,946 million. As far as accommodation is concerned—we supply temporary accommodation until people have become established— the amount is R2 000. The amount for inland transport to their places of employment totals R52 000. This explains the principal figures.

In connection with the enquiry concerning Polish immigrants, I want to say at once that these immigrants were not recruited in Walvis Bay. They fled from the ships and we eventually treated them as immigrants; we should otherwise have had to treat them as refugees. Due to the influx of refugees from Poland, and the fact that many of them constitute highly skilled and high level manpower, the private sector sent special missions overseas with a view to recruitment. For our part, we supplemented our staff in our overseas office in order to interview applicants there. This, then, has given rise to this situation.

As far as the hon. member’s question with regard to the municipality of Walvis Bay is concerned, I want to point out that it was not at first possible for us to remove all the items which were spent by the Cape Provincial Administration on Walvis Bay, from the budget for the province. This explains why we have certain expenditures which are over and underestimated in this regard. Now that we have some experience in this regard, there should not be a repetition of this. The amount of R124 000 for lower education which the hon. member referred to, is therefore merely statistical exercise.

Finally, reference was made to lagoon protection, for which a special amount of R65 000 must be paid to the municipality for the year. The hon. member will remember that a special amount of R65 000 was paid by the SWA Administration for 1977 and 1978. This was later suspended. To protect that specific place, and with a view to the advantages attached to it as well, we felt that such a payment was justified, and as far as I am concerned I should like to continue these payments.

The other item relates to the question of dune sand, in respect of which an amount of R50 000 was paid.

Mr. Speaker, I refer to programme 5—Immigration. In the first place I am very pleased to see the increase of approximately 70% under this particular item, for the very good and simple reason that it indicates that, in spite of what some people think of us, there are many who are still anxious to come and join us. I am very happy about that. I should, however, point out that a persistent complaint is that it takes so long to process potential immigrants. I have had complaints from a number of people, and I still have some on my desk. The thing that perturbs me, and why I mention it at this stage, is that we have savings on salaries, which I presume is because of a shortage of staff. I believe, however, it is very important—it is a question of which comes first; the chicken or the egg—to get the necessary people to improve our general economy and the manpower shortage in the upper echelons. We have to get more people to fill certain jobs and then others can perhaps be moved to the immigration department. I am therefore very happy with this substantial increase in expenditure to obtain the necessary manpower we require. At the same time it is a little perturbing to find that this is one persistent complaint we receive and yet it appears that either we cannot get the staff or we cannot pay them properly.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Umbilo will concede that the mere fact that we had 40 000 immigrants last year is indicative of the volume of work undertaken by the staff of this department during that year. If one further takes into account that all the applications which are being handled and processed do not ultimately materialize, the picture becomes more complete. Hon. members surely understand that many more applications are processed than the number of immigrants who ultimately settle in South Africa.

I think that the suggestion that there are delays in general is over-exaggerated. That is a fact which I can state because I have gone into this matter for obvious reasons. One should understand that when an application of this nature is processed not only one department is involved. Many departments of State are involved. Allow me to give one example. State security is involved. A security report on each prospective immigrant must be obtained. In the process other departments of State also become involved. We have to make sure that a prospective immigrant is not trying to escape his responsibilities in the other country. His health also has to be checked. When queries arise those queries are referred to the other departments of State performing certain specific functions. Therefore delays could occur in this particular regard.

I have had discussions with organized commerce and industry in this regard over a year ago. A system has been devised in which commerce and industry could in fact make use of a short cut through the process, which would reduce the time involved in the processing of applications, provided of course that should any such application fail for some reason or other, commerce and industry would have to bear the responsibility for returning such applicant to his country of origin. In this matter we have succeeded in reducing considerably the time involved in processing such applications. The hon. member will understand of course that more often than not one comes across applications which are exceptions to the rule. After all, I should inform the hon. member that I have had complaints too. If I do have to compare, however, the number of complaints received with the number of applications actually processed, I believe, we do not have much reason to complain.

Finally, I want to state that I have just sent two senior officials overseas because I believe that certain of our offices can be closed while others should be strengthened. I shall report fully on this aspect, however, when my Vote is discussed during the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill later in the session.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 10.—“Foreign Affairs and Information”:

Mr. Chairman, I want to mention out at the outset that the explanatory memorandum issued by the department was extremely helpful in enabling us to understand some of the increases and decreases. It is also surprisingly frank. This frankness, I believe, gives one some reason for concern about certain of the items contained in this budget.

I should like to refer to one or two of the items. I also want to ask some ancillary questions. The first one is the question of the reduction in the expenditure on personnel. The explanation given in the explanatory memorandum is not only a correct one, but perhaps the hon. the Minister is the only Cabinet Minister who can turn the rise in the cost of living in South Africa and the decline in the gold price to a virtue rather than to a liability. His explanation is that the reason for the decrease in expenditure on overseas salaries is the rapid rise in the consumer price index in South Africa, and the fact that the gap has been considerably closed between the cost of living in South Africa and the cost of living in other countries. Secondly he uses the euphemistic phrase “together with favourable exchange rates”. Of course, the favourable exchange rates are the consequence of the very sharp decline of the value of the rand in the international monetary market in recent times. The fact is that in rand terms both these factors have resulted in a decrease in the budgeted amount. What the hon. the Minister indicates that once a year, on 1 April, the Commission for Administration revises foreign service salaries in order to bring them into line with the actual costs. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is completely satisfied that all the hidden costs which go with foreign representation, which go with living away from South Africa and which go with living away from the community to which one is accustomed are taken into account in assessing the costs of diplomatic representation abroad and the impact that this has on the individual foreign service officer. Secondly, if this is done annually, is some adjustment made for any sharp increases in costs that may arise during the course of the year? If it is done on 1 April it may well be that living in a foreign country where there are extraordinarily sharp rises in the cost of living or changes in the rand value to the value of that currency, may necessitate these adjustments being made on an intermediate basis or on some basis of an indexed formula. I should like to know whether both the overall cost factor and the adjustment made annually are adequate to see that none of our foreign service officers are out of pocket because of their representation of South Africa abroad.

The second matter I want to raise deals with what appears to be a consistent and, I think, very worrying shortage in the number of personnel in the department. I refer to page 3, para. (c) of the explanatory memorandum which states—

Furthermore, on page 5 it states—

Then on page 9 there is a further reference to the fact that there is a shortage of staff. One would like to ask the hon. the Minister to what extent this consistent and, it would appear, increasing shortage in staff is impairing the efficiency of the foreign service. Has it reached a proportion where the hon. the Minister himself is concerned at the impact it may be having on the effectiveness and efficienc of our service? Secondly, what special steps are the hon. the Minister and his department taking to see that this shortage is made good? The people who are required in this service are people who need special training and special attributes. What steps is the hon. the Minister taking to see that these shortages that are referred to are eliminated?

The third point to which I want to refer is the question of development aid and co-operation and the fact that the hon. the Minister refers firstly, to the requirement that after a State has been independent for three years statutory grants are transferred to budgetary assistance and elsewhere to project assistance, and secondly to the need for strict control to ensure that such assistance serves a meaningful purpose. There has been reference in the Press to comments from certain of the newly independent States about this control and the effect it may have. May we ask the hon. the Minister please to elaborate on the new controls which he is introducing in order to see that this budgetary assistance in fact has a meaningful purpose? Can he explain to this House what controls he is referring to and what specific steps he is taking?

Finally, there is this strange item which makes reference to an increase of nearly R3 million. A government of a neighbouring country which is a member of the Customs Union indicated that it suffered a loss when a formula was applied in respect of the Customs Funds. Instead of the money being given to them by way of outright compensation for losses which they claimed, assistance was offered on a project basis. Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied that this country did suffer this loss which it says it incurred? If they did suffer that loss why was compensation not made by way of a direct payment to make good that loss? If assistance was offered on a project basis, has this offer been accepted and implemented?

