I move the following amendments—

At the second reading the hon. the Minister indicated that he would be willing to consider an amendment to deal with the question of notice in writing instead of notice in the Gazette in dealing with the fixing of prices. After the Second Reading debate he was good enough to discuss this question with us. The proposed amendments to this clause and the subsequent amendments meet our difficulties and we have no objection to them.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

I move the following amendments—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4 put and negatived.

Clause 5:

I move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

I move the following amendments—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

I move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 8:

I move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 9 put and negatived.

Clause 10 put and negatived.

Title:

I move the following amendments—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

First of all, I wish to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation from our side of the House for the long years of service given to his country by the Secretary for Justice, Mr. Greeff, who has had ten years’ service in this Department and is about to retire. We who have had to deal with him at different times have always found him conscientious and most obliging and approachable. We hope that he will have many years of enjoyable retirement after his long service. I also want to congratulate him on the report he has laid before us for the Department of Justice, and I especially want to mention that we appreciate it that we got it in time before the Justice Vote was discussed. Too often we find that we have to discuss a Vote without the latest report from the Department, and in some cases the reports are as much as two years in arrear.

This report makes interesting reading and I am very glad to note that the Secretary has gone to so much trouble to deal with the administrative problems of his Department and the shortage of properly trained staff. Regional magistrates are operating, as far as I know, efficiently and successfully. It was a new innovation when it was introduced, to give these senior magistrates work to relieve the Judges, and power to deal with crimes which are not considered to be quite so serious. I notice on page 2 of the report that he says that these magistrates receive special training before appointment. That I expected, but I see that they also have an initial trial period, and they are given training by experts who check their judgments regularly. I think this is a very good innovation, because we must realize that these regional magistrates have higher jurisdiction than the ordinary magistrates, and they are in a position to give heavier sentences, and although it may be said that the criminal who is dissatisfied with his sentence can always appeal to a higher court, it is nevertheless a very costly business to appeal. So it is to be appreciated that the Department is taking special steps to see that the regional magistrates know what they are doing and that they are receiving proper training.

But the report goes on to deal with prosecutors. The practice in the past was for prosecutors to tour the country with the regional magistrates. This has now been stopped and I approve because there is no doubt about it that there was a feeling among the accused, when they saw the prosecutor and the magistrate travelling around together, that the magistrate might be influenced by the prosecutor. Now I see this practice is not being continued and I welcome that innovation. What worries me is the remarks by the Secretary on the lack of properly trained prosecutors. This is a very serious matter. We come across it too often that prosecutors present the case for the State not knowing the proper procedure as to evidence and how to adduce the evidence. We have, of course, contended, and I think the Department is in agreement on this issue, that all prosecutors should be public servants and not members of the Police Force. It is most unsatisfactory to have the police investigating a case and then prosecuting as well. We have often raised that objection in this House before, and I hope it is the policy of the Department to appoint as many civil prosecutors as possible so as to relieve the police of the necessity of having to prosecute their own cases. But unless the prosecutor is trained, the system will not be as valuable as we thought it would be, because a prosecutor not only has a duty towards the State to present the case against the accused, but he also has a duty towards the accused, and that is to see that the Bench is placed in possession of all the facts which should influence the court, even if those facts are in favour of the accused. Too often we find that prosecutors really become persecutors and do not place all the available information before the court. It is essential that prosecutors should be trained not only in how to obtain a conviction but also to see that there is no miscarriage of justice, and I hope that in training the prosecutors special emphasis is laid on this duty towards the accused.

I notice that in the Estimates there is an increase of R20,000 in the fees paid to barristers. That is an increase of more than 25 per cent and I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us why this is so. Are the barristers being paid more, or are they being employed more often than in the past? Is this amount for the employment of barristers in criminal prosecutions, or is it for civil work done on behalf of the Department? It may be that it includes pro deo defences. I would like the Minister to tell us why there was this big increase.

Under the general remarks the Secretary had this to say—

The remarks I made in regard to the training of prosecutors can of course be applied also to the training of magistrates and their legal qualifications. It is essential that the men sitting on the Bench are properly trained and have proper legal qualifications. These men, I submit, should be treated as professional men. This complaint about the difficulty of getting properly qualified personnel does not only apply to the Department of Justice in regard to getting legally trained men to sit on the Bench, but it also applies to the Master’s Office and to the Deeds Office. There we have also suggested, and so has the Law Society, that senior officers should be treated on a professional basis, because if they are not they will be employed by professional firms who also find themselves short of properly trained personnel. In the provincial services they find, for instance, that they cannot get sufficient engineers, simply because these men, who are professional men, are put on the same footing as other members of the staff who are not professional men. If you want to attract professional men, they must be treated on a different basis from that of the ordinary public servant.

The report goes on to deal with some of the difficulties experienced by the Department and which makes for unhappy conditions of service. A lot of space is devoted to the lack of proper accommodation. Some other hon. members on this side will raise specific instances, but I think it is generally known that most of our offices are very old and not up to modern standards, and unless the staff are working in comfortable conditions they cannot give their best service. Another important point raised by the Secretary is the question of housing. The staff of necessity are transferred from place to place and they often find, especially now with the housing shortage, that it is impossible for them to get suitable houses. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Transkei, who opened the debate on behalf of that side of the House, did not advance many contentious arguments. On behalf of this side of the House I want to associate myself with what he said about the Secretary for Justice. We always found him a most approachable, friendly and humble man and in particular a person who was most devoted to his duties. It was our experience that he listened most attentively and devoted his attention to any matter with which we approached him. We are actually sorry that he has now reached the stage where he has to retire from the Service. However, we on this side want to wish him all the best in the years ahead.

I also want to make some observations with reference to the annual report of the Department. In particular I want to congratulate the Department on the fact that it has now established a training section. There was a great need for this, as the report also indicates, and it is now beginning to meet the great demand for trained people which prevails in the Department. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Transkei said when he stated that certain trained people in the Department were actually professional persons and that for remuneration purposes they should not be regarded as clerks or as part of the administrative staff. They are in actual fact professional officers. If we regard these persons as such and remunerate them accordingly we will perhaps also attract many more people to the Department, people who now go to the private sector.

It is true that it is difficult to get staff. We are also aware of the difficulties the Department has to cope with in that regard. We do not want to blame the Minister for that, because we cannot blame him. The manpower shortage is after all not restricted to this Department, but is being experienced throughout the country. We know that the accommodation problems have also contributed to the fact that people do not stay in the Department. We are aware of the difficulties in that connection, because we know that the State cannot increase its expenditure, on account of the inflationary conditions prevailing at present. I do think, however, that as soon as the persons in question are regarded and classified as professional persons, we shall eliminate one of the major reasons for resignations.

Because I do not know whether I will get another turn to speak in the course of this debate, I want to take this opportunity of raising a certain matter, and this relates to liquor distribution in South Africa. You may remember that some years ago we passed legislation in terms of which white liquor could be sold to the non-Whites of South Africa. This had many important advantages, but it now appears that some evils have arisen as a result of this position. We now have the state of affairs that non-Whites, particularly Bantu and particularly in our smaller towns, and also in our large cities, can come to the white areas to buy their white liquor. Instead of taking their purchases home, they consume the liquor in the town or the city, in backyards or wherever they may be, if inside facilities are not available to them. They consume the liquor there and consequently we have the unpleasant evil of non-Whites who are drunk in white residential areas and other white parts of our cities and towns. We also find that on Saturdays the Bantu actually crowd the Whites in our smaller towns while buying this kind of liquor in the white areas. This is a very great evil.

Then another evil has arisen. We find that new holders of off-sales licences establish their off-sales at strategic points, i.e. near stations, where people have to be transported, or near a Bantu residential area or industrial area, because such places offer them a good market for their liquor. We know that if certain hotels are re-classified they are granted off-sales facilities which need not necessarily be on the hotel premises. These facilities serve as an incentive for obtaining higher classification. As a result there is such a strong flow of Bantu to these places that a great deal of unpleasantness is caused. Great unpleasantness is caused for the white inhabitants of that town. In this regard I also want to mention that the practice of delivering white liquor for Bantu is giving rise to a large number of evils and provides strong encouragement to the so-called “shebeen queens”. I have information which I obtained as a member of the re-settlement board and which indicates that on the Rand there are certain concerns which have a turnover of R80,000 to R100,000 a month from off-sales deliveries. From this one may deduce the scope of the evil that arises from it. These people concentrate. purely on selling this kind of liquor to non-Whites. I therefore want to ask that the Department and the Government should consider whether Whites should not get their liquor in the white areas while the non-Whites should get their liquor in the non-white part of the city, in their residential areas. In this way many of these evils can be stopped. We know that 80 per cent of the profits which are made on liquor sold to Bantu in the Bantu residential areas is re-invested in the development of the Bantu areas. But of the profits which are made by people who sell liquor outside the Bantu townships—and they make tremendous profits —not a cent goes to the Bantu. The Bantu population see nothing of that. I think the interests of our large Bantu population should be much more important to us than the profit a few liquor licences can make from the liquor trade.

I am bringing this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister and I merely ask that it should enjoy attention by way of an inquiry in the near future. I think this evil is assuming dangerous proportions and is giving rise to great abuse.

Mr. Chairman, I was dealing with some of the difficulties encountered in obtaining satisfactory staff. In that connection too I want to say that it seems a pity that when we are so short of fully qualified staff they should have to take on so many other administrative duties which are not related to their legal training at all. The Secretary in his report states that the administrative work has multiplied because of the drought. What is the position of the magistrates in the smaller towns? They find that they are confessor and adviser to the farmers; they act for the Land Bank; they give farmers assistance; they act as labour bureaux in getting Bantu labour for the farmers; they act as welfare officers; paupers have to come to them for rations; the district surgeons fall under them and they have to send them out in certain cases; pension applications go through them; all old-age pensions and other disability grants that are applied for go through them. In addition we find that they are chairmen of or act on hospital and school boards. They also sit on divisional councils in the Cape. I say that we expect far too much from our magistrates, who are legally trained men and should not have to spend their time doing all these extraneous duties. They also have to deal with social welfare cases. We find that mental cases are brought to the magistrate too, and often he is stuck because he does not know what to do with them. The police do not want them in their cells and there is no hospital to which they can be sent. While I am talking about mental cases, I should like to say that I was very upset to read this report in the Argus on the 29th April, of an address given by Mr. L. C. F. Swanepoel, a crime psychologist at the University of South Africa. He dealt with mental cases. What upset him most was that these people are often released from gaol before they are properly cured. He puts it down to the fact that we are not properly trained to deal with these cases. He says:

The report continues as follows:

The Minister might say to me that this is a question for the Minister of Health to deal with, but he as Minister of Justice is vitally concerned in what happens to these mental cases once they are convicted of committing a crime. I would like to know from him what his Department is doing about it. Are they acting with the Department of Health? Are they taking any steps? Are they trying to solve this problem at all, or are they just letting it drift and expecting the Minister of Health to deal with the matter?

Then I want to say a few words about prisons. First of all I want to thank the Department of Prisons for having made the trip to Robben Island possible. We were shown over the whole island and through the prison. We could see what we like. We certainly appreciated the opportunity. I am not going to deal with the conditions at the gaol just yet. I shall deal with it later. What I want to mention now is a most serious position in regard to gaols throughout the country. That is in regard to the number of escapes. I see that up to March this year there were 40 escapes from gaols. In the 12 months before that there were more than 160 reported cases. These prisoners escaped from our security gaols, not from Robben Island, but from Pretoria Central and practically any other gaol in the country. The fact is that the people who escape are usually long-term prisoners. They are usually desperate men. The result is that when they do get out, they do not really care so much what their future prospects are and what their punishment is likely to be. They know that if they are caught again they will be severely dealt with. We find that they are usually dangerous criminals. The country is warned. It is not a very pleasant thought to know, when you are living in the country districts, that a dangerous criminal is wandering around. We raised this question once before in the House. We dealt with it from the police point of view then. I think it is a shocking thing that the Police, who have spent so much of their time tracking down the criminals, once they have caught them and had them convicted, have to go and find them again to put them back in gaol. It is waste of time. We are not so overstaffed in our Police Force that we can afford to have them running around looking for criminals whom they have already caught once before. I want to know whether the Minister can give us a statement on this question of escapes from gaol, because it must be giving him and his department some concern. It is no good telling us that it happens in other countries as well. We know it happens in other countries as well, but I say it is far too prevalent here at the moment.

When the Minister took over as Minister of Justice, he was saddled with one of the most onerous and unpleasant tasks, namely to deal with bannings. Powers have been given to him by this Parliament to ban. From what I can recollect, he said that he was going into this whole question of banning. Nobody will say that they welcome the provisions relating to banning. It is a source of criticism not only from the outside world but also in this country. Any lawyer looks askance at provisions of this nature. Anybody who is trained in the law feels that it is wrong. I should like to know from the Minister what he has done, or if he has given any thought to this question, what the procedure is to be and if he intends changing it in any way. When he took over the portfolio we understood that this was one of the matters he was going to deal with.

Mr. Chairman, before I associate myself with what the hon. member said, I first want to mention something in connection with the report of the Secretary for Justice. In the conclusion to his report I find a most significant sentence. This is that the magistrate’s office is a show-window of the Public Service. I think this is a noteworthy approach and an approach which merits special consideration. Like the hon. member for Heilbron, I also want to support the hon. member for Transkei with regard to the matter of a professional status for certain professional officers in the Master’s Office, the Deeds Office, etc. Where the hon. member for Transkei mentioned, perhaps quite rightly, that the rural magistrate had too many duties to do justice to his legal duties, I want to ask a question in the light of the staff shortage: Who else is there in the rural areas who can perform those other duties? He is, after all, the first citizen of that district, because the magistrate’s office is the centre of the State, particularly in the rural districts. Who else can people turn to?

The hon. member also mentioned our visit to Robben Island. On behalf of this side of the House I want to convey our sincere gratitude to the Minister for the opportunity which he afforded both sides of the House to visit that island and to see the institutions there. Before we visited the island we would have been impressed by a report in the Cape Argus of 16th February. It appeared after the hon. member for Houghton had had the privilege, before us, of visiting the island. The prominent headline read: “Robben Island grim place”. [Interjections.] If the hon. member would give me a chance I would continue. I have only ten minutes. I do not intend wasting my time. It was a very pleasant surprise when we arrived there to see the place. We were impressed by the remarkably neat buildings and ?he cleanliness of all the institutions, and also by the facilities provided to the prisoners. I am thinking of sport and recreation. I am thinking of a library, a very well-equipped hospital, opportunities for study, a balanced diet, and work in the open air. That was the “grim place” referred to. Even the hon. member could not find that these people were being ill-treated. In a report she said in all fairness and quite rightly: “There was no evidence that they were ill-treated or that they were in ill-health.” We talked to the prisoners at considerable length on their treatment. We heard certain complaints from them, but do you know what the complaints were? They related to the monotony of the food. They did not like this kind of food or that kind of food. Those are the typical complaints one hears from hostel boys outside Robben Island. There were no substantial complaints about their treatment. We should also bear in mind that these people are not guests of a five-star hotel. The people on Robben Island are pre-eminently some of the most dangerous members of our criminal population. If with reference to the visit I measure the institution by the minimum standards laid down by the U.N. Congress for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, I find that South Africa meets these minimum standards remarkably well. But, Sir, if you think my testimony is not enough, I may just point out that in March of this year a book appeared by a certain Dr. E. M. Rhoodie, who made a scientific survey of prison conditions in what he called the “old countries of the British Commonwealth”, namely Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England and South Africa, because he commenced this study before we became a Republic and completed it subsequently. This book, which has just appeared, gives us a most scientific survey of the prison systems of these five countries. Thus I find the following on page 20 of this book:

I think the hon. member for Houghton should like this, because it is a “progressive correctional policy”. On page 20 the author says—

This analytical survey was not made from afar. The writer visited this country personally and made his surveys in loco. With reference to this I want to refer you to some of the aspects mentioned by him in the comparative study he made. On page 122 he discusses the matter of opportunities for study afforded prisoners. Then we find this very striking conclusion—

We now come to the question of staff training, and we get a remarkable testimonial from this scientific criminologist who has made a comparative study. I should like to mention this—

He then continues and says—

He then continues in this chapter and then deals with England first, and then says—

As far as the question of labour and training of the prisoners themselves is concerned, we get another testimonial for what is happening in our prisons. On page 190 the writer of this work says—

A moment ago the hon. member for Transkei mentioned matters such as research. What do we find in South Africa as far as the question of research is concerned, in comparison with the other countries of the world? On page 196 of this publication the writer says—

If we look at all these observations and findings by a scientific criminologist who carried out an investigation locally, we find a glowing testimonial for this Department. [Time expired.]