Mr. Chairman, the first question which the hon. member for Sea Point put to me was concerned with the salaries of our overseas staff. The hon. member asked whether I was satisfied that the hidden expenses, if I understood him correctly, were fully covered by the salaries we were at present paying our overseas representatives. Quite rightly, too, the hon. member asked what we did when there were marked increases in the cost of living caused by inflation in the countries in which these people were stationed. This one experiences quite a good deal in certain countries of the world. In South American countries, for example, there could be a 100% or more increase in the inflation rate, which of course presents the danger that our representatives, depending on the arrangements which are made, could then be worse off than they were on 1 April when the formula for their salaries were introduced. I can assure the the hon. member that we do have such machinery. After many years we have, in co-operation with other bodies such as the Treasury and the Commission for Administration, developed a formula to determine as fair an income as possible for the various ranks as far as officials in our foreign service are concerned. It works more or less as follows. We took Johannesburg as an example and asked ourselves what a person occupying a certain position in Johannesburg required to lead the kind of life which our foreign representatives of the same rank should also lead wherever they were stationed in the world. We worked out a scale on a points system with a maximum of 100 points, and the salaries are adjusted according to that scale and depending on where such a representative is stationed. Vis-à-vis Johannesburg, such salaries may therefore vary on a scale of 100 points depending on the cost of living in a particular country. What has happened now—and I want to be frank about this because it is true—is that our cost of living vis-à-vis certain other countries has recently risen more steeply, and consequently a slight narrowing of the gap has now occurred. As far as the rates of exchange are concerned it is also a fact—and this is very interesting—that in past years we were at one stage receiving as much as $1,34 for a rand. Now the two are virtually equal and in the ensuing year we shall again have to experience the unfavourable side of the change in the exchange rate, although it is beneficial to us at present. When sharp increases occur which are of such a nature that they affect our staff in such a way that they simply cannot perform their duties, then there is machinery which makes it possible to take up the matter urgently with the Treasury and the Commission for Administration in order to afford relief. We do not expect our overseas representatives to eke out a miserly existence. They cannot get rich on what they earn, but the State sees to it that a reasonably decent standard of representation and accommodation is maintained while those representatives are abroad. In addition we are always prepared, in special cases of illness or death, or any kind of catastrophe which has struck a family, to approach the Treasury and even to approach the Government and the Cabinet with recommendations for relief.

†The hon. member also mentioned the question of the shortage of staff in the department. It is interesting to note that in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information the largest shortage is in our personnel and administrative divisions. These are the divisions that deal with transfers, personnel movements, merit assessments, promotions, salaries and so forth. It is in these divisions that we are experiencing a large staff shortage, a very large shortage.

As far as the establishment of foreign service personnel is concerned, we do not really have a significant shortage at all. This proves to us that serving in the Foreign Service of South Africa is still an attractive career for the young people of this country.

I may also mention—this is very interesting—that although I obtained Cabinet approval some four years ago to appoint South African Coloureds and Asians in the department on exactly the same conditions as White South Africans, we are at present in a position of having appointed only one South African Coloured. I can indicate what the reason is. South African Coloureds who were suitable for such appointment, when they heard what salaries we would pay, were simply not interested. With the qualifications they possess, they could demand and did obtain higher salaries in other sectors of the South African economy.

The hon. member asked whether the shortage of staff impaired the efficiency of the Foreign Service. I do not really think so, except perhaps in the field of publicity and information. In that field we have felt the shortage of staff to some extent. I must admit that.

*Of course we are trying to make up any lost ground by appointing professional public relations firms where we possibly can— although not only for this reason. In Europe we have one quite openly. In America, too, we have two quite openly. The one firm in America has a Democratic Party background, while the other has a Republican Party background. We are not putting all our eggs into one basket and we are remaining on friendly terms, as far as possible, with both the Republic Party as well as the Democratic Party in the USA. These public relations firms are also helping us out as far as staff are concerned.

The hon. member quite rightly put a question on the amount spent on aid. After we have had the statutory amount for the rendering of assistance to countries which have just become independent in our estimates for three years now, the hon. member suddenly wants to know what control measures we are applying. One must be very careful in this regard. The developing States have major problems. Perhaps they very often look at their priorities in a different way to our way of looking at them. I am not speaking from an ideological standpoint at all now. It must be accepted on the one hand that it is not very easy for an independent country, after it has become independent, to say how it should regulate its finances, should draw up its estimates and what priority it should give to its projects, because such countries, their Governments and their officials are proud and sensitive, and for that reason one must be careful. On the other hand, if it happens that they should perhaps want to place the accent on or give priority to a project which may perhaps not be all that viable, then we feel, as a friend and neighbour of theirs—and it is to be hoped without hurting their feelings—that we can at least point out to them that if they tackle projects which have been shown by feasibility studies to be unviable or will not really serve the purpose of providing large-scale employment, their credit standing will in the long run be jeopardized.

It is within that general framework of sound guidelines for economic development that a special division was established in my department two or three years ago, consisting of experts in various fields, including development administration, economic development control, analysis of projects and the viability rating of projects. The man in charge of this division is a Mr. Richter, and he is assisted by a component of approximately eight experts. These people visit neighbouring countries on a regular basis and hold friendly talks with Ministers and officials on, inter alia, the idea of a confederation of States. In general these people are stimulating the concept of collective planning, so that neighbouring countries feel that it is in their interests that there should be co-operation. We also hope, in the sphere of the private sector, that we will be able to help our neighbouring countries to a greater extent with the determining of priorities and the development of projects. These projects must be worthwhile, must provide sufficient employment, must be viable and must in general impress visitors and investors as being projects of governments that know where they are going and are obviously able to exercise financial control. Of course it is true that one should be careful how one presents one’s case to these governments. At times, however, it is our duty to point out to them that their projects must be sound and viable and that there must be proper financial control over them. Otherwise, apart from the problems they could possibly create for me as a result of questions which could be asked in Parliament, the private sector will simply not be interested in investments in their territories. For that reason we held a summit meeting at one stage, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, and issued a joint statement on certain norms and guidelines which would apply to the private sector in these countries. The statement included, inter alia, undertakings to the effect that there would be no nationalization, that the free market economy would as far as possible be stimulated and that certain incentive measures would apply to industrialists who wishes to invest in the territory, viz. credit guarantees or loans. In the statement it was also insisted upon that infrastructures and an independent judicial system would be maintained to protect investors against any untoward action on the part of those States. These are all concepts and principles which are taken for granted in South Africa and in which we all basically believe, regardless of party affiliation, and which are important to the private investor. I am sorry that I am spending so much time on this aspect, but I hope that that answers the hon. member’s question. It is within this framework that we are doing our best to exercise as much control as possible. However, there are sensitive aspects involved here, and these aspects I shall gladly like to discuss further with the hon. member at some stage, if he is interested in doing so.

The hon. member also asked a question with reference to the loss of R3 million which a member country of the customs union suffered as a result of the application of the formula. That formula will probably have to be revised. It was in fact revised some time ago, but it will probably have to be revised again. We and the BLS countries, as well as the other independent countries which in their turn have another agreement with us—the so-called TBVC countries— have reached an agreement that a certain formula will apply. It is a very complicated formula and depends inter alia on the estimated import volume of consumer goods in proportion to the population of the country concerned, as well as several other factors. The formula is then drawn up on the basis of an estimate which is made at a given juncture, and is then applied for the next three or fours years. If the imports of consumer goods to, say, country A decline drastically in comparison with those of the Republic— the Republic is the most important element in the custom’s union—and if the proportionate imports of the Republic increase far more rapidly than the imports of one of the smaller member countries of the customs union, the relative share of the Republic in the revenue from the pool is greater than that of that member country. This is a very difficult problem because the member countries have to budget in advance. Because one does not know in advance what is going to be imported, one finds on the settlement date— when matters have to be reviewed—that losses have been suffered in terms of the formula. However, this cannot be helped, unless the formula is revised. Representations have been received from some of the BLS countries for more talks to be held in order to review the losses. Consequently, when we reached the middle of the year, I told the hon. the Minister of Finance that that country had been relying on that money and had budgeted accordingly, and asked whether the hon. the Minister could not help us. I told him that the finances of my department were just as meagre, they were really tight, because there was pressure on us. It was being said that everyone should make cutbacks and effect savings in terms of the sound measures which had to be adopted throughout the entire country. This was the exceptional way in which it happened that the Department of Finance was eventually able to assist me. This was done by making project aid available, because a project which provides employment does after all enable a person to help the country to a certain extent, but I admit that that is not full compensation, nor perhaps the compensation which this particular country wanted. However, that was the best I could accomplish with the Department of Finance, which had laid down very strict guidelines and measures for Government expenditure which were applicable to all the Ministers of the Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, was the offer accepted in principle by the other country? Is it just that the particulars have not yet been decided?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot reply to that hon. member’s question properly because we are still negotiating. They are not happy about it, I must admit that. They say that when we originally negotiated on that formula, we told them that we would compensate them for their deficits by way of project A. However, we did not compensate them fully for their losses because I was unable to obtain the financing. That is the reply.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister one question arising out of the reply he gave in regard to the first item raised by the hon. member for Sea Point. I am referring to the question of the salaries of those officials who serve us in overseas countries. I am a little perturbed about this. I do understand that the hon. the Minister cannot give us a reply to this, but I would very much like to know what sort of timetable we are working on. What is the time-lag, shall we say, between a severe adjustment in the monetary situation in one country and the adjustment that is made in a staff member’s salary to cater for that change? Are we talking in terms of months? Is this something that is done on a quarterly basis, on a six-monthly basis or on an annual basis, or are we able to look at the situation on virtually a monthly basis? If so, what is the time-lag, as I said earlier, between the actual adjustment and the civil servant catching up with that adjustment in that specific country?

Mr. Chairman, the adjustment is usually made annually. That is the general rule. I think it is done on 1 April. What happens is that all the missions send all the facts and statistics involved to the department. They must, of course, use official sources in the country in which they are representing South Africa. All the components for the formula are then forwarded to head office, where they are then applied. In that way a whole new salary year, with a new foreign service salary scale, is calculated for every representative of South Africa. That is, of course, the general rule. In certain countries where the economic and financial position is not all that stable, adjustments can be made at very short intervals, on condition that the changes are so large that sudden and urgent adjustments are required. I mean, if it is only a question of a few per cent, quite frankly we do not do it and it is a question of the officials having to wait for the next year. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. Sometimes, I would say, they score a bit and sometimes they lose a bit, but in general over a period of years it is fair. If I show the hon. member the salary adjustments, I think he will agree. It is particularly fair since we have changed so many of the privileges of our officials living abroad. For instance, the house rent is paid, the oil heating is paid, the electricity is paid and so on. That is a tremendous improvement on the days when I served abroad as a member of the Department of Foreign Affairs. In my days one could hardly afford a bicycle.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 11.—“Mineral and Energy Affairs”:

As the hon. the Minister has said, the overall increase is some 2,7%, but the figure for the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs is considerably less than that, which is of course a point in the department’s favour. However, arising from the fact that this is a favourable amount in comparison with the increases for other departments, I may say that the staff shortages are such that they must cause a great deal of concern. I want to refer particularly to the explanatory memorandum, for which I thank the hon. the Minister, in relation to programme 3. Apparently, ongoing inspections of mines to identify at an early stage any potentially dangerous situation have suffered because of the shortage of staff. One must, therefore, reach the conclusion that, because of lack of inspection, our mines are perhaps not as safe as they should be. If this is the case, it can cause great damage to South Africa in terms of lives lost, which is the most important consideration, but of course also in terms of loss of production and the consequent loss of very important foreign exchange. I should like the hon. the Minister to comment further on this particular subject because, as the explanatory memorandum specifically homes in on this aspect, I think we should have a further answer to it.

Obviously, the reason why this particular department needs an additional amount is basically that there was an increase of R9 million as far as assistance to the gold mines is concerned. We should like to know something more about this particular formula. For instance, the year under consideration in terms of the gold price does not look to be as bad a year as the year that is coming will be. According to the hon. the Minister of Finance, the average price per ounce was $460 during the 1981 calendar year. We all know that the figure for 1982 will be considerably lower than that. I do not know what the average figure is for the year so far, but I think the hon. the Minister may agree with me that it will be approximately $370 to $380 per ounce.

About $375.

The hon. the Minister says it is $375. It would therefore appear that we have a lot more shocks coming in regard to this particular account. I should like to know how it was originally budgeted for. Where there is provision made for only R1 million, we suddenly find a 900% increase. That is a tremendous increase and I believe we should get some additional information from the hon. the Minister on this particular subject.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member referred, firstly, to the decrease in expenditure resulting from vacancies in the department and he paid special attention to this question of inspection of mines, suggesting that safety may suffer as a result of less regular inspections. I fully agree with him that, if that were to be the position for a long period of time, that risk, a serious risk, would obviously arise.

In such an event the hon. member can rest assured that in terms of the differentiation policy of the Government we are looking very closely at this to determine whether this is one of the areas where special attention is necessary. We have indications, however, that the situation is improving slightly, and we are not overly concerned at this point in time. The Government Mining Engineer, being responsible for safety, is taking special precautions and is organizing inspections in such a way that I can give the assurance that safety has not suffered as a result of the situation, although I grant the hon. member his point that it might be affected if we do not succeed in increasing inspections. In this regard I should like to point out that if one looks at the results of safety measures on the mines over the latest period, it is quite clear that a number of mines have improved on their safety records. Therefore there is much to be thankful for in that regard.

*The hon. member also referred to the actual main item, i.e. the increase from R1 million to R10 million in respect of assistance and support to the gold mines. In this connection, the hon. member asked on what basis it had originally been budgeted for. The original budget of R1 million should actually be seen as a nominal estimate for unforeseen claims, for when the budget was being drafted, the gold price was $630 per ounce, and at that stage, i.e. when the estimate was made, the gold price was showing a rising tendency. The gold price is one of the most difficult things to predict because there are so many factors that influence it, and we realized that if there were fluctuations, provisions would have to be made for these in the additional appropriation. And indeed, to South Africa’s great detriment and disadvantage, the gold price went into a fairly drastic decline. How does this system work? Basically, this question is regulated by the Gold Mine Assistance Act of 1968, a measure which is aimed at marginal mines, i.e. mines classified as “assisted mines” in terms of section 2 of the said Act. The basic approach is that we give attention to mines which are threatened by closure within eight years if assistance is not given and which could with such assistance considerably increase their production of gold and/or uranium, as well as considerably prolonging their lives. This is more or less the approach, and serious attention is being given to it. A special committee is presently engaged in ascertaining on what basis and to what extent it should be continued. If the hon. member is worried about next year, I may tell him that the matter is being investigated by an interdepartmental committee at the moment and that they are consulting interested parties about it.

Mr. Chairman, if in the budget for the coming year we see a figure of R1 million for this purpose, will it be an indication that the hon. the Minister of Finance expects the gold price to go up?

We shall just have to wait for the budget before talking about that.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 12,—“Police”:

Mr. Chairman, as in the case of other Votes, we have been given an explanatory memorandum, which is very helpful. I want to put a number of questions to the hon. Minister in connection with the estimates and the comments in the explanatory memorandum.

The explanatory memorandum—referring now to programme 1 and programme 2—explains that the increase of R350 000 on personnel expenditure, under programme 1, and the R3 300 000 under programme 2, in respect of the maintenance of law and order, relate to the filling of vacancies, promotions and the granting of merit notches to members of the Police Force. I want to know from the hon. the Minister what this precisely means. We are talking of an increased amount of more than R3 million in respect of the filling of vacancies and promotions. The first question that comes to mind is the following. Were the filling of vacant posts and promotions in the Police Force not budgeted for in the first instance? We are asked here to vote a very high additional amount in respect of the filling of vacancies. One would have thought that in the Police Force provision would have been made for the filling of those vacant posts at the time when the budget was drafted. Secondly does the fact that money is now being spent on the filling of posts and provision for promotions mean that the shortage of personnel which has been the cause of great concern throughout the country for a long time has now been overcome? Is the hon. the Minister satisfied with the recruitment of people into the Police Force? In this regard it might be of value if the hon. the Minister would indicate what the percentage is at the present time of vacant posts still to be filled in the Police Force.

Also under programme 2, dealing with the maintenance of law and order, there are two items discussed in the explanatory memorandum, to which I should like to refer. The items I have in mind are items 3 and 4, the first one involving R800 000 in respect of— as the explanatory memorandum states— legal costs incurred on behalf of the S.A. Police by the State Attorney. Item 4 involves the amount of R385 000. According to the explanatory memorandum this is expenditure in respect of claims instituted against the State. The explanatory memorandum also says it is difficult to estimate these claims realistically. It may well be difficult to estimate these claims realistically, but I want to know from the hon. the Minister what he is doing about the escalation of claims made against the State in respect of activities of certain members of the S.A. Police Force. This is an escalation which has gone up alarmingly in recent times. Only last week the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question I had on the Order Paper, indicated that in 1980 complaints by the public of assault by police totalled 73, while the amount paid out in respect of those claims was R201 193. Those were the figures of 1980 whereas in 1981 those complaints increased from 73 to 117, and the amount paid out in respect of claims was doubled and amounted to some R409 503, as compared with the R201 193 in the previous year. This gives cause for concern. We are asked to vote money to cover claims, and the department says in its explanatory memorandum that is difficult to estimate what these are going to be—which is quite understandable—but the hon. the Minister should indicate his concern—and I hope he does so— at the escalation indicated by the figures the hon. the Minister gave me last week here in the House. I should like to know what the hon. the Minister is doing about this. How seriously does he regard this? What steps is he taking in order to see to it that there is better discipline among what must clearly be a minority group in the S.A. Police Force? Although they are a minority group these members of the S.A. Police Force are people who involve themselves in activities of this nature, activities which bring the rest of the Police Force into disrepute and which, inter alia, cost the State money. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what steps he is taking. Does he view this escalation seriously, and what does he believe is the answer in order to ensure that there is greater discipline in order to restrain members of the Police Force who act in this way and who, as a result, involve the State in claims by the general public against the Police Force?