I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to the provisions of the General Law Amendment Act (Act No. 54 of 1949) in so far as it refers to the possession and the sale of dangerous weapons. Section 10 reads:

The same section further provides that it is an offence to be in possession of a dangerous weapon unless it is required for a lawful purpose. Dangerous weapons, as the Minister will know, are defined inter alia as daggers and knives, including pocket knives, the blades of which can be fixed when opened, and knives, including pocket knives, any blade of which exceeds 3½ inches. Under the Customs and Excise Act of 1964 there is a provision that knives with cutting edges of four inches or more can only be imported into South Africa with the permission of the Commissioner. It is my submission that the law regarding the supply and possession of dangerous weapons, and in particular knives, is completely inadequate at the moment and is certainly not being properly enforced. I would like to ask the Minister how many convictions, for example, under these two quoted sections took place in 1966. I believe that lethal knives can in practice be bought anywhere at any time and by any one. If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I will show hon. members two exhibits from the Supreme Court, both of which were responsible for the loss of life of the victims. This is a dagger, easily obtainable at any shop, and this is a pocket knife, known as a three-star, which is a very popular exhibit in the Supreme Court! These are easily obtainable. They only cost about 30 or 40 cents. They come easily into the possession of criminals and the incidence of stabbing recently has increased out of all proportion in South Africa. In fact, I think it is fair to say that there is an epidemic of stabbing in South Africa. I have taken the trouble to get statistics from the local hospitals and these sort of figures of course do not only apply to the Peninsula. They apply to all the other towns in South Africa. Groote Schuur in 1963 had 3,473 assault cases. In 1966 that figure increased to 4,430. Karl Bremer Hospital in 1966 had 3,096. The Conradie Hospital had 3,685. According to Mr. Pansegrouw, who is the chairman of the Karl Bremer and the Conradie Hospital Boards, most of these cases were the victims of stabbing.

Dealing with stabbing cases themselves, where separate records are kept in hospitals, the Victoria Hospital at Wynberg had 7,250 assault cases in the last six months, 1,939 of which were stabbings. In the Somerset Hospital there were 734 assault cases in the last four months, 357 of which were stabbings. To conclude, the Rondebosch Cottage Hospital in 1966 had 2,014 stabbings. In other words, if one takes 50 per cent of the total number of assaults handled by these hospitals, it amounts to 12,000 stabbings in the Pensinsula alone, treated by those hospitals per year.

That works out to 1,000 per month.

Your arithmetic is probably better than mine; if you want it that way, then that is correct.

As to our hospitals, the side-effects of this epidemic of stabbing are very serious. There is already a shortage of staff. They are working longer hours, particularly over the weekends, than should be necessary. The victims are using beds which are required for other purposes, and there has been a vast increase in hospital fees in the Cape Province recently, which can be attributed to some extent to the treatment which has to be given to the victims of stabbings. Sir, it is having further side-effects. It throws extra work on the police and the courts; there are a multitude of files in the various magisterial offices and they simply cannot cope with the crime wave at the moment. In the Supreme Court judges are submerged with cases that require review; the prison population is increasing and the burden of it all is falling on the taxpayer of South Africa. Sir, there is a further side-effect on society as a whole, leaving aside the sentimental aspect as far as the victims’ families are concerned. There is the incapacity or the loss of the breadwinner, the adverse effect on industry and commerce as a result of an increased turnover of labour; there is a regime of fear in the townships, and an appalling example is being set to the Coloured youths in those townships. Sir, I know that the modern tendency is to try to find an excuse for wrongdoing, generally in sociological factors; I know that you can make out a case for saying that in some of the townships there are inadequate recreational facilities; that they are not properly supervised and that there are no liquor facilities in the townships. Liquor facilities, as the hon. member for Heilbron has said, are readily available in the cities to those who have to travel back long distances to their townships. There is also an absence of street lighting in many of them, and I suggest that these may be aggravating factors, but under no circumstances can they justify the use of the knife.

I would like to make some suggestions to the Minister for his consideration. First of all I would suggest that the carrying of a knife in a public place be created a special statutory offence. At the moment when someone who carries a knife is charged with assault, he is sentenced on the charge of assault and not separately on both counts. I would suggest that the sentences should be made consecutive and that would be the case if the carrying of a knife was made a separate statutory offence. I would suggest further that cases where people carry knives or supply knives unlawfully be referred to the Regional Courts which are able to impose stricter sentences and not to our ordinary magistrate’s courts. There was a recent case in Durban where an Indian youth of 16 years of age took part in an assault with a knife as a result of which a man was killed, and he was given six strokes with a light cane. Furthermore I would suggest to the Minister that he could try the same experiment as was tried in the case of unlicensed arms and that he should call upon the public through large scale advertisements in the Press to hand in knives of a certain defined size and type. I am sure that he would get a welcome response, not only from a surprising number of those who carry knives, some of them for the purpose of self-defence, but also from other people who would inform on those people who carry knives. Fourthly I would suggest that he give consideration to the registration of dealers in knives and the creation of police reserves in the Coloured townships.

I want to associate myself with what was said here by the hon. member for Heilbron in connection with the problems arising from the fact that non-Whites have their liquor facilities in white areas, but I want to raise the matter particularly from the point of view of the Coloureds here in the Western Province. For years we here in the Western Cape and in the Cape Province were accustomed to the fact that the Coloureds had their liquor facilities on the same basis as the Whites. For years the Coloured bought his liquor at the same bottle-store, at the same off-sales attached to hotels, as the Whites. In most places the residential areas were not yet separated in those days. Coloureds live in mixed residential areas all over the towns. Now that greater finality has been achieved in bringing about separate residential areas for the various races, particularly in the northern parts of the Peninsula, and now that each race is living in its own residential area, this state of affairs gives rise to many problems and many nuisances. This has had mainly two results. As yet there are just about no bottle-stores in the Coloured areas; the established bottle-stores are still in the white areas, where the Coloured then comes to buy his liquor, but he also buys his other commodities at the shops in the white areas, and naturally there cannot be many objections to that at this stage. This is a problem which will be ironed out gradually, as the Coloureds get their bottle-stores in their own areas. It is a problem which will solve itself in course of time, although I think that more should be done to encourage this process. The main problem is that the Coloureds not only buy their liquor in the white areas, but that they stand drinking it on street corners in the white areas. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take very severe action against people who open bottles of wine in the streets and drink them, irrespective of whether they are White or Coloured. Such people should be severely punished. It is not only Coloureds who are guilty of this. There are many bad Whites who stand on street corners drinking bottles of wine with the Coloureds, from the same bottle, in sight of everybody. I think this is an evil which the hon. the Minister should combat. The other great problem is that Coloureds have on-consumption rights in white areas. Coloureds come from miles away in the Coloured residential area at 10 or 11 o’clock at night, to the main street of a white town where no Coloureds live; they come to the hotel, and if they have had enough to drink, they molest people in the streets; they commit all kinds of crimes; they bother the people’s domestic servants. The problem of theft and burglary in the white areas is largely due to this. Sir, the Coloureds did not have this privilege previously. There are, of course, still areas such as the central part of Cape Town where there are many Coloured residential areas in the white area, and in such cases it is not so easy to solve the problem, but then there are towns like Parow, Goodwood and Bellville where the Coloureds live in their own separate residential areas, and in those towns the Whites can see no reason why Coloureds should be allowed to come and drink their liquor in the white residential area at 10 o’clock at night and paint the town red. Sir, I appreciate that this is a very difficult problem, but I want to make some recommendations for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. In the first place the question may be asked: Where should the Coloured have his on-consumption; why may he not drink after hours? I would admit that it is very difficult to build hotels for the Coloureds in their own areas. There is simply not such a demand for hotels in Coloured areas, and an hotel is an expensive thing to build, but I want to ask whether we should not allow Whites temporarily to get liquor licences in Coloured areas where this is necessary, and then I also want to suggest that at the same time on-consumption facilities should be created for the Coloureds there by way of restaurants or something else. In other words, what I have in mind is that there should be a bottle-store where the Coloured can buy himself liquor and that just next-door, attached to the bottle-store, there should be some kind of restaurant where the Coloured may drink under supervision, because at this stage it is not practicable to build hotels everywhere. I am not suggesting that the Whites should be allowed to exploit the Coloureds, but at the moment there are not enough Coloureds who have the means and the opportunity to provide those facilities. I want to suggest that it should be done on a short-term basis by Whites, who should create these facilities in the Coloured areas, and after five or ten years such facilities should be transferred through the Coloured Development Corporation to the hands of qualified Coloureds. I do not think there is any justification for the fact that these Coloureds, who are not the best elements among the Coloureds—the decent Coloureds buy their liquor and take it home, but these are usually the poorer type of Coloureds— should go and drink in the hotels at night and then make trouble. As an interim measure I want to ask whether the Minister could not consider authorizing liquor licence boards to impose certain restrictions on liquor licences granted by them under these circumstances. For example, they may be authorized to grant a liquor licence in a place such as Parow on condition that the Coloured, because there are no other facilities for him, will have on-consumption rights for half an hour or an hour after the ordinary businesses have closed; in other words, if a Coloured works in a shop and wants to go and take a few drinks, he could do so for half an hour or for an hour afterwards and then return to his residential area. But it should not be possible for him to stay in the bar till midnight and then make whoopee in the streets. I think it will meet the problem in the meanwhile if the liquor licence boards have the right to grant certain licences subject to certain restrictions; and then, oi course, I want to plead that these facilities should be created in the Coloureds’ own areas, and that where hotels are too expensive other facilities, for example restaurant bars, should be created for them in order that they may drink there instead of in the white residential areas.

First of all, I should like to say that I do not advocate in any shape or form, that the sale of liquor should constitute any form of separate development for Coloured people. Having said that, I also want to disagree violently with the hon. member for Parow, who advocates that white people should be permitted to run licensed premises in Coloured townships, even on the basis that at some time in the future, those businesses should be taken over by the Coloured Development Corporation. The white people cannot have it both ways. The Coloured people are being isolated more and more, in terms of Government policy, and they are being lodged in townships, but the facilities for Coloured persons in regard to the sale of liquor remain in the white areas. The hon. member referred to drunkenness on the streets. I think there is a law in existence, which can deal with that aspect of the problem, because any person consuming liquor in public on the street, is liable to prosecution. The point I wish to make is, that Coloured people seeking liquor licences have conditions placed upon them, which, once upon a time, used to mean that an individual applying for a licence had to get himself nine partners, making ten in all, and he himself could not control more than 40 per cent of the shares. That basis has now been altered, so that now he must get himself 19 partners and he can only control 20 per cent of the shares. The result is that the entrepreneur, the man with the brains and the ability to run a business, is unable to control the business he wishes to establish. I do not wish to criticize that arrangement at all, except to say, that the Prime Minister himself has referred, in his remarks at the recent opening of the meeting of the Council for Coloured Affairs, to the fact, that there are a large number of bar-cum-restaurants already established in Coloured areas, and in terms of Government policy there is nothing much wrong with that, but what do we find? The position has now arisen, where liquor licensces in white areas, whose bars are far removed from the Coloured townships, are being urged—and I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us on whose recommendation they are urged, to do what they have been doing—to build suitable outlets on the roads leading to the Coloured townships. These people are setting up in business, either on the recommendation of the police, or of the Department of Justice. The Liquor Licensing Board has granted licences for bottle-stores long distances from the actual site of the existing licence, opposite Bantu bus-stops, and along the roads leading into Coloured townships. There are many examples of this. These people now complain, as Whites, that Coloured persons are getting the licences inside the Coloured townships. The other side of the coin is, that the Coloured persons in the townships are complaining, that these people on the perimeters, are getting the lion’s share of all business that is offering, and that they really have no right to be there. What I would like the Minister to tell us to-day, is what the policy of the Government is. If we are going to have separate development in this aspect of our economic activities, in regard to Coloured persons, why do we not have it properly and fairly, without any strings attached? There are places where Coloured bars constitute a nuisance. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Parow, that there is an element amongst the Coloured community, which drinks to excess, and make nuisances of themselves on leaving these Coloured bars in the white areas. But, I repeat, that the white people cannot have it both ways; you cannot have your cake and eat it. If the Coloured man is to be driven out of the white areas, he must have the exclusive right to trade. There are cases on record where white licensces are operating, not only on the perimeter of a white area, but also in buffer strips, pieces of land set aside by Community Development for the sale of liquor, and businesses have been set up. Dealing with the Bantu, where the off-sales licence is opposite a Bantu bus stop in a particular instance I have in mind, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is correct that these people pay normal taxes, whereas the local authorities operating inside the Bantu townships must pay 80 per cent of the proceeds of the sale of hard liquor into a special account for the benefit of distant Bantustans. So once again we come back to the point I want to make, that we cannot have it both ways. If white people do not want to have Coloureds trading with them, and living among them, and support a policy to have them excluded, then they must give up this side of their business. They must make sacrifices, and they must agree that the Coloured man must now be on his own and trade on his own in the Coloured townships. It is as simple as that. We have many Coloured persons applying for licences. They have great difficulty. Capital is not easily obtainable. There are bottle-stores in Coloured areas, in many cases run by Indians, who were classified as Malays, and as such they are treated as Coloureds. I feel that the opportunity is here for the Minister to make a statement in regard to his policy.

In conclusion, I should like to ask him whether or not consultations have taken place, and whether or not, it has been agreed between the Police, the Department of Justice and the Department of Community Development as to who should grant these off-sales licences in white areas convenient to the Bantu and Coloured customers, who are going back to their homes after work. The last point is this. I want to ask the Minister whether complaints were made to him about such licences, and whether such licences were objected to by local authorities or by the Coloured Affairs Department or other interested bodies; and if so, why in the face of those objections did the Licensing Boards decide to grant the licences notwithstanding? To summarize, I say that if Coloured people are to be isolated in townships by themselves, and left to run businesses, which will be financed by the C.D.C., then white persons cannot expect to trade with those same people under the conditions now obtaining, namely by shifting their licences from their present businesses to distant places. One case I have in mind—and I think the Minister is familiar with it—is where an off-sales licence was granted at least a mile away from the existing licence of an hotel. I should be very pleased to hear what the Minister’s policy is in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to address the hon. the Minister in connection with a matter which has already been raised by the hon. members for Heilbron and Parow. I want to pursue this matter somewhat further, and I want to confine myself specifically to the white residential areas. I want to ask the Minister that when an applicant qualifies for a hotel licence with off-sales facilities, such a licence should be granted only if the premises concerned are situated in a business centre. A liquor licence is a business in the true sense of the word, and in my opinion it belongs exclusively on premises inside a business centre. Such licences in the heart of white residential areas result in the congregation of non-Whites until late at night, and in most cases they are guilty of unruly behaviour to the disadvantage of the white land-owners and inhabitants in the vicinity of such premises. I would concede that this matter poses considerable problems, but I do want to ask the Minister to devote attention to the matter. The position of Whites in the vicinity of an hotel or a bottle store is sometimes indeed desperate. In most cases the licensce fails to maintain order. He cannot be blamed for that, however, because if he takes firm action he runs the risk of losing his customers, and the white inhabitants have to bear the brunt. In my view licences in white residential areas prejudice the education of our youth, who day by day have to face the behaviour and actions of people who have had too much to drink. The abuse of liquor is increasing among our white youth. It is an evil which should be combated at an early age. The properties of white owners in the immediate vicinity of such hotels or bottle stores are also prejudiced because their value is considerably less than that of premises which are not situated near an hotel or a bottle store. If such a licence exists or is granted in a white residential area the value of the adjacent properties decreases immediately. I admit that the Liquor Act provides explicitly that if a liquor licence is granted in respect of premises situated near a church or a school, business should be conducted in such a way that the activities of the church or the school are not prejudiced. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether these provisions of the Liquor Act cannot also be applied to white residential areas with a view to the protection of their inhabitants. I would admit that in rural areas it may perhaps be difficult to implement this provision, but I nevertheless think that in urban areas it can be fruitfully implemented.

Then there is another matter which I should like to raise. I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I did not do so. On page 6 of his annual report the Secretary for Justice refers to office accommodation and the erection of new buildings. I do not want to dwell on this at great length. The Secretary is aware of the position in my constituency. I am convinced, if I may put it that way, that the comments in the annual report are actually also applicable to the magistrate’s office in my constituency. I know there are problems in this regard. I know the Public Works Department is at present negotiating with the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure on the acquisition of certain premises. Nevertheless, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that conditions at the magistrate’s office at Uitenhage are truly shocking, that Uitenhage should also enjoy priority in this respect.

Then there is another matter which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister, and I do so as a former public prosecutor. I want to refer the Minister to the fact that in the rural areas and also in the urban complexes we find that the public prosecutor not only has to cope with his functions as public prosecutor, but is also burdened with additional duties. I would admit at once that this may be ascribed to the fact that there is a staff shortage. But we find that the public prosecutor is unable to do his work properly. He cannot fulfil his function properly. I have had personal experience of that. In the first place the prosecutor does not have time to devote the necessary attention to the police dossiers in preparation for a court action. I know of rural areas where the prosecutor is also clerk of the criminal court and clerk of the civil court; he may have to assist in the registration of births and deaths, and in many cases he is also the Secretary of the Liquor Licensing Board. If the prosecutor cannot do the necessary preparatory work for his case, matters are rather difficult in court. Sometimes the prosecutor does not get an opportunity to grant the necessary interviews to the police, investigating officers and to other witnesses. Yet the prosecutor has to bring the case before the court and he has to appear for the State. I therefore want to ask the Minister that where a public official acts as a State prosecutor, it should be endeavoured as far as possible to see to it that he does only legal work in order that he may do justice not only to the accused but also to the case of the State. One sometimes finds that an attorney comes to court in a case after having had two or three weeks to prepare himself. On the other hand the prosecutor walks into court that morning and because he has to perform all the additional administrative duties, he may possibly see the police dossier in court for the first time. He then has to scan the various statements quickly to determine what the State’s case is.

Finally I want to ask the Minister that if it could be arranged that prosecutors have to perform only legal duties, a distinction should also be introduced in the salary structure. Hon. members who spoke before me also referred to that. There must be differentiation in the salary structures of the official who has already qualified in law and the officer who has not yet qualified. I think this will be an incentive to the clerks to qualify themselves in law as soon as possible. To me it was a great incentive. It will be an incentive to young clerks to qualify themselves in law as soon as possible in order, perhaps, to reach the top of the ladder in the Department of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself, first of all, with the remarks made by the hon. member for Transkei as far as the retirement of the Secretary for Justice is concerned. I personally have always had the most courteous and helpful treatment from him, and I wish him a very happy retirement.

Having said that, I want to come to something a little more contentious. I want to deal with the whole question of the implementation of the 180-days law. Up to the end of 1966 the figures that I could obtain from the hon. the Minister reveal that something like 247 people had been held under section 215bis of the Criminal Procedure Act. I have not been able to get more recent figures. They have not yet been obtainable.

I said originally, when I opposed firstly the 90-days law and then its little sister—or big sister—the 180-days law, that by their very nature these are the types of laws that lend themselves to abuse. The reason is, of course, that they are subject to no public scrutiny, and that the implementation of laws like this is carried out without all the protection afforded by the courts of law, the ordinary safeguards that one can expect in the implementation of laws. I may say that the stage has been reached where in the implementation of the 180-days law it seems to me that the Special Branch is virtually a law unto itself, and it certainly seems to act without any regard to the other branches of the police and, on some occasions, has apparently even transcended prison authorities and prison regulations. I think that it is high time that the Minister stepped in and exercised his authority by a much more significant scrutiny of the way in which this law is being exercised. I want to give two ways in which I believe that the 180-days law is being abused.

In the first place there is the way in which it has been implemented. I may say at once that it is very different from the description which was given to this House when that law was passed by the then Minister of Justice when he described to us the very tender care which was going to be meted out to the people who were detained as witnesses under the 180-days law. I will give one or two quotations. According to Hansard, vol. 15, column 8105, he said on the 14th June, 1965—

On the 12th June he also said the following, according to Hansard, column 7978—

I may say that he was a bit evasive as to whether or not this law was going to be used for the purposes of interrogation, although the present Minister has been a little more positive in this respect because he has denied that this section is used in fact for the purpose of interrogation.

In dealing with that point he did say that there were a number of cases where persons, originally detained as witnesses, subsequently “became tired of that and were prepared to talk, whereby they incriminated themselves”. Well, I do not know how many cases there have been of persons who actually got tired of being detained and as a result made incriminating statements against themselves. I want to say this, however, that there have been several allegations of interrogation under duress and of ill treatment. Here I want to deal particularly with one specific case, namely the allegations made by the accused in the case of the State v. Weinberg on which the Chief Justice had some very trenchant things to say. According to the S.A. Law Reports, 1967, page 667 the Chief Justice stated—

The Chief Justice went on to say that threats were uttered and added—

Earlier in the session I put a question to the Minister about this case and he told me—I think it was on the 10th March—that he was still having the matter investigated. So, I hope this afternoon he will be able to give us a little more information about this particular case. There is also the case of the three Indians who were detained under the 180-day law on charges of suspected passport falsification. They were arrested in December and released in April. As far as I could gather all of them made statements to the Police either on arrest or within a very short period after their arrest. Yet they were detained until April. I want to know why it was necessary, after these people had made full statements and after two of them had actually agreed to become State witnesses, to detain them further. I should like to add that when their case finally came to court it was immediately dismissed by the court. But I cannot see any danger of persons like these absconding or being intimidated—no more in any event than in any other case where witnesses are called upon later to give evidence. Furthermore, I cannot understand why these people were detained under the 180-day law at all. I should like the Minister to give us some information about the Weinberg case if he can. I want to state that there have been three cases where persons detained committed suicide within 2, 16 and 37 days, respectively, of their arrest. Serious doubt, I think, should be cast on the nature of the so-called protective custody of witnesses held under section 215bis.

Another way in which I think this 180-day law is being abused is, to come back to the three Indian detainees and others, the fact that it is obvious, to me in any event, that people are being held under this section who were never intended to fall under the aegis of this section at all. Here I should like to remind hon. members that part II of the Criminal Procedure Act lists the offences in respect of which people may be detained under the 180-day provision. These are sedition, murder, arson, kidnapping, child stealing, certain offences promoting Communism, sabotage or conspiracy to commit any of the above, treason, robbery with aggravating circumstances and housebreaking with intent to commit an offence where aggravating circumstances are present. We have had cases of people detained under the 180-day law for alleged falsification of identity cards. I cannot by the wildest stretch of my imagination understand how falsifying identity cards falls under any of the offences I have just read out, not even under the very wide heading of offences promoting Communism. I might say that the implications of the alleged falsification of identity cards have not yet come up before a court. These detainees were released at the end of March after, in the words of the Attorney-General, they had made satisfactory statements and there was no longer any danger of their absconding. In December 1966 we had reports of the arrest and detention of Indians and Chinese and an undisclosed number of public servants in connection with charges of fraud and charges under the Immigration Act. These offences also are not listed under part II of the Act. I know it has been said that some of these cases are cases where persons were smuggled into the country, some of whom are alleged to be Red Chinese. But may I state that the Commissioner of Police is reported to have said—in Die Burger of 12th December, 1966; the Express of 12th February, 1967, and the Star of the 8th February, 1967 that there was no political motive connected with the entry of illegal immigrants. But by no stretch of imagination can I see how these cases can be considered to have fallen under the aegis of section 215bis. Also the reported falsification of passports can hardly be regarded as cases of that nature.

And perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell me about the shooting of Sea Cottage, and how that case fell under the 180-day law? [Time expired.]

Right at the outset I want to thank hon. members for the congratulations they conveyed to the retiring Secretary for Justice. As he will be retiring shortly, I should like to take this opportunity to give some particulars of his career. He was born in Jansenville in 1902 and was a schoolteacher in 1921-’22 until he entered the Public Service in 1923 in the Department of Justice at Volksrust. Until 1948 he served in the following capacities: clerk, assistant-magistrate and magistrate in various places in the Republic and also on the relief staff. In the meantime he passed, through private study, the Public Service examination in Law and gained the B.A. LL.B. degree at the University of South Africa. In 1948 he became chief clerk, grade I, at the head office of the Department of Justice. From 1948 to 1952 he served as a public service inspector; from 1952 to 1955 as Secretary of the National Housing office; from 1955 to 1956 as Deputy Director of Public Works; and from 1st August, 1956, until the present as Secretary for Justice. On 1st August of this year, i.e. 1967, he will retire from the service. In terms of the Public Service Act he should have retired on 7th July, 1965, but because the Government deemed it to be in the public interest to retain him in service, his term of service was extended by two years. At his retirement he will have a term of service of 44 years and 29 days behind him.

His term of service of 11 years as Secretary for Justice was certainly among the most difficult times experienced by the Department. In 1960 a state of emergency was proclaimed. From then on legislation was introduced virtually every year to cope with onslaughts on the security of the country. He was most intimately concerned with all these measures and their implementation, and his contributions were of inestimable value. During his term of office many of our laws were tightened up. Only recently we repealed a mass of old statutes in order to clear up the Statute Book. But great progress was also made on the administrative level during his term of office, as is clearly apparent from his recent annual report. He is well-known to both sides of the House for his friendliness and his readiness to be of assistance. We shall all miss him very much. The fact that in 1965 the Government deemed it to be in the public interest to extend his services by a further two years, bears clear testimony to the confidence reposed in him. I could add nothing to that. On behalf of the Government and of myself I want to thank Mr. Greeff for his years of service and I want to wish him a pleasant retirement.

While I am dealing with this, it is also a pleasure to announce that Mr. J. M. Oberholzer, until now Deputy Secretary of the Department, has been promoted to Secretary of the Department with effect from 1st August, 1967It is equally my pleasure to announce that Mr. F. J. le Roux, at present Chairman of the National Liquor Board and Under Secretary of the Department, is to be appointed to serve as Deputy Secretary in Mr. Oberholzer’s stead. I expect great and good services from these two new officials.

To come back to the Vote and to the various matters which were raised, I want to refer in the first place to the matters mentioned by the hon. member for Transkei. He mentioned the necessity for properly trained public prosecutors. This is exclusively a question of how much work there is available for a prosecutor on a particular station, or of how much work is expected of him. This is partly also a reply to the hon. member for Uitenhage. One could appreciate that in the smaller places, in particular, there are very few prosecuting duties in the criminal courts. Consequently the services of a police officer are used in such places. If there is enough work, a full-time prosecutor is appointed immediately at a particular station. Even in cases where police officers are used, it is not unusual —in fact, this is what happens daily—that if a difficult case arises, the Attorney-General designates somebody to handle such a case.

The hon. member for Transkei also raised the question of outside barristers. He asked what the large increase in the expenditure on outside barristers was attributable to. I may just mention that it is attributable mainly to the prosecutions in the Parity case. There is another matter which ties up with the question of qualified officials. The Department experiences great difficulty in retaining its officials. In the past three years no fewer than 86 officials with an LL.B. degree left the Department. In the first two months of this year ten officials with an LL.B. degree resigned from the service of the Department. I am grateful to be able to say that following a resolution of the Cabinet approval was recently obtained from the Public Service Commission to pay higher salaries to senior councils and state attorneys in the professional section. It is my hope that this will have the desired effect.

The hon. member referred to an amount of R20,000. This is the additional amount, and I have replied to this. The hon. member also referred to the work done for other departments. This is the case. Unfortunately the Department of Justice is burdened with all work which other departments are not prepared to undertake at this moment. Over and above the functions mentioned by that hon. member, I could mention several others. The hon. member may well appreciate that it is surely the position that every Department cannot always have an official in each centre. Sometimes there is so little work that the Department of Justice must necessarily be asked to lend a hand. The Secretary of the Department, in his report of last year, mentioned the possibility that legal duties would be separated from ordinary administrative duties. A matter of this nature demands very thorough consideration before it is undertaken, of course, for as hon. members will appreciate, separating legal duties altogether would mean the expansion of the regional court. In respect of the administrative work it will also virtually mean an extension of the regional concept. This matter is therefore still under discussion, and at this stage I cannot give a more conclusive reply to it.

The hon. member also referred to the question of escapes from our prisons. At the outset I want to say that nobody is more concerned about the question of escapes from our prisons than I myself am in my capacity of Minister of Prisons. At the same time we should see these escapes in the proper perspective. As a result of our good communications system—the various newspapers and the S.A.B.C.—one is inclined to hear about the same escape when it takes place, and perhaps again when the person is recaptured, and then again when he appears in court, with the result that one eventually gets the impression that there are more escapes than there actually are. It so happens that the newspapers and the S.A.B.C. repeat reports on the same escapee on several occasions, so that the public eventually gets the impression that every single prisoner has escaped from the prisons. This is not the case. I just want to mention some interesting figures. The dangerous type of prisoner who was referred to and who escapes represents .009 per cent of all escapes. Most escapes take place from the work teams. You know that the work teams consist of A and B groups. One could almost say that they are the “tame” prisoners. Many of them are the kind of prisoners who bring the warder home at night, rather than the other way around. Most escapes, approximately 77 per cent of our escapes, take place from that group. I want to draw the conclusion that we should see our escapes in the proper perspective. Although one is most concerned about preventing their continuation, we should not lose our sense of proportion. I also just want to mention that we have made a survey to ascertain what the highest percentage of escapes was to have taken place at any time. It was found that the highest percentage that ever escaped was 3 out of every 10,000, if I have my mathematics right. I want to ask hon. members to see escapes from our prisons in the proper perspective. They should bear in mind that a great deal of publicity is given to escapes and that the dangerous type who escapes constitutes a very small percentage of the total.

You said that three out of every 10,000 escaped. Is that the figure per year?

That is the daily average during any period. We have in the vicinity of 75,000 prisoners, and the highest daily average in any period was .3 per cent. That is not per day or per year.

The hon. member for Transkei also raised the question of restrictions. As regards restrictions, I have in the recent past suspended a considerable number of the restrictions. In 18 cases the restrictions were suspended completely; in 11 cases the restrictions were suspended virtually completely, the only remaining restriction being that they may not attend gatherings. In other words, one may say that in 37 cases the restrictions were suspended virtually completely. Moreover, relaxation of restriction orders has been granted from time to time. The present number of restrictions is: Male, 256, and female, 26. No I have made a mistake; this is the number of detainees in terms of section 215, to which the hon. member for Houghton referred. Unfortunately I do not know how many restrictions there are at the moment. I think I have now disposed of the matters raised by the hon. member for Transkei.

The hon. members for Heilbron and Parow ventured into a very difficult field, a field which also causes me headaches. The hon. member for Heilbron pointed out that Bantu consumed liquor in the streets of small towns and that the same happened in the cities. Unfortunately this is not something which I can do anything about. There are already legal provisions which prohibit this. It is purely a matter for the police. The police must simply see to it that the streets are cleared up. In the second place the hon. member said that hotels which get off-sale facilities are inclined to establish their off-sale facilities near bus stops where Bantu get up and near industrial townships. There are such cases—in this regard the hon. member for Karoo referred to the Crescent Hotel in Kimberley—where certain hotels obtained off-sale facilities and established their bottle-stores near bus stops. The hon. member for Karoo quite rightly pointed out that in the case of the Crescent Hotel the local authority objected because it believed that the bottle-store would compete with its own liquor sales in the non-white residential area. The magistrate recommended it very strongly. The other objector was the owner of a bottle-store who had established his bottle-store in the same place, 100 to 150 yards away, even before the 1963 Act came into operation. In spite of this the chief magistrate of Kimberley felt that it would be in the best interests of the community as a whole if the licensce concerned were allowed to open his bottle-store in that place. As for industrial areas, this is not the case. The National Liquor Board and I myself adopt the attitude that where an application is made by an hotel with off-sale facilities to locate a bottle-store near an industrial area, it must simply be rejected. It is in fact possible that there are still such bottle-stores near industrial areas at present, but under the present dispensation and the present policy such applications are not granted.