I should also like to refer to programme 5, which deals with personnel expenditure. It says in the explanatory memorandum that pensioned members and their dependants made a greater demand on medical services than was expected. As a result of this we have to vote some R5 million more over and above the R18 million voted initially. This is a considerable increase. According to my own calculation this is an increase of 28%.

Again the explanatory memorandum suggests that this has been occasioned by of unexpected increased payments. It also says that it was necessary because of higher medical expenses. Nonetheless, it is a considerable increase, an increase of 28%, and again one wonders whether in budgeting originally the required prudence was shown, because should this amount not have been anticipated to a far greater extent than it obviously was?

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance, if I am not mistaken, the hon. member asks what is the reason for the amount of R350 000. For the most part this amount, as set out in the memorandum, is in respect of the filling of vacancies, the promotion of members and employees and the granting of merit notches. Over the past year, drastic adjustments of salary and service conditions have been made across the entire spectrum of the S.A. Police. As hon. members will recall, we discussed this during the discussion of my vote last year. These additional amounts that are being requested—as is the case in the next item, concerning which the hon. member asked a question and about which I shall provide more details—arise out of the adjustments made. Hon. members will realize that large sums were involved. Despite very careful planning by the S.A. Police, the Commission for Administration and the Treasury, it nevertheless became evident that in these cases, too, too small an amount had been budgeted. This is the result of matters which have taken shape over the past year in particular and which are now creating this problem for us. There is nothing I can add to that. I cannot take that any further than is stated in the memorandum. I just wish to explain to the hon. member that this is not a case of our having succeeded in eliminating the vacant posts. Nor is it a case of our having largely succeeded in filling the total number of vacant posts in the Force, but I can say to the hon. member that the increased salaries and improved conditions of service introduced over the past year, from July last year in particular, have contributed substantially towards our having a few hundred more students in the college in the January intake than during the corresponding period last year. The incidence of re-employment has also shown a gratifying increase. Unfortunately I do not have available the total increase as compared with last year, but I think it is in the region of about 600. This is a fine improvement for which we are grateful. Of course, we should have liked to have another 600, but everything cannot improve overnight. However, we shall be very grateful, if this trend is maintained particularly if it can be maintained over the next two to three years. If so we shall be able to make a big dent in the number of vacancies. I am not sure at the moment of the percentage of vacancies in the Force, but the percentages we spoke about a few months ago have not yet been substantially affected by this increase. However, if the increase can be maintained, and if the interest we are encountering among scholars, other young people and former members of the Force who would like to come back, continues, we shall undoubtedly achieve considerable success in reducing the percentage of vacancies.

The hon. member’s second enquiry related to programmes 2, 3 and 4.

The hon. member referred in particular to the amount of R994 500, the figure relating to legal costs. I must say that I was personally somewhat amazed at this amount, but the facts of the matter are that this amount includes an amount of R800 000 to provide for legal costs that have been or are being incurred by the State Attorney on behalf of the S.A. Police and which must now be paid for the period from 1 April 1981. I want to set the hon. member’s mind at rest here and now by telling him that this is nothing new. This is a service which occurs in our budget every year and it is a service figure which has been approved by the Treasury. Therefore this is not simply an expenditure, but has been approved by the Treasury. It is an essential factor in our activities. I am only sorry that I could not give the hon. member the corresponding figure for last year. I should have also liked to have the figure, but I have not yet obtained from the department because I did not regard it as being very urgent. However, as the responsible Minister I, too, would like to know what the figure was for last year and perhaps for the previous year as well, so that we can compare them and find the percentage increase. I should like to say to the hon. member that I shall give my earnest attention to this matter. If there has been an unnecessary increase then we shall of course have to take some action in this regard. However, if it is a normal increase, as represented by the increase in the activities in the S.A. Police Force, or an increase in the legal costs accruing to the State Attorney, then it is normal. However, I shall look into this matter and will make a comparative study with the previous year in order to determine whether a normal situation is developing here. If an abnormal situation is developing, the hon. member can accept my assurance that something will certainly be done about it.

The hon. member is also concerned about the increase in incidents with reference to the answer to a question I gave the hon. member last week. I also note in one of the newspapers that the hon. member and one of his friends intend putting further questions to me about this matter during the discussion of my Vote. I shall take pleasure in giving the hon. member more details at that stage. I have already called for information in regard to this matter for the use of the hon. member during the discussion of my Vote. I just want to say to the hon. member that when this matter came to my attention when I had to answer the question, and I had the facts at my disposal, I took the matter up with my department immediately. I am still concerned about it and I have also called for more details so that I can satisfy myself as to the reason for this, and I am preparing myself to give the hon. member more detailed information on this matter during the discussion of my Vote and to furnish him with the reasons for the increase in these incidents. There are other reasons that I might mention in the interim, and they are that at present, larger amounts are being awarded by our courts in respect of damages. This is a fact. I do not say it is the only reason. However I, too, am concerned about this. I have already enquired into the matter and I am awaiting the information. I shall furnish the hon. member with far more comprehensive information concerning this matter during the discussion of my Vote. I shall provide him with all possible information because I share his concern in this regard and will give earnest attention to the matter.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry, I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying. I presume however that the hon. member is agreeing with me and that she is satisfied that the Minister of Law and Order is representing her interests. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member also put a question to me relating to the increase of R5 million in respect of medical benefits. As the hon. member is aware, previously the S.A. Police had other forms of medical funds. However, as from April last year, a new statutory medical scheme was introduced for the S.A. Police, as for the Prison Service. These medical funds which used to be known as the A and B medical funds, are now administered by the PSMAA. It is now apparent that in the course of the transition we shall have to make provision for a larger amount to cover all the medical expenses. Of importance, too, is that under the new scheme there are greater benefits for retired members and their families than in the past. It must be borne in mind that this first year is really a kind of test year after the new scheme has come into operation. It is evident that we failed to make adequate provision to cover all the expenses. We really did not expect the level of demands made on the fund, by the older, retired members and their families in particular. Therefore, this was a bona fide calculation during a test year which turned out to be somewhat too low. This explains the adjustment of R5 million. This is what is at issue. I hope I have furnished the hon. member with a sufficiently comprehensive reply.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 14.—“Statistics”:

Mr. Chairman, if there is anyone on the other side of the House who could give an explanation, I should like to have an explanation as to why there has been an increase of 30% in the second programme. I notice that an item of almost R5,75 million has increased to almost R8 million, an increase of almost R2,25 million.

Apparently this has a bearing on one small section of the Department of Statistics only, viz. the demographic section, where the staff expenditure has practically doubled and consequently is responsible for the increase of nearly 30%. I should like to have an explanation for this from the hon. the Minister in question, but if he already forms part of the statistics … [Interjections] … then from the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Chairman, I should have liked to attempt to answer that, but unfortunately I was occupied with something else and consequently did not realize that we are now dealing with the Vote of my hon. colleague. Perhaps the hon. member for Johannesburg North should just repeat the essence of his question.

Mr. Chairman, I do so with pleasure for the sake of the hon. the Minister of Finance. There has been an increase of 30% in the expenditure of the second programme for the Statistics Vote. Apparently this increase took place in the staff expenditure.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the hon. member having to repeat his question. I shall try to explain now. It actually has a bearing on the census. When the Government decided to hold the census in 1985 and not in 1990, it became necessary to accelerate the analysis of all the information from the 1980 survey. Consequently it became necessary to employ considerably more members of staff. Indeed, I think the figure was increased from 700 to 1 000. In the second place the rates for the remuneration of most of these people who are employed on a temporary basis, were recently increased. In the third place it also became necessary for more overtime to be worked. This is actually what it is about.

Vote agreed to.