As regards delivery in Bantu areas, this is a matter which is enjoying serious consideration. Without anticipating the Bill, I may say that in the Liquor Act, which is to be amended, provision may perhaps be made in this connection. The hon. member also made the point that each race should be able to enjoy its liquor facilities in its own residential area. It would of course be the ideal position if each race group could get its liquor in its own area, and could consume it there and nowhere else. Unfortunately the present practice is one which has developed through the years. In the Cape, in particular, where one deals with the Coloureds, white liquor distributors have through the years relied to a very large extent on the support of non-Whites. This ties up with the point made by the hon. member for Parow. One has the position at present that the Whites become dissatisfied if liquor is consumed in their area by non-Whites, particularly Coloureds who then become a nuisance to the Whites. I cannot subscribe to the idea that Whites should be allowed to open liquor premises inside Coloured areas.

Temporarily.

It is the experience with matters of this kind that temporary measures become permanent measures. Once people have gained a vested interest, it is very difficult to deprive them of it later. I agree with the hon. member for Karoo that within Coloured areas Coloureds should be the distributors of liquor. In fact, the Department of Coloured Affairs subscribes to the same point of view. It has happened—and the hon. member for Karoo referred to this, and I think he has Paarl in mind—that upon application a certain bottle-store moved its on-consumption premises to a place near a Coloured area. But actually there is nothing extraordinary about this case, because at that stage there had been quite a few others. It was not an exceptional case. I may just add that the same applicant also applied to move his off-sales to those premises, but that this was not granted. What it all boils down to is that there is a conflict of interests. One should like to give the white community their dues, and also the Coloured community, and then unpleasantness arises and this is one of the problems that causes us headaches. It is not so easy to say when we shall manage to have it sorted out. I just want to express the hope, as regards the Coloureds, that the C.I.C. will enable Coloureds as soon as possible to open their own liquor distribution points inside the Coloured areas. It has been mentioned that previously there could be an association of ten and now it had to be 20. The fact of the matter is that licences which are obtained are so profitable that it was felt that it was too much for ten people, and that it could just as well be given to 20 people.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred to the question of dangerous weapons. He apologized for being unable to be here when I reply. Nobody is more strongly aware than I myself of how dangerous these long knives and daggers are, and how easily people can be stabbed to death with them. I may testify that at every meeting of the Executive Council where we deal with capital cases, at least 50 per cent of these cases arise from stab wounds inflicted by non-Whites. This is indeed an evil, but the necessary legal provisions are already in existence, i.e. that it is illegal to be in the possession of such a knife or dagger. This is again merely a question of enforcing the Act. I think with these words I have replied to everybody except the hon. member for Houghton, and I should now like to deal with what she said.

The hon. member for Houghton asked me whether I could tell her any more about the Weinberg case. This morning I received the following information. When Weinberg was subpoenaed as a state witness in the Supreme Court during 1966 in the case of the State v. Heymann and Dingaka, she refused to be sworn in and to give evidence. This was followed by an inquiry in terms of section 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the State’s refusal to make a statement made by Weinberg to the police available to her was also dealt with. The court then decided that for the purposes of the inquiry in terms of section 212 she had no claim to the statement. The advocate who acted for Weinberg for the purposes of the inquiry then called her as a witness in extenuation of the sentence. In her evidence in extenuation Weinberg then alleged that as a result of torture which continued for several days and nights she was forced to make the statement. After Weinberg had given her evidence she was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in terms of section 212 (1). She then appealed to the Appeal Court and it was during that hearing that the statements were made by the Appeal Judge. The Appeal Judge said he wanted to instruct that the particular case be referred to the Attorney-General. It was referred to him and the Attorney-General investigated Weinberg’s evidence and found that it was completely false. [Interjection.] The hon. member will pardon me if I do not give any more information than I have available. If the Attorney-General found that there was no truth in it, who am I to say that there is in fact truth in it?

The hon. member said, furthermore, that she felt that the 180-day provision was not always invoked for the purpose for which it was introduced. She referred in particular to the detentions which took place in connection with the passport case. In that respect I am informed that this passport case related mainly to Chinese persons from Red China. Statements were taken from 400 witnesses, and after statements had been taken from 400 witnesses, only 21 of them were detained. The large majority of the 400 were Chinese persons from Red China who entered South Africa illegally. It was only after a protracted inquiry that it could be determined how they had entered the country. It was found that the methods used to bring these Chinese persons into the country illegally were the same as those used by the communists to station their agents in foreign countries. In other words, our conclusion in that respect is that the detentions did in fact relate to communist activities. The Attorney-General of the Transvaal has pointed out that in most cases where witnesses are detained, there is a real risk that they may be intimidated into leaving the country. He says that it is easy to cross South Africa’s borders unnoticed and that evidence will be lost in this way, of course, and for that reason he certified their detention. He also referred to the case of Singh, who was detained and whose wife asked for habeas corpus, in which case the court concurred with the Attorney-General that the detention was quite in order, and that this was one of the cases which came under the ambit of section 215bis. For the time being I think I have now replied to all questions.

I should specifically like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the calm and convincing way in which he replied to the hon. member for Houghton.

Quite a change, not so?

It is a pity though that those facts which were stated so convincingly seem to have made no impression on the hon. member. But I do not want to allow this opportunity to pass without also conveying my good wishes to the retiring Secretary for Justice, Mr. Greeff. I knew him for many years. He occupied that position honourably for 11 years. I shall remember him as the person who, during his tenure of office, and because of his sympathetic approach to local problems, simultaneously promoted three additional magisterial districts in the Marico constituency, namely Koster, Swartruggens and Thabazimbi to full status. That was indeed an achievement and I want to pay tribute to-day to his share in that and thank him for it. I want to wish him and Mrs. Greeff a well-earned rest. Then I also want to refer to his instructive report. Apparently this will be his last report before he retires. It is a businesslike and instructive survey of the important activities for which his Department with all its officials is responsible. I think that the Secretary, as a responsible person, expects careful attention to be given to the few remarks which he has made in his Report. In his Report he referred to a few serious deficiencies which he was very concerned about. We find these in the section under the heading “General Remarks” at the end of the Report. I am of the opinion that these matters sought to be stated in this House for its information. It is one of the major deficiencies with which many other Departments are also having to cope, i.e. the problem of office accommodation. He states it so clearly and so well here that it cannot really be improved upon. On page 6 we find the following under the heading “Office Accommodation”—

He has in mind here the officials working in the buildings who have to fulfil their duties there from morning to night. He is also concerned about their residential accommodation. That is why I think it is important for us to emphasize this here. The Report goes on to say—

He goes on to say—

I want to emphasize these statements. A comparison between the office accommodation in certain sectors of our public life, for example in the business world, in our industries and local authorities and much of the accommodation supplied by the Public Service, particularly in the rural areas, reveals that there are major differences. We find that office accommodation in other sectors is sometimes not only comfortable but is in fact also luxurious, well adapted and well finished off. Happily accommodated officials are the best workers one can ever hope to have. That is why I believe that the esteemed Secretary for Justice, who is a responsible person, made these remarks in the hope that heed would be paid to and cognizance taken of them. Ways and means must be considered and found to cope with this undesirable situation.

As far as residential accommodation is concerned, I just want to quote this sentence from the above-mentioned report—

Now I want to come to my own constituency. After glancing through the report it seems to me that the Secretary has paid personal visits to some of the magistrates’ offices in my constituency. I recently visited the magistrates’ office at Zeerust which needs a thorough cleaning, and I made the following remark to the assistant magistrate there: “All one needs is for some moss to grow on the mouldy and flaking plasterwork in some offices and they will then serve as ancient subterranean dungeons.” I also have here a statement concerning the accommodation at Groot Marico which supports the Secretary’s statements. On 8th May the firm of attorneys. Van der Bergh & Company, wrote to me as follows (translation)—

One finds it painful to have to sketch conditions like these. There are without doubt beautiful and functional magistrates’ buildings in our country. However, when we point to these unsatisfactory buildings we are merely advocating that these unsatisfactory conditions should receive attention. We feel that since our country is in any case enjoying a period of economic prosperity at present the State should definitely make larger amounts available to the Department of Public Works, etc., which is responsible for the renovation, cleaning and erection of buildings. There is room for improvement. The reputation of our administration of justice is at stake. The prestige of the State is at stake when we note the wonderful buildings which have gone up like mushrooms in the other sectors. The rest of the serving and working public everywhere is being comfortably accommodated … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I will leave the hon. member for Marico amongst the bats in the belfry and I am sure that he will sort that one out with the hon. the Minister. I want to return to the remarks which the Minister made and to say that I agree with him when he said that some of the issues raised by hon. members are matters of a delicate and difficult nature which cannot be simply taken at their face value. I agree with him and I hope that he will stand by his policy of recognition of vested interests where those interests are serving a public need. I hope that he will not, as I think is tended to be done at times, regard liquor as though it were something different from normal trade. It is a business undertaking subject to normal economic laws. I get worried sometimes at the attitude which is taken up that, because liquor has special rules and regulations attached to it, it must be treated as quite different from any other trade. It would be ridiculous to say that this or that race group may only shop in this or that area. I hope that that approach will not dominate thinking in regard to the provision of what is and was described as such by, I think, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, as, in many cases, an agricultural product. The Minister inherited the administration of the Liquor Act which in 1963 took a major step forward in the amendments which were then introduced. These introduced a more enlightened approach, and I hope that that direction will be continued, rather than that there should be more restrictions. The approach should be towards more progress and more enlightened consideration of the problem. But that legislation in 1963 was experimental in certain respects, and by now, as must be realized is inevitable, a number of problems have developed.

I want to deal with what I regard as the major problem and that is the approaching deadline for the classification of hotels which now looms too close ahead for comfort. I appreciate the assurances that have been given that there will be no arbitrary action. I accept that. But the position is a serious one. The figures given by the hon. the Minister in reply to a question I asked in March indicate that of the 1,560 hotels in South Africa with liquor licences, 605 had applied for classification. 292 had been approved and 259 rejected. I understand that the latest figure is that 328 are classified or in the process of being classified. That is only approximately half of those which have applied; the other half have been rejected. It stands to reason that those who applied are those who considered that they had the best chance. That still leaves approximately 900 hotels which have not applied. It is quite clear that with an average time of five to six months for considering each application, and there are some cases where they have taken nine to ten months from the date of the lodging of the application and they have not yet received classification, under those circumstances it is going to be totally impossible to handle this problem before the end of next year. Reference has been made to the slowness with which applications are coming forth. The President of the Federated Hotel Association dealt with this matter a week ago. I should like to quote what he said:

That I believe is true. There is despondency and despair amongst a very large number of hoteliers who, having seen other hotels which have applied refused, have thrown up their hands in despair and said, “What can I do”? The problem is largely a financial one. That was recognized initially. The Hotel Commission paid particular attention to that and in its report it referred to the extreme difficulty of hoteliers in obtaining finance at all, and to the high interest rates which they have to pay when they get it. It recommended that steps should be taken in that direction. In due course the Hotels Act was passed, money was voted by this House and it was believed to be for the purpose of assisting hotels to classify. Through the interpretation of that legislation the Hotel Board cannot help an hotel until it has already Spent the money necessary for classification. The average has been calculated to be in the region of R30,000 in most cases. That money is not easily found. It is not easily raised, and when it can be raised, it becomes a tremendous burden. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Justice will liaise with his colleague, the Minister of Tourism, to see whether something cannot be done to deal with this problem of the large number of people who simply cannot afford or cannot raise the money which is necessary to meet the standards laid down.

Only this afternoon I received an analysis done by the University of Pretoria, an interfirm comparative survey of the hotel industry, giving the total results of 160 hotels and motels. I do not have the time to go into the details but there is a complete cross-section of area, type, size, number of rooms, liquor and non-liquor. The average return on the owners’ assets invested is 7.35 per cent and the return on total assets 5.66 per cent. Some of these are classified. It is a cross-section of hotels all over South Africa of different types, tourist and residential hotels, large and small. [Interjection.] I understand that some of these were classified. If they can only make 5.6 per cent return on their capital investment and must now borrow money at 7 to 9 per cent interest, it becomes impossible for them. I believe that we are going to face a very serious position unless we can find a solution to this problem. I believe too that now that we have the Hotel Board we can eliminate some of the overlap and duplication of effort which takes place between the National Liquor Board, which controls the machinery for classification, and the Hotel Board. I believe that the Liquor Board should deal with normal liquor licences for off-sales, bottle stores, etc. The actual hotel part should be dealt with by the Hotel Board. If the Hotel Board registers an hotel, I believe that the National Liquor Board should then issue an hotel licence automatically so that one body deals with the grading, classification and inspection instead of the present system of multiple inspection by the National Liquor Board, by the local licensing board, by the Hotel Board and the local authority. We have now a Hotels Act. We have a Hotel Board, designed specifically for this problem with people serving on it who know the problem and have practical experience. I believe that that is the body which should take over the classification as well as the grading. I hope that the hon. the Minister will indicate that he too feels that this is the correct direction in which to move. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised certain matters here in regard to the classification of hotel premises to which I think a little more attention should be given. He referred in particular to the speech made recently by Mr. Lister and certain other matters which the people in the Hotel Industry felt concerned about. At the outset I want to say that certain of these vexatious matters which this hon. member has mentioned here year after year and which he has also mentioned under the Tourism Vote, are really rather unfounded, and people in the industry itself have on occasion repudiated what he has had to say in regard to certain aspects. By so doing I do not want to introduce an unsympathetic note into this debate, because all of us realize how much capital has been invested in this industry. All of us realize that it is a serious matter and that these are people with established interests, that they are people whose interests are being affected here. It is a matter with which one would like to deal sympathetically. Before I go any further I want to associate myself with the fine ideas expressed by the hon. the Minister in regard to the three officials in question, particularly in the case of Mr. Oberholzer, for it so happens that we come from the same part of the country.

As far as the liquor cases are concerned, there is a measure of concern that it will not be possible to deal with all the applications for classification in time. I think that this figure of 600 hotels which will not be able to acquire funds in order to make improvements, and the accusation that existing interests will be affected because the classifications are being delayed, and that the persons trade may be affected, should be seen in the correct perspective. In the first place, I would just like to refer the Committee to what these minimum requirements which have to be complied with before an hotel can receive an “F” classification, really are. An “F” classification entitles it, if the Minister should so decide, to two very important benefits. The one is off-sales on premises at any place within such a municipal area, as far as municipal hotels are concerned, and within the district in question as far as rural hotels are concerned. In the second place, a ladies’ bar may also, with the permission of the hon. the Minister, be allocated to such an hotel. This requirement is the minimum which can be expected from any business which merely wants to supply the public with a reasonable amenity. As far as the number of bedrooms is concerned, the minimum number in an urban area is ten bedrooms, and in a rural area five, and of that number only 25 per cent must have a bathroom, or 10 per cent must have bath rooms and 25 per cent of the rest of the bedrooms a shower. The other rooms are then normal bedrooms. What is also of importance, is the admission factor, for which provision is also being made in the regulations. It means that if the hon. the Minister is satisfied that the minimum requirements cannot be complied with owing to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant he can, within his discretion, make an additional concession to a maximum of 10 per cent. This requirement which is being laid down is in fact not an onerous one at all. As far as the other requirements are concerned, a telephone must be available on the premises only for outside calls. It is not even necessary to have telephones in the rooms. The ratio of bathrooms and lavatories to beds in the normal bedrooms is one to eight. Here too there is an admission factor which the hon. the Minister can consider. Only one diningroom is required. As far as the head chef, the head cook and the head waiter are concerned, it is required that one waiter should be in full-time employ. Floor service must be available for 16 hours a day for the serving of light refreshments. As far as the reception office service is concerned, the only requirement is that it should be possible to call a member of the staff to the office, counter or entrance by means of a bell. If it is a building with more than three storeys, only one lift is required. What is also of importance, is that all fittings, crockery, and everything used in the kitchen must be of good quality. That is really an absolute minimum. I do not want to waste the time of the House by furnishing the additional specifications which are given, such as the size of the rooms, etc. I am merely providing a general survey of the regulations. This is all that is necessary to comply with an “F” classification. If that is obtained, there are two other important assets which are allocated to such an hotel. There has not been a single case of a refusal to allocate this. I may just mention that I have been informed, and that it has also been my experience in respect of applicants who have already made application, that the National Board will in these cases tend to be in favour of the applicant, rather than against him. Every attempt is being made to supply these people with all the necessary information in order to make it as easy as possible for them to receive classification. I do not think that the main difficulty lies, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, in the fact that people are beginning to get discouraged because they cannot find the money and because such a great percentage of the applications are being refused. The question of refusal plays no very great part in this matter because the factors vary from one case to another. I shall come to the question of money later, but my submission is that this is not important either, as appears from an article in the Cape Argus of 8th May, where a senior official mentioned that of the 300 hotels which had already been classified, only two had subsequently applied for monetary assistance. I take it therefore that it all depends on the facilities required by the Hotel Board. I think that the reason why only a small number of people have applied for classification is due to the fact that people have not in the first instance woken up yet. In the second instance they are people who really see their way strewn with non-existent difficulties. I really think that hotel licence holders see their way strewn with non-existent difficulties in respect of this classification. I would like to suggest that all these licence holders who are considering classification should in the first instance contact the police officer in that district, who is trained in that work. He must communicate with the chief of police, to whom this matter has been entrusted, for advice. I do not know who occupies that post at present. Formerly it was a Colonel De Witt. In addition they can communicate directly with Mr. Le Roux and the staff of the Central Liquor Board for advice. Then the people will find that it is actually much easier to obtain classification than they originally thought before they contacted those people.