Vote 15.—“Health, Welfare and Pensions”:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville has already expressed the appreciation of this side of the House for the introduction of the system of explanatory memorandums, but the explanatory memorandum of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare is of such a nature that one has to turn to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure for an explanation of the explanatory memorandum. The memorandum says virtually nothing. All it says is that if one deducts R953 189 000 from R954 089 000 one gets R900 000. It goes on to state—

Mr. Chairman, I believe that is not really the type of explanatory memorandum that one needs. There are things that require explanation in this particular Vote. There are under-and overestimates which together amount to almost R15 million. I believe the increase of R1 670 000 under item 2 for infectious, communicable and preventable diseases requires an explanation. The over-expenditure of R2 097 000 for medical care also requires an explanation. The House would like to know what the effect of the cholera outbreak has been on some of these costs and where they are shown. There was an increase of R3 285 000 for laboratory services and we should like an explanation of that as well. There was an almost 20% underestimate for internal charges, which is also significant. I am not saying that anything is wrong with these figures but it would be interesting to know why these compensating variances are necessary.

Mr. Chairman, under heading No. 2, infectious, communicable and preventable diseases, and heading No. 4, medical care, a total amount of R3 767 000 is asked for. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this amount relates directly to the cholera outbreak in the various areas of the Republic? Bearing in mind that the hon. the Minister told, us across the floor a short while ago that his department was not interested in becoming involved in competition with local authorities as far as the provision of services was concerned, I would like to ask the question again: What is the position in respect of rural areas where the population is of a high density?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 74.

Vote agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, our party will be supporting this Bill. We have some amendments on the Order Paper which we shall motivate in detail during the Committee Stage. To us it is a matter of concern that the Medical Research Council has already expressed its concern at the fact that the money that is available for research in South Africa is not being used as economically as possible because there is insufficient co-ordination between the various bodies doing the research. Obviously they do not only mean the universities, but also the private companies that are involved, e.g. the various drug companies and so on. It seems to me that it is unfortunate that the hon. the Minister has not taken this opportunity to include, in this legislation, some means whereby there can be some statutory application of the right to co-ordinate, or perhaps not coordinate directly, but at least run some sort of information centre for any medical research that is being conducted in this country. I believe that this is particularly important because we can, as a result of our tremendous medical resources and facilities and our proud record in the medical profession, make a big contribution to the question of Third World health. I think that something like Medunsa, if it could really develop well, could show the way in bringing health to the community on a much stronger basis than we have perhaps thus far tended to do in the Western technological medical tradition. For that reason I think it is a pity that this has not happened. We are obviously pleased that there is concern about increasing opportunities for medical research in other countries. We have seen in the Press that the Israeli medical profession and medical research body are going to co-operate more effectively with us in our own medical research efforts. Obviously we do welcome that.

We shall be supporting this Bill, although we shall be motivating an amendment in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to reply to a few matters raised here during the Second Reading debate. Firstly I want to come to the hon. member for Durban Central who actually supports the fact that we should take in two members from the private sector. He spoke about the lack of funds and also mentioned that there were some problems about the question of establishing some permanent presence in the Transvaal somewhere. He suggested Johannesburg. The Medical Research Council has already asked us for the go-ahead for a permanent arm in the Transvaal. There has not, however, been any final agreement yet. One of the problems is still the question of financing a building project there. We have advised them that there is temporary accommodation, but I do not think this quite meets with their approval. We are, however, looking into the whole question, because I think that the Medical Research Council has now reached a point where it can spread its wings a bit further to the north and have a permanent part of its set-up in that particular area.

A further point that was made involved the difficulty of keeping in touch with other bodies in the RSA. I think that was also an aspect that was mentioned by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North who talked about having proper co-ordination, or more information that could be at everybody’s disposal. I think that this is an internal function of the Medical Research Council. I know that those individuals are very keen on the gathering of information and the storing of such information. There are, in fact, very few countries in the world that are on the on-line computer service of the American Research Library in Washington, which I actually visited last year. At any time one can get information about research that is taking place throughout the world and about which information is stored there. I agree that it could possibly be to the benefit of everybody if more of the university research work could be co-ordinated, but I believe there is a very strong liaison between them and the universities. Many of the universities are actually undertaking projects which they have farmed out, if one can call it that, to have specific work done.

*The hon. member for Pietersburg also raised a few points in his speech. He asked a question about the limited funds. He also paid tribute to Prof. Brink and the board of management. I agree with him that they are performing a gigantic task. Funds are actually approved at their request by the body which approves all funds for research. They are also free to ask for new projects. As in the case of all research and activities in the country, we do not have unlimited funds available in this field either. We do our best to provide them with funds on a basis which will enable them to do very good work. If more funds are available and they have proved that it is necessary to undertake certain projects, I think this will receive the attention of people who have the knowledge to evaluate projects of this kind.

The hon. member also spoke about research in co-operation with other countries beyond our borders and referred to the good co-operation with Israel. I have been to Israel personally and I can assure hon. members that there is close co-operation between our Medical Research Council and the relevant body in Israel. There is soon to be a conference in Cape Town where the Israeli researchers and the MRC researchers will meet to discuss certain projects on which they are collaborating.

†The hon. member for South Coast said in his speech that, as earlier Bills passed through the House so easily, I as Minister concerned was having an easy time of it. Well, I should think that that is a matter of opinion. He asked why it was not necessary for the council to advance funds. This actually relates to a person belonging to another pension fund who accepts employment with the council and has his pension contributions transferred to the pension fund of the council. It might happen that his contributions to the previous pension fund do not cover the same period of membership as applies to the new fund. In such a case such a person must pay in the difference. In order to assist such a person, the council seeks the power to advance the money to the new employee in order to assist him to become a member of the pension fund of the council, covering the period of membership of his previous pension fund. The money is advanced to him and then he repays it. I think it is a way of ensuring that the services of the applicant will be retained and that he will not be put off by this consideration and as a result perhaps not turn up. It is therefore a matter of funds being advanced and later got back again.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said that he thought that the Medical Research Council was not being used as economically as it should be. I cannot quite agree with him. I think they are doing an exceptional job of work. If we had more funds, we would gladly make them available. In the rationalization programme for the coming year I am sure I will have numerous discussions with them and the department to make sure in my own mind that the funds are being used as economically as they should be. We are dealing here with experts. The body that is running the Research Council consists entirely of experts and I think one must accept that they will see to it that this money goes a long way. They are not only doing research in particular areas, but they have researchers at various universities and even overseas in respect of whom they pay the costs. If one looks at the field with which they are concerned, one sees that it is a very vast and informative one. They do a lot of work for the department as well in the northern provinces. They are also doing exceptional work as far as nutritional research is concerned. I do not know whether the hon. members’ information is correct, but I am sure that they have information about most of the projects undertaken in the country. I am in fact convinced that most of the universities consult with them in order to ensure that there is no overlapping. They are anxious to ensure that research is done properly. Therefore it is not, in my view, necessary to stipulate in legislation what steps should to be taken. I feel one should leave it to the management of the council to run their affairs as they think fit.

*I thank the hon. members who have participated in the debate for their interesting contributions. There are one or two further points we can discuss during the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that during the Second Reading debate I did not express the sympathy of this side of the House with the hon. the Minister on the loss of one of the members of his family.

As I mentioned in the Second Reading, our concern about the co-ordination of information about medical research is not necessarily sucked out of our thumbs. I have a memorandum here from a member of the Medical Research Council from which I wish to quote the following—

*Unfortunately the hon. member for Durban Central was not able to be here for personal reasons. However, his amendment speaks for itself. The aim is that a member or representative of each medical school in Southern Africa should serve on the council viz. representatives of the medical schools of the University of Cape Town, Medunsa, the University of Natal, the University of Stellenbosch, the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of the Orange Free State. Such a step will ensure that there would be seven people on the council who would have a knowledge of medical research that is being carried out at the various medical schools and quite probably also of other medical research that is being carried out and of funds that are available for it. The Minister will still be able to appoint the majority of members and therefore it should not create a problem for him. It would also grant the universities recognition, which in the nature of things is an important source of research in our country in all respects. Therefore, I do not think there can be a problem there. As I have already said, the hon. the Minister will still be able to appoint seven members to the Council. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment. Quite probably he will appoint a representative of each faculty of medicine in the Republic in any event. Perhaps this is his intention. I believe that it would be of tremendous help if it were in fact included in the legislation as such. I also believe that in this way these medical institutions will feel assured that they are in fact being recognized by this important body, the Medical Research Council, for the contribution that they are making.

I have one last question for the hon. the Minister. Perhaps he can just explain to us why he wants to increase the number of members on the S.A. Medical Research Council. Is it possibly just because he wants two members on the council who are not medical practitioners, people who may be experts in the sphere of business or in the business world?

Therefore, on behalf of the hon. member for Durban Central I move the amendments printed in his name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 29, after “of” to insert “(a)”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 30, to omit “fourteen” and to substitute “seven”;
3. (3) on page 5, in line 32, to omit “twelve” and to substitute “five”;
4. (4) on page 5, in line 34, after “science” to insert:
   • and

1. (b) seven members, of whom the seven universities having faculties of medicine in the Republic shall appoint one each, and who shall be persons who have distinguished themselves in any branch of the medical or a related science.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North for his kind condolences. I shall convey it to my wife as well, and I am sure she will find it gratifying to know that hon. members of the Opposition are also thinking of us in our bereavement.