In these cases of people who have not yet made application for classification they cannot afterwards say that there was insufficient time or that they had not been warned in time. They have five years to set their affairs in order. They are being warned repeatedly by leaders of their own Association. I am referring in this connection to a warning issued last year in August by Mr. J. J. Hoffman of the Congress of the Hotel Association of the Transvaal. He is the President of that Association. He issued a very clear warning there that licence holders must apply for classification as soon as possible. Subsequently, in April of this year, Mr. E. Mitchell, the Chairman of the Hotel Association of Natal South Coast, again pointed out to members in his area that they should apply for classification as soon as possible. If they thought that any concessions would be made apart from what the Prime Minister had said when he was Minister of Justice or apart from what the hon. the Minister is at present saying, or what was laid down by the regulations, then they were living, as he put it in his speech, in a fool’s paradise. These people are continually being warned by Dr. Wiehahn, the chairman of the Hotel Board, and again at the recent congress they were warned by their own president, Mr. Lister, that they must set their affairs in order as soon as possible. It may well be that there will be cases, at the end of this period, where the circumstances are so exceptional that it may not be possible to apply these regulations to them at all.

Of the approximately 1,800 hotels which exist at present, there may perhaps be a few such hotels. I still think that these licence holders would be acting very sensibly if they tried instead, in terms of this, to get their affairs in order now. At this stage it cannot be expected that money be made available for the financing and subsidization of classification. There are so many benefits which arise from classification that I do not think that acquiring those funds will be a fundamental problem. To invest funds in such a matter is no bad investment. It will be possible to obtain off-sales and other benefits which are associated with the matter. I think that at this stage it is a lack of knowledge which causes these people to see their way strewn with difficulties. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken that in many cases people do not apply because they do not know or have not studied sufficiently the regulations and the laws affecting classification, but it is not as easy as the hon. member makes out. I have a case here where a hotelier applied. The Minister is aware of it. I do not want to deal with details. His application was rejected. He wrote and said: But I thought that I was in order. Please tell me where I have gone wrong. Please tell me where my premises do not qualify. The reply was in the first place that he could not have his plans back because they were part of the record. The letter stated further.

The hon. member said that one can merely go and ask the Police, but the board itself refuses to give that information. The board refuses to say. The letter goes on to say that the hotelier must inspect his own premises. He had obviously done so when he made the application. He obviously thought that he complied. There is another case here, and I believe that these are things which should be ironed out. There is a case in Durban involving what I regard as one of the best hotels in Durban. It is certainly in the top category of hotels.

A five-star hotel?

No, it does not even have one star. The hotelier has been refused classification on five grounds. He did not have hot water in the men’s toilets. He had hot water in the bedrooms but not in the public toilets. His mirrors were 5-f square feet instead of six square feet. He did not have a stool in the ladies’ toilets and his coat hooks were behind the bathroom door instead of the bedroom door. These are minor, piffling, ridiculous things on which to turn down a classification of one of the top hotels in the country. All that was necessary was for the inspector to say to the hotelier, “Look, these things are wrong,” and the hotelier could have fixed them up while the inspector was still inspecting. But the policy of the board is that even an inspector who goes to the hotel may not tell the hotelier what is wrong with his hotel. He is not allowed to say to the man, “If you take that hook off that door and put it behind that door we will classify you; if you put a stool in here or a glass shelf in there you will comply”. He is not allowed to tell the hotelier anything at all. [Interjections.] Sir, that is correct. The inspectors are not allowed to tell hoteliers, when they do the inspection for the purpose of classification, in what respects their hotels fall short of the requirements. This matter was raised only last week in my presence and the chairman of the National Liquor Board said that inspectors were not allowed to disclose that information. To my mind that is tying up the whole thing in red tape. I accept that the Chairman of the National Liquor Board is able and sincere. He is trying to do his best in coping with this tremendous task but he cannot handle every application. The Minister kindly arranged for him to call at various centres to interview people, and I heard afterwards that over 300 people were interviewed on that tour, people who had problems and who wanted to discuss them, and this is going to multiply. Incidentally, while I am on that subject I must say that I have had a number of complaints about the arrangements made, certainly in Cape flown, for these interviews. People were given a particular day for their interview but they were given no particular time and they had to wait until their turn came. They were treated courteously when they were interviewed. [Interjections.] Some of these people came in from the country and arrangements were made for them to be given an interview on a certain day but they were not given any definite time; they were told to wait until it was their turn to be interviewed. When their turn came, they were treated courteously and their problems were dealt with but I do feel that better arrangements could have been made to suit the convenience of people, particularly in the case of those who had to come in from outside areas. However, that is a minor matter. My main complaint is that for one person to try to handle every single application and for the inspectorate to be tied by red tape as they are, is tantamount to trying to create a public utility of the hotel service. Hotels are essentially things of a personal nature; their character is created by the personality of the owner or the manager. You have luxury hotels for tourists; you have businessmen’s hotels serving the travelling businessmen; you have family hotels for holidaymakers; you have seaside hotels; you have hotels catering specially for fishermen and so on and so forth, each serving a purpose, and it is quite wrong to my mind to try to apply one rigid, irrevocable blueprint to everyone of these hotels. There was a case on the Natal South Coast of a fishermen’s hotel where they have a wide verandah on the first floor where the fishermen keep their rods, but they have to go out of the verandah to the bathroom. The hotelier has now been told that that verandah must be glassed in. The local health people, on the other hand, say, “No, if you glass in the verandah there will not be enough air”. The National Liquor Board says, “If you do not glass in the verandah then people have to walk out on to the cold verandah”, and, Sir, this is Natal on the South Coast where everybody is looking for cool air. Apparently the National Liquor Board is afraid that people will catch a cold on the cold verandah. These are fishermen who are out fishing all day and night; they are wet all the time but they cannot walk along a verandah; it is an unbreakable rule of the Hotel Board and that hotel therefore cannot be classified. Sir, it is these things which I believe are wrong. I believe there should be much more flexibility in these matters. In some cases you find that hotels are disqualified because rooms are one foot below the tolerance. Sir, you have holiday resorts in the mountains where people do not want luxury hotels; the hotels there cater for a particular type of clientele, and I believe that to try to apply this rigid formula to every hotel is to treat them like a public utility. Hotels are not like buses or trains; people go there of their own free will. The hotel industry is a private industry run by private initiative and part of the charm of a hotel is its individual character. I hope that if the National Liquor Board is to continue with classifications, it will be given far more flexibility to deal with the special type of hotel.

Sir, just for the record I want to say that in an earlier debate I raised the question of a circular from the Minister’s Department which I had received from an hotelier. What I said was correct; I had got it from a hotelier, but it is also correct that the original was addressed to an association. What was given to me was a letter to the association. I want to correct that for the record, but what I said at the time was correct, namely that I had received this from an individual. Sir, I have since received other circulars. I feel that this is a matter which requires reconsideration. It was raised at the conference of the Federated Hotel Association and a plea was made that the rigid restriction imposed by the Minister should not be imposed, that is to say, that a bilingual person must be on the premises for 24 hours a day to serve the public. That means that every hotel, if the owner does not live there, must employ a person 24 hours a day, on the premises, to give service in both languages. Sir, this is creating great difficulty and I believe it is unnecessary. The hotels are prepared to co-operate as much as they can, but if the hotels have to provide bilingual services, then it is only fair, when circulars are sent out by the National Liquor Board, that those circulars should also be in both languages. I have copies here of statements by the Minister; I have information here on licences granted and various other documents, all drawn up in one language only. Sir, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What is good enough for the hotelier must also be good enough for the Government Department dealing with this matter. I should, however, prefer to accept the position as it is now handled by the National Liquor Board i.e. that you deal with a matter in either language and leave it to the choice of the person dealing with it to choose which. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat will pardon me if I do not follow up on what he has said. He created the impression here that he had made or was busy making a thorough study of our hotel industry. Very well, we shall now leave him to the hon. the Minister. I am certain that the hon. the Minister will be able to furnish him with information in regard to the bottlenecks he mentioned here.

The matter which I am actually rising to talk about deals with one of the provisions of the Masters and Servants Act. I believe that hon. members on both sides of the House will agree with me that all of us in this House are contravening this particular provision, and for that reason I want to make a friendly appeal to hon. members on the opposite side to support me in my representations to the hon. the Minister. The Masters and Servants Act provides, as hon. members know, that the employer of a Bantu employee may not advance him more than R10. If he advances more than R10 then he has no protection in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act. If a Bantu employee enters into a contract with a white employer and the employer at various times lends him varying amounts of money, then the employer cannot institute criminal proceedings against him in order to recover those loans. I do not want to advocate here that the Act be amended; I know that that is not permissible. But I do want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the desirability of effecting a change in this regard. I want to say at once— and I am thinking here in particular of the hon. member for Houghton; I hope she will understand my plea—that hon. members must not think that we want to oppress the Bantu. Hon. members themselves know that to-day R10 is not worth much.

Nothing under this Government.

If one of the members of a Bantu employee’s family should die, then R10 is not even enough to cover the funeral expenses. I am not even talking about the price of a coffin now. What the Bantu usually do is to buy loose planks and then make the coffin themselves so that the relatives can be properly buried, and R10 is not even enough to buy the necessary planks. Sir, I am myself a farmer and I have a considerable number of Bantu in my employ. The security which a Bantu offers his employer is his labour. His master gives him a loan and his master gives him financial support in proportion to his value as a labourer. I think that we will all agree that the security which a Bantu labourer offers in the form of his labour is worth more than R10. If one advances one’s Bantu labourer an amount in excess of R10, then one runs the risk of losing that money, because if one lays a charge against him with the police then they simply refuse to prosecute him. I think that all of us sitting here are contravening the Act every day as far as that specific provision is concerned. If one does not want to run the risk of losing one’s money or if one wants to obey the Act, then one finds it simply impossible to help a Bantu employee who is in urgent need of money for some reason or other. It is in the interests of the Bantu himself that he should be able to receive a loan for a larger amount than R10 from his master, and I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that the amount be increased to at least R50. That is all I have to say about this matter and I merely want to make an appeal to hon. members not to try to make political capital out of this matter; it is not necessary. We will accommodate the Bantu if we regard his credit as being in good standing and if it is possible for this amount to be increased considerably.

I want to begin with the hon. member who has just sat down. The measure to which he referred is being administered by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. There is a general misconception that one can only lend a Bantu in your employ a certain amount of money, i.e. R10, and that if you lend him more than this amount it is not civilly recoverable.

Criminally recoverable.

If I owe anybody money it is civilly recoverable.

If you go to the police for a debt of less than R10, they take the case, but if it exceeds R10 they do not want to accept it. Then you must go to an attorney.

The fact of the matter is that with the help of the Bantu Commissioner you can advance him a much larger sum than R10. I have done so myself. A Bantu wanted to buy a wife and I took him to the Commissioner and I think I lent him R50. One enters into a contract before the Commissioner and in terms of that contract it is a completely valid loan. All that must be prevented—this is what the Act is for—is that Bantu should not be bound to employers with money. But if one goes to work in the right way then the Bantu may, with the permission of the Commissioner enter into a proper contract to borrow a larger amount of money.

I just want to rectify something I made a mistake with just now. I said that I did not know whether my figures were entirely correct. The number of escapes, the .3, is three out of a 1,000 and not three out of 10,000. The figure includes those who were not dangerous as well as those who were dangerous. 13.5 per cent of all the prisoners who escaped were dangerous. The .033 of the average daily detentions are the dangerous escapees. I am merely stating this for the record.

I am entering the debate at this stage in regard to the liquor matters which the hon. member for Durban (Point) touched upon. In the first place I want to congratulate the hon. member for Potchefstroom and thank him cordially for the way in which he replied to the hon. member for Durban (Point). The fact of the matter is, as the hon. member for Potchefstroom made clear, that to acquire an “F” qualification is very easy; in fact it is a trifle. [Interjection.] Half of them do not get it, not because they cannot acquire it, but because they do not know what the obligations are or what they have to do. I just want to mention how few these are and how paying a proposition it is. If an hotel such as the Pofadder Hotel, the smallest of hotels in the smallest of places, can qualify then surely most hotels can qualify. I do not know in whose constituency Pofadder falls, but that hotel has qualified. The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to the slow qualifications. That is so, because people are not applying quickly enough. They must realize that 31st December, 1968, is very close and that the period expires after that date. I do not want to say at this stage that on that date we will cut off all the hotels and that they will merely become malt and beer houses, but the fact of the matter is that the people will have to be classified and I have gone out of my way to ask the chairman and Colonel Prinsloo of the National Liquor Board to visit various centres. They have just undertaken this tour. They have submitted a long report which I do not want to burden the Committee with now, but the gist of it is that people do not know what is being expected of them. The regulations are clear but they do not take the necessary steps to acquaint themselves with what they have to do. They have informed me that as a result of this tour, which was not part of their task but which I specially asked them to undertake for the very purpose of facilitating the classification, at least 600 hotels will apply for classification next year. They received thanks and appreciation for the work which they did everywhere they went. There are extracts from letters which they received thanking them for their help. The hon. member said that the arrangements were not so wonderful, but I do not think he should have said that. These two gentlemen of the National Liquor Licensing Board sacrificed their lunch-hours.

It was not their arrangements, but the local arrangements which were poor.

I do not think the hon. member should have mentioned that. He ought merely to have expressed his thanks for the arrangements which have been made and for the fact that people have gone out of their way to help hotel owners. Then the hon. member referred to the trifling grounds on which classifications are being refused. I think the case he referred to was an hotel in Durban. The last paragraph of the letter informing them that classification was being refused read as follows—

I have even had cases where I had upon the recommendation of the National Liquor Board, already given my permission for the classification only to be told that we would not issue the certificates until a few minor matters had ben rectified. That shows how it is being done. People are being accommodated in all spheres.

The hon. member referred again to a case which he has already brought to my attention, a case where the National Liquor Board refused to tell an applicant precisely what was wrong with his hotel and why he had been unsuccessful in obtaining classification. We had inquiries made to see precisely what was wrong. I do not want to mention the hotel’s name, I shall only say it was in Scottborough. There were no less than 36 deficiencies, such simple things as the following: The backyard is extremely untidy and dirty; the hotel needs to be painted and cleaned; the roofs of garages have rusted through and need to be replaced; Bantu servants quarters are in an extremely poor condition and have to be cleaned; there are inadquate seating facilities in the bar; the laundry is filthy and the electric wiring is dangerous; there is no soap or towels at the washhandbasin for the staff; there are no clothes hooks in the cloakrooms. Just imagine a cloakroom where you have to hang up your jacket, and there are no clothes hooks. Surely one would expect every hotel owner who applies for classification will be aware of these things.

How must he know about these things?

He ought to know about them. Surely it is clearly stated in the regulations. In any case, in this way there were 36 deficiencies, and as the National Liquor Licensing Board rightly said, it is not their function to continue pointing out the faults. It is a statutory body which lends its approval according to regulations which have been clearly laid down for the applicants. Where they can be of assistance, they offer it, but one must not expect that an applicant in Scotborough can write to Pretoria and simply submit a plan, And, incidentally, the plan did not comply with the regulations because there were no measurements indicated on it.

When he requested its return so that he could add the measurements, they refused. [Laughter.]

No, let us be honest now. The difficulty is that many hotel owners are not taking the necessary trouble to establish what is being required of them for the purpose of classification. They sit down and write to the National Liquor Board and say that the Board must tell them what is wrong with the hotel. [Interjection.] All these things are contained in the regulations.

Reference has again been made to the statement which I issued and which appeared only in Afrikaans. In passing I can say the statement was given to SAPA. in Afrikaans and they said that they would translate it.

I accept that, but there have been others as well.

The National Liquor Board, out of the goodness of its heart, thought that it would do the hotel industry a favour by informing it immediately of the statement. I readily admit that they did so in Afrikaans and not in English, whereas they had received a letter from an English-speaking person. The correct thing would have been to have stated it in English, since the letter had been in English. Conversely, it would have been as easy for them to have written the letter in Afrikaans and then nobody would have had the least objection to that.

In regard to the application of bilingualism in the hotel industries, I can say that I regard the matter very seriously. I feel that any person in this country has the right to walk into an hotel and if he wants to speak Afrikaans there must at least be somebody who can see to his needs in Afrikaans, and the same applies to English. I am not the only one who thinks so. Here is an edition of Wine, Spirit and Malt, the publication of the liquor trade and there they state that—

I think that is right. There are already hotels which have been classified and it has been incorporated in their conditions that their menus and wine lists, etc., have to be bilingual. This does not mean that the waiter should necessarily be able to speak Afrikaans or English, because in such a case one can merely point with one’s finger and indicate what one wants. All that is being expected further is not that the receptionist or the telephonist must be conversant with both languages, but that there should at least be someone, one white person on the premises, who can help the public in either English or in Afrikaans. I think that is fair enough. I think I have dealt with the matters which the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised, except for one thing. He said that we must treat liquor as an ordinary product. I think he is on very dangerous ground there. If we were to treat it as an ordinary product, it means that we will have to lift all control, and then he must be free to sell it to whom he wants to and I do not believe Fedhaza will be satisfied with that.

Mr. Chairman, I would like, on behalf of the Coloured representatives, to join those hon. members who have paid tribute to Mr. Greeff, the retiring Secretary for Justice, and to express to him and to his family the hope that they will have many years of good health during his retirement. At the same time I would like to offer our congratulations to those who have received promotion.

I do not intend to pursue at great length the question of liquor licences, except to say that on page 9 of the report of the Department of Justice there appear certain figures in regard to applications by Coloureds. What concerns me, is the number of refusals. I cannot deal with 1966, because 39 of those cases are still under consideration, but in 1965 38 applications were refused. I have raised this merely to say that there are no doubt Coloured organizations who did apply for liquor licences, but apparently they have not been too successful. 38 out of 61 have been refused. I think about 22 were approved. Almost 33½ per cent succeeded, but it does seem that far too many have been refused. Perhaps the Minister could give us some information. I do not want him to give me detailed reasons why the 38 were refused, because it will take too long, but perhaps he could tell me privately or I could get a letter from his department to justify this.

I am taking part in this debate to ask the hon. the Minister to train more Coloured people in his department. I understand—I think my information is correct—that a new court will be established in Athlone. and I think we are very grateful for that. But up to now it would appear that that court will be staffed with mostly White people, whereas I think that in a predominantly Coloured area such as Athlone the staff should be completely Coloured. The hon. the Minister may say that we do not have sufficient Coloured people, but I see nothing in this report which indicates that in regard to prosecutors, for instance, and that seems to be one of the departments where there is a shortage, Coloureds are being trained. I refer to the item on page 10, “prosecutors’ courses”. It does give the number of people who have attended to the courses. The humber of Justice officers is 27, and the total is 67. Then there are also figures as to the number of officers in the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development, Police, Prisons, etc. But there is nothing to indicate whether there are any Coloureds being trained for that particular part of the department. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to do what was done in the past. Perhaps it is being done, but there is nothing apparent from the report. What was done in the past, was that a police sergeant acted as prosecutor in many cases. Surely, there must be enough Coloured police sergeants in the Force with sufficient experience to be able to act as prosecutors in these cases. I particularly refer to the statement made by the Secretary for Justice on page 6, which has already been referred to, but I think it bears repetition:

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I have done it on all the Votes. The Coloured man is there to be trained and to be made use of. He is capable of filling these positions and if indeed the Government is sincere in its policy of separate development, I want to have positive evidence from every Minister and his department that the Coloured man is having the training which will eventually fit him for the position which he must occupy in his own area. I would therefore ask the Minister to do everything possible to see that the training of Coloureds takes place. As I say, there is nothing apparent in this report. I have not seen it. I hope the Minister will put me right.

But I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that there is a department where he can help the Coloureds. I refer to the State Attorney’s division for which provision is made on page 288 of the Estimates. Here I would like to say that it seems to me that the State Attorney’s department is growing incessantly. It has become a legal business. Does the hon. the Minister not think the time has arrived when he should give more State work to practising attorneys, to lessen staff and use them for other divisions? The Minister has increased his staff by 8 personnel and 4 more State attorneys. What is the reason for the increase in this department of legal work which can be performed by legal firms outside the department? If the Minister wants his one-third allowance, he can get it, as he always has. But I do say that the Government is taking the food out of the mouths of poor attorneys. I cannot see why this should happen. It does not apply to me any more, because I am not practising. But if I look at the hon. member for Transkei, he is starving. He is growing thinner all the time. The point I want to make —here I might say that I am not quite aware of whether I am right or wrong—is: Are these attorneys entitled to have articled clerks? They are practising attorneys. Why can Coloured people not be articled, or are Coloured boys articled in this department? If not, I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to start articling them, to make them professional men for the positions which they must inevitably occupy in terms of the Government’s policy. The Minister is kind-hearted, and I am making this appeal to him. I sincerely trust that soon we will hear that a Coloured man is going to get these opportunities. That is all I am pleading for. One cannot bring forward reports year after year as the Secretary for Justice has done to say that there is a deficiency in the number of people that are required, when there is a large reservoir of Coloured youths capable of filling those positions. I do ask that they be trained. I do not think I need take the matter further. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Boland will pardon me if I do not follow up on what he said. I should like to bring a few minor matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

The first is in connection with what the hon. member for Lichtenburg—unfortunately he is not present in the House at the moment —said in regard to the R20 which may be advanced to a Bantu and his request that it should now be increased to R50. As far as that matter is concerned, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to accede to the request. He has already replied to it and stated that one can apply to the Bantu Commissioner to have the advance increased to R50. But in many cases one is approached by a Bantu who asks you for a loan of as much as R100 so that he can pay for his wife. But when, after a few months, he realizes that he cannot pay back that R100, he makes his master angry and leaves, with the result that one loses all that money.

There is another matter in regard to the Verwoerd Dam which I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention. The position at the Verwoerd Dam is that there are no facilities there to enable the workers there to obtain liquor. All one has there is a motel, and this does not have an off-sales permit. The nearest hotel is the one at Norvals Pont, about seven to eight miles from the dam. Working at the Verwoerd Dam at present there are between 3000 ad 4,000 non-Whites and almost 1,000 Whites. All these workers must, if they want liquor, make their off-sales purchases at Norvals Pont. This causes a major traffic jam, particularly on Friday afternoons and Friday nights. Some Bantu go on foot and some travel by bicycle, while the Whites usually go in motor cars to buy their liquor for the weekend. And that is what they are going to buy— we need not deny it. As a result of the heavy traffic on that road, approximately 10 people have already been killed. The bridge across the Orange River is a narrow one, and when a driver has had a few drinks he cannot perhaps see as straight as he ought to. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the provision of a bottle store at the Verwoerd Dam. Who must apply for that is in the hands of the Liquor Licensing Board. I know that there are certain conditions associated with a licence—for example that there has to be a certain number of rooms at the off-sales, although this is not really necessary as far as accommodation is concerned, because there are more than enough houses there. What is in fact necessary there, is a bottle store so that the workers can get their liquor there.

Then there is the position at Petrusville which I should also like to bring to the hon. Minister’s attention. A position similar to that at the Verwoerd Dam will later arise at the Van der Kloof Dam as well. But should we not plan for the future now and not wait until a large number of people have been concentrated there? At the moment there are already approximately 1,000 non-Whites, and between 200 to 300 Whites. The number of cases arising out of contraventions at the Van der Kloof Dam is already far in excess than those at Philipstown. I think the Commissioner of Police will testify to that. I am not saying these things to the detriment of Philipstown —not in the least. To-day Petrusville falls under Philipstown. If anybody is caught at Petrusville to-day he has to be taken to Philipstown by police van over a distance of 25 miles. That is why I am advocating that a proper prison, or lock-up, be provided at Petrusville because once the work at the Van den Kloof Dam is in full swing there will be several thousand non-Whites as well as a few thousand Whites there. Under the circumstances assault can be expected and that is why a proper lock-up or prison at Petrusville will be necessary. It will be impossible to take these people to Philipstown each time and there the facilities are in any case rather restricted. To-day the Philistown magistrate is serving Petrusville—he goes to Petrusville once a week, or once every 14 days. This will also result in difficulties in practice because the number of cases which will have to be heard at Petrusville will greatly exceed those at Philipstown. That is why I say that we must plan now already for the future. We must at this stage already think of supplying Petrusville with a magistrate’s office. I want to repeat that I am not, in addressing this request, trying to be prejudicial towards Philipstown. Nor is it necessary that it should suffer as a result. With the large number of expansions at the Van der Kloof Dam which are being envisaged the amount of business at Petrusville will increase a great deal. In addition there is the canal which has to be built for which thousands of workers will be necessary. We must plan ahead now for the ultimate provision of liquor at the Van der Kloof Dam as well. The nearest hotel is at Petrusville, approximately 7 miles from the Van der Kloof Dam, and we shall therefore have precisely the same difficulty there as we are at present experiencing at the Verwoerd Dam. I am addressing these few requests so that it will be possible for us to make arrangements in order to cope with any difficulties.

I should like to raise a matter in which by virtue of my name I have as it were pride of interest—firearms. Earlier in the session I asked the Minister: How many firearms were owned by civilians during each of the years from 1960 to 1966? How many crimes of violence in which firearms were used were reported during these years? How many accidents involving the use of firearms, excluding those in which the Police and military personnel were involved, were reported in those years? The reply of the Minister was that in view of the volume of work involved to collect the particulars asked for, it was not practicable to furnish the information required. This is, I believe, not good enough. Steps must be taken immediately to discover what firearms are being held by the civilian population. We must do this for their own safety as well as for the safety of the State. If one looks at the annual report of the Commissioner of Police one sees that three policemen were killed in the course of duty in the year ending 1965 by criminals using firearms. It also indicates that thefts of firearms amounted to 1,500; illegal possession of firearms by non-Whites to 1,500; illegal supply of firearms to non-Whites to 46; and the pointing of firearms to nearly 1,000. The total number of offences amounted to nearly 5,000 for Tie year ending June, 1965.

The report also reveals that there were 63 cases of robbery in the Witwatersrand area alone, robberies in which firearms were used and in which a total sum of money of R159,000 was stolen. Nearly 2,800 firearms were reported stolen whilst 2,600 odd were recovered. The question, of course, is how many firearms were stolen but were not reported? It is also interesting to note that within a two-year period in the rural areas of Natal no fewer than 1,584 firearms were confiscated from the Bantu. These particulars reveal a shocking situation and it will remain shocking until we decide to do something about it. The civilian population in South Africa is most probably the most heavily armed of all civilian populations. As a result crimes involving firearms are increasing in number and will continue to increase still further unless some restrictive measures are taken immediately. In the last amendment to the Firearms Act provision was made for a central registration bureau, but it is obvious from the replies to questions which I have asked of the Minister that this bureau is not yet in existence. It seems strange to me that the central registration bureau for motor vehicles is going ahead, but where the firearms central bureau has got to, nobody seems to know. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that a firearm is just as lethal a weapon as a motor vehicle.

Crimes involving the use of firearms will increase, they will continue to increase until the Government stops dilly-dallying about the question of registration of and strict control over firearms.

The central registration bureau must be staffed without delay, and I would suggest that all people possessing firearms be compelled to register them at a given date. Existing licences, if necessary, should be ignored, and because of the carelessness of people safeguarding these weapons they should be made to produce their firearms to a licensing officer, a police officer or a magistrate. It is my own feeling that they should produce these firearms over a period of one or two years, because it is no use somebody going along with a registration certificate to register a firearm which very likely he himself has not seen and he does not even know where it is. So I do believe that until we take some action to put this whole matter in its proper perspective, the loss of life caused by firearms, particularly in he hands of criminals, is going to continue. When one questions people who have firearms they quite often do not know where their arms are. They had not seen them for some time. They locked them away, and very often the weapons have been stolen already for some period. It is also a fact that a person obtaining a licence for a firearm to-day can keep that licence until his death. There is no check whether he in fact still has the firearm concerned.

I believe that the only way to overcome this —and this is a very serious matter—is for people who have firearms to report to and deliver their weapons at a central bureau. I think, too, that when a person applies for a firearm licence he should be examined by the police to see that he is competent to use that firearm. I think that at the moment it is far too easy to obtain a firearm. I know of many instances where members of the civilian population have firearms which they have never fired, and if they were to try to fire them there would be all sorts of accidents. We continually read in the papers of children finding firearms in drawers, in desks, and so on, and obviously people who treat firearms in that manner should have their licences withdrawn.

Therefore, in conclusion, I wish to appeal to the Minister in all sincerity, because not only are the lives of innocent people at stake in this matter, but also the lives of our policemen who so often come across criminals who have obtained these firearms.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Port Natal I should like to state that it is the intention to come forward with a totally new Arms and Ammunition Act at the very earliest possible opportunity. I agree with him that the only way in which proper control can be exercised is to have a total re-registration of firearms and then to compile a central register.

It is rather interesting to know that in Natal more firearms have been recovered than have been reported lost.

They pinch them in the Transvaal.

As a reply to the hon. member for Colesberg I want to inform him that a letter from my Department is on its way in connection with an application at Petrusville. The position a‘ the Verwoerd Dam is briefly as follows. Recently a club licence was allocated there. That meets the requirements of the Whites. As far as off-sales are concerned where non-Whites can be served, it is unfortunately the case that one cannot grant a bottle store licence for the area. It is a rural area and no provision is made for a bottle store licence in such cases. In order to meet the requirements of the large number of Bantu to whom the hon. member referred the only solution appears to be for the compound manager to apply for a 100sex licence. This is similar to those issued to local authorities selling beer in locations.

As regards the question of Petrusville and Philipstown. and the possibility of a prison at the former, I just want to say that as circumstances change and as the needs arise attention will be given ‘o this matter. In any case I will refer both matters which the hon. member mentioned, namely the question of a prison and court facilities at the two places, to my Department for the necessary inquiry.

The hon. member for Boland is complaining now that the Coloureds are being neglected to such an extent.

No, I did not complain.

Yes, the hon. member did complain. He said that 61 applications had been made while 38 had been rejected—22 we e approved. Now I want to tell you what happened in regard to the Whites. Last year 255 Whites applied. Do you know how many applications were approved? Only 48.

They have a quota.

I definitely think the Coloureds were very well treated as far as liquor facilities were concerned.

As regards the question of the training of Coloureds as attorneys, and in fact by the State Attorney, I want to say that the State Attorney has a list of probably a hundred names of people waiting for training. For that reason I do not believe that there will be an opening in the near future.

If I understood the hon. member correctly he said that the State Attorney should also brief Coloured attorneys. There is no objection to that, particularly if Coloureds are concerned in the case. There is no objection to that.

As regards facilities for Coloureds in the legal profession in the Department of Justice I want to say that on 1st July the new magistrate’s courts at Athlone are being opened and we hope that there will be work facilities for Coloureds there. When I speak of work for young Coloured men and Coloured women then it will probably be mostly clerical work in the beginning. It will depend upon the Coloured man and his ability to qualify himself in the legal profession in order to act as prosecutor, or even later to handle cases himself. There is nothing to prevent this. To tell the truth, we are looking for those kind of people: we should very much like them to come forward. Up to now, however, we have not been able to find them. Provisionally there will be two magistrate’s courts at Athlone. It appears that there will be work enough for three. Provisionally we are going to make a start with two courts. For the time being the staff will consist of Whites. At the very most we can make use of Coloured by perhaps using them as typists or ordinary clerks, in paying out maintenance, and that kind of work. Where it is possible to make use of their services, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will not hesitate to do so.