*In reading through the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, one is struck by one thought. This is that the S.A. Medical Research Council is not there simply to serve certain interest groups. However, as the amendment has been worded, the implications thereof are clear at once. These are that the Minister is now being granted the power to appoint seven of the members of the council, of which five must be people who have distinguished themselves in some branch or other of the medical or related sciences. In the second place the amendment asks that the seven universities that have medical faculties, should be granted the power each to appoint a member who has distinguished himself in some branch of medical science or other.

If one therefore wants to do justice by this motion, one must simply ask a few questions. In actual fact this amendment, should it be agreed to, is merely making provision for the representation on the council of all the existing medical faculties in South Africa. What about future medical faculties? Should representation not also be granted to them at a later stage? What about the dental faculties, that do just as much research about water and various other aspects of dentistry? I feel that the danger implicit in this amendment is that since every university acts separately, it may happen that all seven of them appoint people who have excelled in the same direction and in the same branch of medical science. Something of this kind is possible unless all seven universities consult in advance in order to establish which branch of medical science the appointed member of each one will represent. Of course it can happen that the branch of the medical science that a specific university chooses to represent, may not have such a brilliant man at the head in that specific field. I want to state clearly once again that the S.A. Medical Research Council is not a representative body. The object of the council is to look after the interests of medical research in the entire country, and not merely to deal with the interests of a certain group. Indeed, this is stated very clearly in the wording of section 4(1) of the principal Act that reads as follows—

I believe it is very clear from this that we are dealing here with a council that has not been established merely to serve certain interest groups. The council has been established with the aim of utilizing the funds that are made available by the State for medical research, as effectively as possible. Therefore the body has been created in such a way and consists of a variety of experts in the medical sphere. The council is also, with the exception of smaller donations that it receives, financed cheaply by the State. When members are reappointed when their term of office has expired, there is the closest of co-operation with the president. One finds that one has someone who can point out persons, and these recommendations can possibly be amended after discussion if the department or myself feels that we should do so before we reach a final decision. However, what is important is that we take people from the academic world to serve on this council, people who are all experts in their particular sphere. There is no question of the council being representative of any university. Some universities cannot have representation on it. What I tried to do in my period of service was, when there was a younger person who had already begun to make his mark, not only in South Africa, but in a broader sphere, with regard to his research, I would then try to include him on the council. We would be frustrating the entire purpose of the council if we were to introduce group interests here now and not leave it to experts, to those people who are the best in their sphere. In view of this it should be clear to the hon. member that I feel that this group of experts will in fact be the best, including the additional two, as it is provided by the Act. The Medical Research Council itself has asked that we incorporate the skill of someone in the private sector, either in the financial sphere or any other sphere, but not related to medical matters, so that we may possibly achieve a better balance in this body. I must therefore tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North that I cannot accept the amendment, as moved by the hon. member for Durban Central.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendment (4) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments (2) and (3) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is aimed at eliminating a few problems. Section 4 of the Act deals with the sterilization of persons incapable of consenting or incompetent to consent thereto. As the definition of “sterilization” reads at present, a hysterectomy cannot, in terms of the provisions of the Act, be performed on a female person since it also means castration, which is prohibited. Certain categories of female persons who fall under this group are simply not capable of caring for themselves or of applying the most elementary hygienic measures. This causes problems for such a person, as well as those caring for her, and it would therefore be in the interests of such a person if a hysterectomy could be performed on her. Consequently the amendment of the definition is being proposed.

Before a sterilization may in fact be carried out, two medical practitioners are inter alia required to certify that the person concerned is capable of procreating children. It is not possible for a medical practitioner to establish by means of a mere examination whether a person is capable of procreating children, and consequently it is being proposed that this requirement be deleted.

The definition of “unlawful carnal intercourse” includes a female idiot or imbecile. In terms of section 6(4) a magistrate is required to issue a certificate to the effect that he has satisfied himself that (a) a complaint relating to the alleged act has been lodged with the police or, if such a complaint has not been lodged, there is a good reason why this has not been done and (b) after an examination of any relevant documents submitted to him by the police and after interrogation of the woman concerned or any other person as he may consider necessary, that, on a balance of probability, unlawful carnal intercourse with the woman concerned has taken place.

As a result of the circumstances of the person concerned, the only certificate which the magistrate is in reality able to issue is merely that the mental condition of the person is the reason why she had not lodged a complaint with the police and that an unlawful act had been committed. The decision of the magistrate in regard to the mental condition of the person is based on the opinion of a medical practitioner that the person is an idiot or an imbecile.

The criterion as far as the Abortion and Sterilization Act, 1975, is concerned is not so much the criminal act in which the mentally ill person was involved, but the fact that she is pregnant and that as a result of her mental condition an abortion cannot be performed on her. The opinion is held that a certificate issued by a magistrate is not necessary in such a case, but that it is only necessary to require that illegitimate intercourse has in fact taken place and that two medical practitioners have certified in writing that the woman concerned is due to a permanent mental handicap or defect unable to comprehend the consequential implications of or bear the parental responsibility for the fruit of coitus, and that the Act be so amended.

In the case of rape or incest it is required that one of the two medical practitioners who have to issue a certificate that the pregnancy was due to the alleged rape or incest shall be a district surgeon. If a complaint relating to such an act is lodged with the police, the woman is in the normal course of events referred to a district surgeon for examination. It is consequently being proposed that the Act be so amended that the requirement that one of the medical practitioners shall be a district surgeon is limited to the case where the district surgeon was in fact involved. In cases where a complaint is not lodged, therefore, any two medical practitioners may issue the required certificate.

In terms of section 6(1) of the Act a medical practitioner in charge of a State-controlled institution, or in the case of a private institution a medical practitioner designated for the purpose by the person in charge of the institution, to grant authority for an abortion or sterilization in such institution. Although the Act stipulates which documents shall accompany an application for such an authority, nothing is said in the Act about the function which such a district surgeon shall perform in regard to such a document. This deficiency is being made good.

Section 7(1) of the Act prescribes the period within which and manner in which a report shall be made by the medical practitioner granting authority for an abortion or sterilization. These matters can be arranged more effectively by way of regulation, and it is consequently being proposed that the Act be so amended.

Mr. Speaker, I should firstly like to make it absolutely clear that the PFP does not have an official policy on the question of abortion and sterilization. We leave this matter, which is one of conscience, and very often one of religious feelings, entirely to each individual member to clarify for himself. So as far as we are concerned there are no whips on in this debate, for we are allowing a free vote. So the opinions I am expressing this afternoon are entirely my own, though I am hoping to persuade some of my colleages on this side of the House, and indeed some colleagues on that side of the House, to agree with the views I put forward.

When the Bill was first introduced in 1975 the then official Opposition also allowed their members a free vote, and I am told that it is their intention to do the same in the case of this amending Bill. I do not, however, know exactly what the whip position in the NP is at the moment. [Interjections.] Well, they are a couple of whips short, but apart from that I do understand that until tomorrow the whips are on. I am hoping, however, that in this particular instance the hon. the Minister will allow a free vote, because in every parliament in the Western World where this admittedly tricky subject of abortion is discussed, it is customary to allow the members a free vote. On the last occasion that attempts were made, in the British House of Commons, to restrict the abortion provisions in their law, the matter was left to a free vote, and let me add that the abortion provisions were not restricted as a result. I just want to make that point quite clear to start with.

This is the third time that the principal Act is being amended, and one would have hoped that with the passage of time, from 1975 onwards, other counsel would have prevailed on this issue of abortion. The previous two amending Bills did not make any material difference to the provisions in terms of which abortion could be procured legally in South Africa, and I regret to say that now, seven years later—it being seven years since the 1975 Act was passed—there is still obviously no intention, on the part of the hon. the Minister, to make any progress whatever as far as liberalizing our abortion law in South Africa is concerned. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister, and to other Hon. members in this House, that the fears originally expressed when the 1975 Bill became law, i.e. that the legalizing of abortion in South Africa—for that was the first time that abortion was, in fact, legalized by statute—would do nothing to decrease the incidence of back-street abortions in South Africa have, over the years, I am afraid, proved only too real, because the numbers of legal abortions are actually decreasing in South Africa—and there are only a few hundred a year—because of the strictness of our law, whilst the numbers of illegal abortions remain very high indeed. According to the figures of the Department of Health and Welfare, something like 33 000 abortions were performed, though I admit not all of them necessarily illegal back-street abortions, the removal of the residue of such abortions or even septic abortions, but I do think that a very high percentage must be due to septic abortions, while the rest are possibly normal miscarriages. The figure was 33 000 in 1979 and was about 27 000 in 1980. If one looks at hospitals like King Edward VIII, Baragwanath or Groote Schuur, one realizes that there is undoubtedly a very high incidence of abortions as a result of women going to back-street abortionists because they cannot obtain legal abortions. That is because the original Bill had some glaring omissions. The circumstances in which an abortion can be performed are far too circumscribed and the procedures involved are far too lengthy and complicated.