I am rising in order to bring two matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. In the first place, I want to express my concern about the increasing number of accidents that are taking place involving fire-arms because imitation firearms are being sold as toys in the various shops and bazaars. We are aware of various cases in which people lost their lives when they mistook a genuine weapon for a toy. I am aware of a case in my own constituency where a person was injured to such an extent that he was declared permanently physically unfit for work and is now receiving a disability grant from the State. When this accident occurred he was 35 years of age. He has five children and to-day the State has to look after that person, purely as a result of negligence. I mention this in order to call attention to the negligent way in which fire-arms are handled, fire-arms which ought to have been locked away or stored in a safe place, but which the owners left lying around. I want to appeal very urgently to the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter thoroughly. These imitation fire-arms have been copied so realistically that one cannot distinguish between the genuine article and a toy. I am the last person who wants to spoil the fun of the boys; we know how fond boys are of playing with imitation fire-arms, but I want to ask that something should be done so that one may distinguish properly between an imitation firearm which serves as a toy, and a genuine fire-arm, which is a threat to human life.

The second matter I want to raise concerns the tariffs that are charged for convict labour. I want to refer more specifically to convict labour used on farms. Various tariffs are imposed in various areas. In the A areas the tariff is 50c a day per work unit where use is made of the services of a guard, and 35c a day per work unit where the services of a guard are not required. In the B areas the tariff is 45c per day, with a guard, and 30c a day per work unit without a guard. In the C areas—and these are the areas which actually affect the smaller rural areas and the farms—the tariffs have now been increased to 30c per day, with a guard, and 21c a day without a guard. The farmer employs this labour for a maximum period of approximately six hours a day. There are cases where farmers whose farms are situated more closely to prisons, may perhaps have convict labour at their disposal for more than six hours a day. I also want to call attention to the fact that at present convict labour is no longer cheap labour. We must take into account the fact that a prisoner is a person who was committed to prison because he had been convicted of a crime. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister would be prepared to review these tariffs. There is a much higher tariff in the case of labour hired at farm prisons, where the farmers themselves erected the prison, because the capital outlay involved in the erection of the prison has to be redeemed. I also want to call attention to the fact that we find from time to time that certain people level accusations and reproaches at us—and this is intended for overseas consumption—to the effect that prisoners in South Africa are treated badly. As far as we know, the prison diet is a balanced one; they are accommodated there and when they go out to work on the farms, the farmers treat them very well. After all, the convict who is serving his sentence has to work; he cannot remain in his prison cell the whole time, and I am merely asking that these tariffs should be reviewed. Although the services of convicts are hired out to farmers, one nevertheless does not expect the State to make a profit out of them. We know that there are administrative costs as well, but I am asking the hon. the Minister to order a proper inquiry into these tariffs. On the other hand I also want to risk saying that we should not make the stay of convicts in our prisons so attractive that they become a refuge for people who do not want to work. These people are sent to prison to pay for a crime they committed. We know that cases occur where prisoners that are set free, are back in prison within a few days because they regard it as a convenient place to stay. I do not want to exaggerate on the other side, but we should, after all, not make luxury hotels out of our prisons either. We must make the prisoner realize that he is serving a sentence for a crime of which he has been convicted.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his courteous if not altogether satisfactory reply to me. I must say it is indeed a pleasant change to be able to raise matters here and to get a reasonably objective reply to one’s complaints. I want to say only in reply to what he has told me about the Weinberg case, that there have, of course, been many other cases where witnesses have complained that they have been badly treated during their 180 day detention and that they have been subjected to standing interrogation and so on, and I sincerely hope that each one of these complaints is properly investigated, because that was not the purpose of the 180 day detention. I want to say too, in reply to the hon. the Minister’s answer, that people have been correctly held under this 180 day law that in the event, the charges which have arisen so far out of the cases of the Chinese and the Indians, have all been charges related solely to the offences of theft, falsification of passports and identity documents and none of these offences is listed under Section 215(bis). I want to mention too that the Indians that I mentioned originally were all held in solitary confinement or segregation and kept locked up for 23 out of 24 hours in the five or six weeks immediately following their detention. Things did improve after that, I must admit. I wish to place these facts on record.

Then I want to come to the question of prisons which was raised earlier by other hon. members, and I want to say right away that the hon. the Minister and I have had a brisk exchange of correspondence over prisons since the beginning of this Session when I was allowed to go and visit Robben Island and I later on paid a visit to the Pretoria Local gaol. I am grateful for the permission granted to me, but I do want to say that I do not think that an M.P. should constantly have to ask for permission to visit prisons. I think M.P.s ought to be encouraged to visit gaols; I think it is a very good idea. In England, for instance, there are panels of prison visitors, consisting of people who are well-known in public life. They are allowed to visit prisons whenever they like; they do not have to get special permission on each occasion; they simply go along when they wish to do so and I think this is a very good idea. It does permit of some sort of contact with the prisoners and it makes them feel that the world has not entirely forgotten them. I also think that it is a good idea from the point of view of the prison system itself; it should be open to this sort of scrutiny.

As far as my visit to Robben Island is concerned, I want to say that of course I found it to be a grim prison. If the hon. member over there who spoke a little earlier thought that I was going to come back and say that this is a pleasure resort, a charming island overlooking mountain and sea, he is very much mistaken. Robben Island is a maximum security gaol and, of course, it is a grim place; it is not a seaside resort. To the best of my knowledge there was no ill-treatment per se of the prisoners there, although I found that there were certain complaints which I passed on to the Minister and which he has had investigated. I do not propose to go into those complaints now. But what I am interested in is the fact that there are no proper work facilities for long-term prisoners. There are prisoners who are there for life. This is a maximum security gaol. There are about 1,000 prisoners on Robben Island, and I think the State ought to set up proper workshops so that people can do some sort of constructive work on the island, other than the “hard labour” work which they do—I use this term in inverted commas because it is no longer used in our courts, but in fact it is hard labour that they are performing, work in the slate quarries and work in the sand quarries and the collection of seaweed and so on. They work in the slate quarries and the sand quarries. The hon. member over there says, “Hoor, hoor!”, but surely in modern civilized countries this sort of work is not done for long periods by prisoners. I want to tell the hon. member that being sentenced to gaol for life is a very heavy sentence indeed and further punishment should not be imposed within the prison system itself because of the crime for which the person has been sent to gaol. I think it is very important that Robben Island should have proper work facilities established since this is going to be a prison which will have people there for a long time. I do not agree with the hon. member who said that the recreational facilities are adequate. I do not think they are, especially over the week-ends, but I know that a new recreation hall has been built and I hope that the long-term prisoners, the special prisoners whose crimes resulted in very long sentences, will also have access to it. I think, too, that for a modern gaol it is quite wrong that there are not proper facilities for hygiene and cleanliness such as the provision of hot water. I hope the Minister will look into it. This is not just another modern convenience, but a matter of hygiene.

As far as the other prisons are concerned, I want to say at once that there have been improvements. I have only had the opportunity since last year of visiting Robben Island and Pretoria Local, but certainly improvements are being introduced all the time, for which one is duly grateful. In Pretoria I understand that there will be facilities for other forms of work for the long-term prisoners there. I am glad to hear that, because just sewing mailbags and cleaning cells is not the type of work to give to the special type of prisoners accommodated there, as far as the Whites are concerned. Many of them are educated men who have committed crimes for which they are being punished, but they are nevertheless a rather special category of prisoners. I am also hoping that the Minister will think again about this question of allowing further study facilities. Most of these men are studying for degrees and some of them already have degrees, but they wish to do postgraduate study, and the prison regulations encourage further study. I hope the Minister will again give his attention to this, because there is no reason why, if one does a post-graduate degree, one needs closer contact with the people giving the instruction. It can be done by correspondence course, as is done by the University of South Africa. I do not think that particular reason is valid. I also think that the recreational facilities should be improved, because these men are going to be there for many years. Also, I do not know why they should be cut off from all contact from the outside world and why no newspapers are allowed and why they are not allowed to listen to news broadcasts. I am not asking for five-star hotel treatment, but ordinary prisoners who have committed rape and kidnapping and assault are entitled to these privileges, and while these men stay at Pretoria Local they should also get these privileges. The Minister could choose a newspaper of his own taste, even one supporting the Government, although I would not like the unfortunate prisoners to listen to “Current Affairs”! If ever there was a captive audience for this programme “Current Affairs”, it would be such a one. But I repeat, it is very bad to cut people off altogether from contact with the outside world. When they come out they have no knowledge of what has gone on in the world in the meantime, and they are supposed to be rehabilitated when they leave prison. They should be able to keep contact between the outside world and their relatives and themselves. I want to ask the Minister, too, to consider the question of re-grading again. I do not think this is going fast enough. I know the Prison Board constantly revises these cases, but it seems to take a very long time. We find that there are still three white prisoners in “D” Grade after a long time, according to the last answer the Minister gave me, and there are no white prisoners at all in the “A” Grade. Some of them have been in gaol for two or three years already, and I find it difficult to believe that not one of them is qualified for the “A” Grade. I believe that the prison authorities should not use the grading system as a sort of punishment within a punishment. The courts have laid down the severity of the sentence and I do not think that the grading should thereafter apply only with reference to the behaviour of the prisoner in gaol. I also want to ask the Minister to reconsider the question of remission of sentence for this particular group of prisoners. The answer he gave me when I discussed it with him originally was that the nature of the crimes was serious and in the interests of a deterrent and of security he did not consider that relaxation was justified. I just want to point out that there are other serious crimes as well, like rape, assault and robbery, and in those cases the prisoners are considered for remission. That is the general rule and I do not think it should be laid down that prisoners who have committed this type of crime should not be entitled to remission of sentence. [Time expired.]

I want to come back to a point which I think should perhaps have been raised in this House a long time ago but which has been neglected. I should like to exchange a few thoughts on emergency planning.

If we assume that civil defence is probably the primary duty of the State and if we see what is being done, then it is shocking. In the past few days, when I felt that I should like to speak on this matter, I drove around a little and made a few telephone calls in order to find out what was happening in the city as regards emergency planning and civil defence. I shall return to that aspect, but before I do so I want to put it to you that at present civil defence is actually a factor which is being forced upon any state owing to modern warfare and these new trained saboteurs, those people who commit arson and sabotage. When it comes to sabotage, internal riots and arson, then the primary and most important factor that has to be considered is the fire brigade. If one sees what is being done under emergency planning and the part the fire brigade has to play in it, I want to say that the fire brigade is the primary and most important protective service, particularly if one looks at the purpose of the fire brigade. Its purpose is to fight fires, to rescue people and to salvage their goods. The fire brigade must be brought into such a matter, and that is why I want to make the plea that the Minister should integrate the fire brigade with emergency planning to the fullest extent. This emergency planning or civil defence will have to play the most important part in the event of rioting. For this reason I feel that we should exchange a few thoughts on this very important matter of civil defence and the fire brigade. To the best of my knowledge a committee was appointed by the Minister a year or so ago, a committee which consisted of a number of fire brigade chiefs and other public servants, who travelled all over the country at great expense, to make a survey of the fire potential in the country, and certain areas such as Durban, Cape Town, Johannesburg. Pretoria, etc., were described as “target areas”. These people returned and submitted to the Minister or to this emergency planning board a report in which certain proposals were put forward. The gist of this proposal was that every city council or local authority had to equip itself with the necessary fire-fighting equipment so as to enable them to undertake all the fire fighting in the event of such a state of emergency. But because the cost involved in this matter was so high, the matter simply rested there. Nobody could afford it and that was the end of it. Now we feel that, particularly with a view to civil defence, the State should play a much greater part in the event of a state of emergency, should it arise. In the past few days I have received information that the State is even prepared to purchase or to assist in purchasing machinery and equipment for these target areas by subsidizing such purchases. But I want to know in what respect it would be of any use to purchase such equipment. I also want to ask this question, namely whether the State is being served with the best advice in purchasing this equipment. Is use being made of the services of experts who are experienced in the field of fire-fighting? I am merely asking these questions because this is of the utmost importance. Is the State satisfied that in purchasing this equipment, it is purchasing equipment that may yield the best results and that it will be possible to make the best use of that equipment for emergency planning and civil defence? The answers to this can only be supplied by the experts in the fire brigade. In this regard my first request to the hon. the Minister is the following: I want to ask that on this board, namely the Emergency Planning Board, younger men should be appointed instead of the retired officials who serve on it at present. In particular I want to ask that a senior fire brigade officer should be appointed to that board. He must be a person who can serve this board with the best advice, particularly in these times in which the world is making such rapid progress. I understand that there is a possibility that large fire-fighting machines may be purchased. The whole trend in the world at present is to do away with these large machines. At present two-thirds of the Continent use small machines that are manned by four persons. It is a type of jeep with a very powerful pump as well as two hoses and a ladder. One can almost buy ten of these machines for the price of a large one. And because it has been found that four or even ten machines can fight fires at ten different points whereas one big, unwieldy machine can only do so at one point, there is already a tendency to put these smaller machines into service. But there is a second aspect. This Emergency Planning Board was appointed in Cape Town. What I have seen and been able to find, were the few pamphlets which were sent out and which contain instructions as to what one is to do in the event of an emergency or even in the event of a nuclear attack. I want to ask that this board, to which I hope the Minister will appoint a senior fire brigade official, will from time to time summon all the chiefs of stations in these target areas so that ideas may be correlated and there may be proper collaboration, also with a view to standardization. I may tell you that in the past few days I myself as well as others acting on my behalf telephoned various places. What resulted from those calls, was absolutely shocking. I can tell you that in this complex, namely the target area of the Cape Peninsula, there are only two stations that may be of assistance to each other. There is only one other station that can co-operate with the Cape Town station. That is the position because there is no standardizing of equipment. Now I ask that if this Emergency Planning Board, which has for a year been in a position to do something in this respect, could not even succeed in standardizing the equipment of three or four of these stations, has it not become time to appoint to that board people who must protect the interests of women and children and of you and me in the street. It is time we stopped appointing people to serve the country when they have become too old to operate their own stations, and started appointing young fire brigade engineers to serve the Minister with good advice. Secondly, Sir. What is the use of all this equipment being purchased and the State spending millions to purchase these machines, if there is not sufficient staff to man these machines? But that brings me to a second aspect I want to mention. In view of the fact that these local fire brigade depots cannot train the necessary staff for the State, I want to plead very strongly to-day that the State should establish a training centre, a fire-brigade academy, where these firemen can be trained to man the machines the State now wants to purchase. I want to plead very strongly with the hon. the Minister for an academy or a training centre to be established. In other countries it is the primary duty of the State to train these people. Five years ago Italy had as many as 300,000 trained firemen. In West Germany every citizen must, when he receives his compulsory military training, also take a course in fire-fighting for a certain period. In England every citizen who is liable to military service must take this course as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley (North) has raised an interesting matter, namely the planning for civil defence. I do not wish to take the matter very much further because it is no longer the responsibility of this hon. Minister. It is now the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Defence. I do however wish to say this to him in fairness to his criticism. He has been criticizing the local committees in the Cape Peninsula as to what they might or should have done in the meantime, but I think he should also accept for his side of the House a little bit of the blame, because there has been a little dithering as to which Minister and which department should be responsible for it on the Government benches. The matter is now firmly, I believe, in the hands of the Minister of Defence and perhaps the commandos which are to be formed under the new Defence Act will do something about civil defence for the future years. But, Sir, there is one matter which does arise very seriously from the points that were raised by the hon. member for Kimberley (North) when he talked about fires and subversive activities, and that is a matter which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. What powers does he have to follow up and to ensure the prosecution of those who are guilty of subversive activities and in regard to saboteurs who might cross our borders into other countries?I want to bring the hon. the Minister back to a question which was put to him by the hon. member for Transkei on the 25th April of this year. The hon. the Minister was asked then whether the constitutional change to a republic in 1961 affected the then existing extradition treaties, if so, how, and secondly, with which countries the Republic has extradition treaties. The Minister then evaded, if I may say so, giving a direct reply by saying that the question has so many facets and implications and that it could not be answered by a “yes” or “no” and that it was not in the public interest to make public the particulars of any further extradition treaties and that we could have a private approach to him to find out what the position was. Unfortunately the Minister is bound by the legislation of this country. In 1962 the Extradition Act was passed which was to give effect to all existing extradition agreements at the time of the adoption of the Republican form of constitution for this country. And I think the hon. the Minister should tell us whether we from our side have ratified those agreements again, or have said that we will stand by them, and whether all countries ½with whom we did enter into extradition agreements are similarly standing by those agreements. Because this is very important to the maintenance of law and order in this country. We should be able to follow up and get back for trial persons who have made themselves guilty or liable to prosecution for subversive activities or sabotage in this country. We want to know where these people can be followed up and can be brought back for trial to this country. I hope the hon. the Minister would perhaps elaborate on that. The Act does make it compulsory upon him to publish in the Gazette any agreements that are concluded. We know of the agreements that have already been published. I certainly do not think that the House expects the hon. the Minister to be embarrassed by his being asked this information. I would not ask him with whom he is negotiating now because we know that when he has completed an agreement he will publish it in the Gazette. I do not want to know with whom he is negotiating. But I do want to know whether all the existing agreements of 1961 and which we confirmed in Parliament in 1962 are being recognized by both sides with a view to the safety of our own country and in dealing with our own criminals. There is another matter which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. I should like to ask him whether some consideration cannot be given to the legal disabilities under which minors, that is persons under 21 years of age, have to face certain aspects of life at the present time. We have gone a long way since the time when minority was fixed at under 21 years of age. To-day in this country we find youths in their seventeenth and even in their sixteenth year subject to military service—as a matter of fact, many of them have already gone on active service at 17 years of age. We find that an 18 year old is entitled to drive a motor vehicle and can cast his vote. At 17 and 18 he is liable to pay his taxes under the P.A.Y.E. system if he earns sufficient. Yet the other day I saw an eminent surgeon having to use the services of his office to find a parent or guardian to give consent to an operation on a youth of 20 years and 9 months! It seems quite ridiculous that there is still this waste of time and energy in present day South Africa; it seems ridiculous that consent is still required to perform an operation on a person who is obliged to render military service and is entitled to vote. It is, of course, easy to say that the surgeon can do the operation if he regards it as necessary and if he is prepared to take the consequences. But why should he be expected to take the consequences when our approach to these matters is somewhat antiquated? Furthermore, there are these difficulties in connection with opening a banking account. So many of our young people are earning and want to open their own little savings account. Yet they have to go along and get parental consent for this as for so many other things. There is also the difficulty of entering into a contract. Here again a person who for all intents and purposes is regarded as an adult when it comes to service to the State is required to get consent if he wants to enter into a contract with his fellow citizen. As regards marriage, I think perhaps they ought still to be protected against marriage and that we should retain the consent required by a minor to get married! But these are aspects which the Minister ought to investigate to see whether we have not reached the stage where these restrictions and disabilities should not be limited to those under the age of 18 years, for instance.