I should like to deal briefly with the history of abortion law in this country. The original Bill of 1973 was sent to a Select Committee which was in turn converted into a commission and, unfortunately, that commission consisted of ten male chauvinist politicians. It emerged from the commission even more circumscribed than it was when it was originally submitted to them. Various amendments were made which made it very difficult indeed for a woman to procure a legal abortion. I am referring particularly to the changing of the words “serious threat to a woman’s physical or mental health” to “permanent mental damage”. It is very difficult, and indeed almost impossible, for a physician to predict such a condition. Instead of the original provision of the 1973 Bill which combined physical and mental health, the Bill which was presented to Parliament separated mental health from physical health and, as I say, introduced the concept of permanent damage as far as mental health is concerned. It also required the signature of a psychiatrist in State employment, and they are few and far between in this country. The original 1973 draft Bill had a sensible and humane provision which allowed girls under the age of 16 to have legal abortions. The procedures involved no fewer than four doctors, two signing the certificate stating that the abortion was necessary, a third doctor, the superintendent of a State hospital where the abortion was to be procured and, in the case of mental health, a psychiatrist in State employ. In cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, a magistrate was also involved. This all added to the trauma and delayed the procedures so that indeed by the time these unfortunate women had obtained all the necessary permission, it was often too late to have a safe abortion.

Now, it is seven years later and look at the Bill which is before the House today. Firstly, there has been no sign of an inquiry into the workings of the 1975 Act. I believe it was essential that such a commission of inquiry should have been set up and, needless to say, it should have included women who were qualified to sit on such a commission. Representatives of all races should also have been included. That is equally important. The hon. the Minister has been asked by a number of women’s organizations to set up such a commission of inquiry. I do not know why he has been so obstinate because he has received representations not only from women’s organizations which he might consider to have exceptionally liberal ideas about abortion, but also from other organizations such as the National Council of Women, the ACVV—which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered to be a liberal organization—the Federation of Business and Professional Women—also relatively conservative—ARAG, the Abortion Reform Group, which clearly would want abortion reform, the Society for Social Workers and the Association for Voluntary Sterilization. All these organizations, consisting of highly qualified women in many respects, asked the hon. the Minister to appoint a commission of inquiry. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us in his reply to the Second Reading debate why he has been so obstinate. It is seven years since the original Act was introduced and I think it is high time that we had an inquiry into the ways in which the Act is actually working.

There was one small advance in the Bill when it was originally gazetted as a draft Bill for comment. There was one small advance in the existing law. That was in 1981, and that draft Bill included a provision that permitted abortion if a woman had fallen pregnant despite having had a sterilization. If anything could prove that a woman did not want any more children—and generally this happens when women are middle-aged, already have large families and therefore do not want any more children—it is surely the fact that they have undergone sterilization. If, however, they nevertheless fall pregnant, in terms of the existing legislation they still have to go through all the difficult procedures and probably end up not being allowed to have a legal abortion. They could then very well end up in the hands of a back-street abortionist, with considerable danger indeed to their lives. I cannot see what made the hon. the Minister drop that provision which was, as I have said, in the draft Bill but is not in the Bill before us. What could possibly have motivated the hon. the Minister to drop that provision?

It is true that it is only a small percentage of women who do undergo sterilization, but to them failed sterilization means only one thing, and that is a 100% incidence. I intend to move an instruction to the House, before we go into Committee, in an attempt to get this clause reintroduced into this Bill, and I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider the matter and that I will get the support of hon. members in this House, who surely cannot be so unreasonable that they will not assist me in getting this clause reinserted.

There are also a couple of other things in this Bill that I find very hard to understand. I am sure that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North does not happen to agree with my views on abortion.

He is sensible.

Well, I am not sure that he is being sensible in this regard. I know he is very sensible in many other respects, but as far as this is concerned I do not happen to agree with him, or he with me. I know that he is going to move an amendment that is on the Order Paper to change the terminology in regard to mentally retarded women, since the phrase in the English text does not agree with that in the Afrikaans text. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would agree to that, but that is the least of my worries. I want a much more important change to clause 3(e), because that provision limits abortion, in women with mental defects, to cases of pregnancy outside marriage. That I also consider to be a very extraordinary provision, because since when does marriage make a woman with a permanent mental defect more capable of appreciating the results of coitus and better able to bear the responsibility of parenthood. It is absurd. If a woman is mentally defective it does not matter whether she is married or unmarried. If she falls pregnant she should be able to have the pregnancy terminated, for the simple reason that she is incapable of understanding what it is all about and is certainly incapable of rearing a child. So again I hope to introduce an amendment, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister can be persuaded that it is really absurd to insist that it is only outside of marriage that a woman with a permanent mental defect should be allowed to have an abortion. In any case, as I say, it is difficult to obtain, even if allowed. By the way, the idea of permanent mental damage is also something that I feel should be changed. It should apply to any woman who is mentally defective and not only those who are permanently defective. Let me therefore say that all in all the amending Bill is a big disappointment. It is concerned mainly with terminology. I do not think there is anything that really makes any change in the original legislation, and it is certainly not in line with the progress in so many other countries with their liberalization of abortion laws, recognizing that women make their own decisions about pregnancy. It is not for the males to make the decision. They may, in effect, be the cause of the pregnancy, but they cannot make the decisions …

Co-responsibility.

Yes, but they do not bear the responsibility.

They are willing to work in the first place.

I am talking about women of all races. There is no doubt that the rate of illegitimacy amongst women in the townships today, for instance, has reached staggering proportions, and nobody can tell me that those men bear the responsibility.

There is an enormous proportion of one-parent families today among the Black people in South Africa, particularly in the urban areas, but not only in the urban areas. If a women has decided that she does not want to continue with a pregnancy, law or no law she is going to go to a back-street abortionist with extremely dangerous consequences to herself.

I want to point out that the international conference on family planning—this document was sent on to me by the National Council of Women—which was held in April last year in Djakarta, noted that most contraceptive methods fall short of providing complete protection against unwanted pregnancy. In other words, one is not asking for legalized abortion, or making it easier to obtain legalized abortion, instead of family planning. It is in addition to family planning, because family planning often fails. The Djakarta conference, which was attended by 133 delegates from some 76 countries, called for access to safe modern abortion techniques wherever the laws permit. It called at the same time for greater investment in family-planning projects. Again, I commend the conference resolutions to the House.

I can only say that I take comfort in the thought that there are many advances in medical science which sooner or later are going to thwart the male chauvinists who do not want to liberalize abortion laws. The male chauvinists, both inside the House and outside the House, are going to be thwarted in so far as they insist that children under the age of 16—I think that this is incredible— should be forced to have illegitimate children and that middle-aged women over the age of 40, who already have large families and do not want any more children because the family is large and the income small, should keep unwanted offspring. Otherwise they place their lives in jeopardy by going to back-street abortionists. I believe that medical science is going to thwart these chauvinists, because it is advancing at an increasing pace. I can tell hon. members that the safe use of prostaglandins is not that far away. Debates like this will probably become academic because it will be very difficult indeed to prevent a woman from procuring an abortion if she so wishes.

Having said all that, I want to say that I am not going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, because I do not think it matters one way or another whether it is passed or not. I am indifferent to the fate of the Bill as it stands. As I say, it is largely a matter of terminology. I do, however, intend moving some instructions after the Bill has been read a Second Time. I hope very much indeed that some of the hon. members in the House will show that they are not chauvinists and are aware of the direction most modern countries are taking as far as the admittedly delicate subject of abortion is concerned by supporting the amendments I intend moving, one being to make it possible for a girl under the age of 16 who falls pregnant to have a legal abortion in this country and another being to remove the absurdity of a woman who has undergone sterilization and has fallen pregnant not being able to have a legal abortion. Then there are the two other cases I mentioned. There is the mentally defective woman who, inside marriage as well as outside marriage, should be allowed to have an abortion if necessary. I may say that I should like to go further—I am not sure that I would be in order even if I moved an instruction—by moving that “serious damage to mental health” be substituted for “permanent damage” in section 3 of the Act. That would again serve to broaden the conditions under which a legal abortion can be obtained in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to concern myself too much with the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton. I think she was directing her arguments primarily to the hon. the Minister himself. It would also take a medical practitioner to reply to those questions of here. I just wish to tell the hon. member that the Government is not unconcerned about this matter. The Government has given serious thought to these matters and has conducted consultations in regard to them, and I think the hon. the Minister will be able to furnish her with a good reply in this connection.

This amending Bill affects what is probably one of the most sensitive laws on our Statute Book, viz. the Abortion and Sterilization Act. Medical practitioners involved in this matter may be regarded as the judges who have to pass judgment and indeed have to make and give decisions on matters of life and death. However, we on this side of the House have the fullest confidence in our South African medical practitioners. We can rely on their sound judgment and can leave the implementation of the legislation in their competent hands. We also know that medical practitioners consider it to be extremely important that there should be the greatest degree of trust between medical practitioner and patient, particularly in regard to this matter which can be delicate and sometimes very emotional as well.

Certain definitions and groupings in the existing Act in regard to abortion and sterilization sometimes create problems, but these are now being rectified through this legislation. In the proposed new section 1(c), for example, the words “unlawful carnal intercourse with a female idiot” are being deleted. In future this group will be dealt with separately. On the word “castration” I found a very naughty note here on my desk. The hon. member for Houghton referred to a Select Committee, and asked why women could not serve on such a committee. The letter indicates that men are afraid of women serving on a Select Committee, because certain things would then be discussed for which the men would not be able to vote. On a later occasion I shall make this letter available to the hon. member. In the proposed new section 1(d) a clearer definition is being substituted for the word “castration”.

In the proposed new section 3(1)(e) it is being provided that where the foetus has been conceived in consequence of illegitimate carnal intercourse, and two medical practitioners certify that the woman concerned is due to a permanent mental handicap or condition unable to procreate children, a certificate to such a fact may be submitted to a magistrate to obtain consent to an abortion. In the case where a woman is pregnant in consequence of unlawful carnal intercourse, a medical practitioner may institute the necessary investigation and if he has satisfied himself in accordance with the requirements laid down, he may grant the necessary permission for abortion. On the same basis permission may also be granted to a woman who is physically ill and whose life is at stake.

Briefly the test or criterion for this legislation is in the first place the fact that the offence cannot be considered to be a criminal act. The emphasis is being shifted from the criminal law consequences to the physical consequences. In this case it is applicable to the mentally retarded. In the second place only two medical practitioners may certify that the person is not responsible for his or her actions, in other words, cannot understand the consequences of the deed and is consequently not criminally liable. This Bill should therefore be welcomed for humanitarian reasons. We on this side of the House support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I should like to associate hon. members in these benches with the condolences expressed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North to the hon. the Minister. We in the NRP also want the hon. the Minister to convey our sympathy to his wife.

Dealing with the Bill before us now I should like to state right at the outset that we in the NRP enjoy a free vote when it comes to legislation of this nature. Therefore the views I express are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect those of my colleagues. I want to state emphatically that I do not believe in abortion. Therefore I cannot support the Bill before us now.

In my own opinion each person has a right to live and a right to life. Abortion is an attack on the life of an innocent person, and if one is honest with oneself, one must accept that life is present from the moment of conception. The embryo has the same right to life as a fully grown person. Conception is the beginning of a new individual with his own new personality. I believe that the right to life is almost absolute. It can be forfeited, however, firstly, when for a serious crime the common good of the community demands the death penalty, and secondly, when in resisting an attack on one’s life or possessions one is forced to take another person’s life in defence of one’s own life and honour. Then one may use force; as much force as is required to fight off one’s assailant.

What worries me about this whole situation is that, without doubt, abortion is being made easier in certain instances, and if one is not careful it will only be a matter of time—that is all—for the situation in South Africa to change completely and to become similar to that in other countries. We will then be able to have abortion on demand.

Therefore I cannot support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in certain respects I should like to support the views expressed by the hon. member for Houghton. I agree with her in that abortion is obviously a very sensitive matter. It is an unpleasant experience for any individual to go through. It is in fact a horrible experience if one has to look at it together with its physical and psychological effects. Similarly, I support the hon. member for South Coast in what he has just said. I agree with the principle expressed by him that abortion is wrong.

I believe this represents the viewpoint of the overwhelming majority of the South African public. People see abortion as a failure, and the medical science and all people concerned with the whole question of abortion would regard it in the same way. As a friend of mine once said—a man with no religious convictions whatsoever, but speaking simply as a doctor—he did not like doing abortions and avoided them because he was trained as a doctor to help women to have babies and not to get rid of their babies. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, there is something we tend to forget these days. When I was a little boy I once used the word “abortion” and was then told that it was a word that should not be used in polite company. In fact I was told that should I use the word again I would have my mouth washed out with soap.

“Abortion” is a word which is very commonly used these days. We even see it appear in the headlines of daily newspapers. Yet 15 or 20 years ago it was a word that was not to be used at all in polite company. It is a word which generates tremendous controversy in societies that do indeed have abortion on request or abortion on demand or liberal abortion legislation. There are even public demonstrations. In America there have been sit-ins and even bombs thrown on the premises of abortion clinics, while in Italy women have marched bare-breasted to protest in favour of more liberal abortion legislation. In the United Kingdom all members of Parliament have been heavily lobbied by pro and anti abortion groups and the Society for the Prevention of Unborn Children—commonly known as Spuc—has achieved great success in its campaign for stricter abortion legislation in the United Kingdom.

I want to inform the hon. member for Houghton and all other hon. members that the only reason why stricter abortion legislation was not adopted in the United Kingdom was of a technical nature. It was not owing to a lack of support. If such stricter legislation should be introduced now in the House of Commons it would certainly be carried because people are so shocked by what has happened in recent times in respect of abortions on request. In the United States of America, for example, investigations into the situation have been carried out. It has been found there that only 5% of abortions performed in the USA are done because of incest, rape or a threat to the mother’s life or because the unborn child was deformed. The other 95% of abortions have been performed largely for reasons of convenience. I think we should remind ourselves of that.

This is an amending Bill. I am not going to go into the details of all the arguments put forward in favour of or against abortion. However, I think it is important to mention one or two things about the working of this Bill. The first important thing is that the department is producing reliable statistics. Any of us who have been subjected to the questions and to the pros and cons of the abortion controversy will know that wild claims have been made that there have been 100 000 or even 250 000 back-street abortions in South Africa. Needless to say the numbers were easy, round, shocking, six-figure totals, well-designed for propaganda purposes. But if one looks at the report of the department for 1980 one sees that there were 29 979 notifications of operations for the removal of the residues of a pregnancy. I believe that that figure helps to put the whole position into perspective. However, I do not believe that that means that this number is not a very serious total because if there were 29 000 incomplete miscarriages I believe that the department should ascertain as far as possible how many of these were in fact as a result of incomplete abortions. According to this report only 1 374 were as a result of septic miscarriages. I believe that this is an area which could usefully be looked at. I want immediately to identify myself with the hon. member for Houghton by saying that even 29 000 is too many and that it ought to be a matter of grave concern for us. Of course, what one must remember is that many of these are natural abortions or what are known as miscarriages. In many cases, Black women, if they have a miscarriage, do not always immediately seek medical advice and often complications set in as a result.

In a healthy society it is the object of the Government to ensure decent, socio-economic conditions for family life and for that reason we must campaign for better conditions, better laws and better care for children. We must also campaign for fewer one-parent families and opportunities for those children who may be unwanted. It is a difficult matter to find decent homes through adoption, through fostering and through the provision of decent, well-run welfare institutions. In that respect I believe hon. members opposite have much to answer for, particularly as far as our Black community is concerned.

This Bill is being debated on a free vote basis. Our party recognizes that one’s view on abortion is basically a matter of strongly held religious convictions or a high appreciation of the value of human life. This view was expressed by the hon. member for South Coast and I do not believe that I need deal with this matter in greater detail. If we are going to tie our views to situational ethics and to the conditions of certain people, then we can have interesting discussions, but basically one’s view on abortion boils down to what one’s view on life is and that is where one has to take a stand. If one wants to use a description one can say that something is a crime or it is theft. There may be extenuating circumstances, but one does not try to wish away the theft or the crime. One establishes standards. I think this point is well set out by a Dr. Du Toit in a book which he wrote titled Die Christen en Aborsie. I wish to quote from that book. He says—