I shall not follow up the arguments of the hon. member for Green Point because the Minister is sure to reply to his questions in due course. I want to confine myself to a certain aspect raised by the hon. member for Heilbron this afternoon. His request was for liquor supply points to be provided in the respective areas of the various population groups. At the moment we find that Coloureds congregate at the liquor supply points in the White areas. There they have often caused disturbances and run amuck. I have sympathy with the request of the hon. member for Heilbron, because what often happens, particularly in rural towns, is that these facilities are abused by Coloureds. I nevertheless feel that we have to approach this matter with a great deal of care, because many people will be prejudiced by such a step—particularly the holders of liquor licences in rural towns. There many of these businesses are old established family concerns which have been built up over the years and new ones which have been purchased on the assumption that they may also do business with non-Whites. At present their white clientele is decreasing in number as Whites move to the cities and their businesses are becoming dependent to an ever-increasing extent on their Coloured clientele. If we now proceed to provide liquor facilities for the Coloured, for example, in his own area, it will mean that these businesses will go down even more, even to the stage where they will have to close down not only to the owner’s loss but also to the detriment of the rural community concerned. Rural towns need this type of business because they attract travellers and in general create some interest in the town. I agree with the hon. member for Heilbron that the present state of affairs creates problems, but in view of what I have said, we should rather try to reduce these problems to a minimum if we cannot eliminate them altogether. I too have experienced some of these problems in my constituency. I went to the police who took steps in this regard with the result that the position has improved. My representations are that we should not take away the rights of these rural liquor licensces summarily, because that will adversely affect not only them but also the rural community served by them.

The first question I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister is the application of the amendment to the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act in 1964, an amendment which provided that the Minister of Justice would have the power to determine by regulation which types of work only attorneys may do. The hon. the Minister will be aware that the proposals, which seem to have been made to him by the Association of Law Societies, as to whether or not only attorneys, notaries and conveyancers should be allowed to administer estates has caused great public concern. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he was negotiating with other interested bodies, such as the banks, and that he would negotiate also with the accountants. What we should like to know is what stage these negotiations have already reached? Has the Minister already seen all interested parties? When does he expect these negotiations to be completed? One appreciates that the Minister has indicated that he will not make any regulations operative until such time as he has published his proposals for general information. But we should like him to give us an idea of how far this matter has already progressed. It is a matter of great public interest and public importance. It is not a matter that one can usefully discuss until one knows exactly what the Minister’s proposals are. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to report on this matter to us.

The report of the Secretary indicates, as the hon. member for Transkei has said, rather an alarming state of affairs in the administration of justice in this country, particularly as regards the shortage of prosecutors and staff in the Attorney-General’s office. I think it is one which merits some immediate consideration. I appreciate that it is difficult to train people straight-away, but I want to ask the Minister whether he makes enough use of the Bar of South Africa, in other words, whether the Attorney-General briefs enough members of the Bar. Should he not in fact brief more members of the Bar? One appreciates that this is going to cost a little more, because the costs of briefing barristers to prosecute in the supreme court is going to be considerably more than the salary which would be paid to one of the Attorney-General’s professional assistants. But it is rather like what the provincial authorities are doing to-day. Very few of them construct roads with their own machines and personnel; they put them out for contract. They get the most skilled persons to do that job. It seems to me that, particularly in the field of justice, where we have a great reservoir of very highly skilled talent for that particular job, perhaps the time has come for more persons from the Bar to be briefed to prosecute.

What a tout!

Yes, this is touting for the profession generally. There have been pleas by members of the side-bar for them to be employed too. I feel that it is only fair that the Bar should likewise stake its claim! When one is dealing with the administration of justice, of course one cannot measure it in terms of money in any event. One should have these people, and at a much more realistic rate of remuneratation, if l may say so, than has hitherto been the case.

The next matter which I find in the Secretary’s report relates to buildings. He says the following on page 6—

I do not think that anyone who has been into the magistrates’ courts in Durban, for example, would disagree with this statement. The conditions there are deplorable. The conditions under which the magistrates have to move from their offices to the courts themselves are, to say the very least of it, undignified. I know that the Minister’s predecessor had cause to make exactly the same comments as the Secretary for Justice has made. I appreciate that new buildings have to be built. I appreciate that Durban is one day going to get a new magistrate’s court. But this has been going to happen for 15 years and more. Here is, I believe, an opportunity for the Department of Justice to get down to designing a court when that stage is reached. I do not think that I have yet seen a court which was designed by both the persons who use the court and by architects. One thing which I think that one must always remember in designing a court, when dealing with a court, is that the most important person there in that court, certainly in the criminal court, is the public. It is not the prisoner—the most important person is the public. Justice must be seen to be done, as the Secretary has pointed out in his report so far as circuits are concerned. The public must have access. But more than that: We rely on the public for the prosecution of all our criminal cases. The witnesses are therefore the most important people in every trial. If we do not provide proper facilities for witnesses, then we are not setting about things in the correct way. I think that this should be the first consideration. The facilities for witnesses in the courts of Durban are absolutely shocking. It is quite disgraceful that even in the supreme court it is very difficult to find the toilet. It is an important thing for a witness who may have to stand around for a whole day waiting to be called. Quite apart from anything else, they have to sit around outside the court, in the open as a rule, on a bench under a verandah. There is no proper room for them, there are no proper facilities in that regard either. There is no place where they can go and wash their hands. It seems to me that in re-designing this court in Durban, perhaps consideration could be given to suggestions which I am sure will be forthcoming, if they were asked for, from the General Council of the Bar, from the side-bar, and from the Attorney-General’s offices as far as the facilities which should be provided are concerned.

One of the most deplorable conditions existing in all our lower courts is that the magistrate is deposited somewhere or other where, whenever he moves around, he is in constant view of the public. We do not want that. I believe that he should be cut off completely; he should be given his own quarters from where he can come straight into court and return.

When justice must be seen to be done, another aspect of this which does not appeal to the public is that in the circumstances, because they are all thrown together, one finds that the public prosecutor in the lower courts is in constant conversation with and thrown together with the magistrate. That does not help the cause of justice. It does not help to find that the presiding judicial officer—and I am not suggesting that he is affected by this—is seen publicly, as he is, together with the prosecutor. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, commencing with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—with reference to his representations in regard to prison labour—I want to tell him that the tariffs for prison labour were determined in consultation with the Department of Labour. The idea is that prison labour, all things considered, also the fact that the prisoner is cared for, must have some relation to the general pattern of labour in the district. Therefore, however much one may want to accommodate the hon. member, one cannot really depart from that. This is also a question of approach. The approach of the hon. member is that here one has a prisoner who has to work for his keep. I want to tell you, Sir, that the new approach, and this is one which will be forced on us, is that the prisoner himself has to receive a portion of the income from his labour. This is the new international approach. All things considered, the fact remains that the labour tariff for prisoners in the Wolmaransstad district was determined in consultation with the local bureau.

Mention was made here of real pistols which had been mistaken for toy pistols, something which had led to accidents. I can tell the hon. member that I myself am very concerned about this matter. The other day I read in the newspaper of a four or five-year-old child who shot a little friend through the head with his father’s revolver. Another young child killed his mother by firing a shot. We find such outrageous cases. I want to give the assurance that we shall take very strict action in the future. Where any negligence has been involved in cases of this nature, the licence of the licence-holder of the fire-arm concerned will be cancelled immediately. There is no legislation which prohibits the use of a toy pistol. I do not know of any legislation which prohibits that.

The hon. member for Houghton once more made her usual plea in connection with the various prisoners. She has brought that pertinently to my attention on so many occasions —also in private—that it is practically unnecessary for me to reply to her in that regard. I have already told her what we intend doing in Pretoria in connection with the prisoners who are in the Pretoria local prison at present. We hope to improve their facilities. Part of the prison is being fitted up to accommodate them as well—although that is not specially being done for them alone—and there they will have better working facilities. I must say, unfortunately, that they themselves are responsible to a large extent for being in the Pretoria local prison and not in the Central prison. Things happened there which compelled us to take them from the Central prison where they had all the privileges and to transfer them to the Pretoria local prison.

As regards the question of facilities for study, I want to say that we shall give further attention to the matter. When a post-graduate course is being followed, outgoing and incoming correspondence cause difficulties. Such correspondence has to be checked every time to see to it that something does not possibly slip out which may not slip out.

Do not say that they have abused that so far.

No, I have no proof of that, but that is why permission has not yet been granted in the past. As I have said, I am quite prepared to go into this matter once more.

As far as Robben Island and the working facilities there are concerned, I want to say that the position at the present moment is that so much building work has to be done on Robben Island that we have not yet been able to give large scale attention to workshops. As soon as the work which is still being done has been completed it will be possible to give attention to the facilities in the workshops there.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) referred to emergency planning. I am very glad that he did so. In this connection I can hardly make promises, because the sub-department has already been transferred to the Minister of Defence. I nevertheless want to make a few general remarks. As regards emergency planning, we must not expect it has already been finalized at this stage. This is a new field we are entering. We had to conduct research first. We had to plan. Those steps have now been completed. The project is now coming into operation. We have now reached the stage where the system is coming into operation. It is precisely because we have reached this stage that we are accommodating local authorities to such an extent as far as fire brigade facilities are concerned. This year R460,000 will be spent to subsidize local authorities. These subsidies will vary from subsidies of 50 per cent to subsidies of 100 per cent so as to enable local authorities to streamline their fire brigade facilities for service in times of emergency. As far as purchases are concerned, I may just mention that in this connection the services of the South African Fire Brigade Institute will be employed in drawing up specifications. The Institute acts in conjunction with the C.S.I.R., which is also conducting research and is making certain suggestions. I do not believe that one can create better facilities for purchases. I do not want to make any promises. The hon. member spoke of older people whose services were still being employed. At this particular stage we do so as a result of the manpower shortage. As the hon. member knows, the new Act provides that the services of men in the Defence Force may be employed. I am thinking of training in particular.

The hon. member for Green Point said there had been dilly-dallying in regard to civil defence. That is not the case. This is a new field we have entered and we should rather go too slowly and do the right thing than go too quickly, do things precipitately, and subsequently possibly do the wrong thing. He referred to the question which the hon. member for Transkei had asked in regard to extradition treaties and to which, to his mind, I had not given a satisfactory reply. I am afraid that the question was framed in such a manner that it made things somewhat difficult for me. I am, however, prepared to tell the hon. member exactly what the present position is. At the moment there are only three extradition treaties which were directly entered into by South Africa with other countries. They were entered into with the U.S.A., Israel and the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The two latter countries—the Federation has, of course, become Rhodesia and Malawi signified their approval and new extradition treaties were entered into with them. A similar treaty exists with Italy. This gives us five countries with which we have such treaties. At present we are negotiating with Britain. These negotiations have progressed far. The same applies in the case of Germany. The white Commonwealth countries—Australia,New Zealand and Canada—as well as Ireland, have been approached with a view to entering into negotiations. In the case of Australia and New Zealand it is merely the possibility of negotiations that is enjoying the attention of the Governments concerned, whereas negotiations with Canada and Ireland have progressed to the stage where draft agreements can be forwarded to them for consideration. We are also negotiating with our neighbouring states, Lesotho and Botswana. They too have already shown their willingness.

The hon. member is right when he refers to the 1961 Act. The position is that our original treaties with various countries were entered into by Britain in terms of the British Extradition Act, 1870 and 1906. At that time South Africa was under Britain’s protection and those treaties were also made applicable to us. On becoming a Republic we accepted all rights and obligations under those treaties. We, South Africa, accepted them. It is not yet possible to say to what extent the other countries to which they were applicable have accepted them. We do know that Portugal accepted them. Thirty-nine other countries still have to indicate whether they are prepared to accept them. One will only get to know that when circumstances calling for these treaties arise. Everything is, of course, qualified by the fact that not a single country is prepared to include persons whom they regard as “political refugees” in their extradition treaties.

The hon. member then referred to the position of minors. He pleaded for more privileges for them. He referred to the case of the young man of 20 years and nine months who must get his father’s or mother’s consent to have an operation. I think the answer is to be found in the question whether or not the child is emancipated.

For a doctor it does not matter.

Whether he is emancipated or not?

Does that apply to an operation? How will the doctor know whether he is emancipated or not?

I should think so.

How will the doctor know?

He has to convince, the doctor. The doctor asks him his age and he tells him that he is 20 years and nine months. The doctor replies that his father’s consent is required, to which he replies, “But, doctor, for the last five years my father has not even known my whereabouts! I look after myself. I am sick and I want you to operate.” I am wholly convinced that in such a case it will be completely legal to operate. A doctor is sitting over there—will he tell me whether or not he will operate.

What happens if he dies? Is it culpable homicide?

I now come to the hon. member for Durban (North). I am very grateful for the suggestions made by the hon. member in regard to the planning of courts. The Department will most definitely bear the suggestions in mind. As far as the latest and newest buildings are concerned which the Department of Public Works is erecting for my Department, the plans are referred back to my Department for approval. I want to tell the hon. member that some of the latest buildings are truly well-appointed. I am nevertheless very grateful for his suggestions. As far as the Durban court is concerned—or rather, the Durban courts, for I think they are accommodated in seven buildings—I just want to say that I have every sympathy with the hon. member. I know the position there is not what is to be desired. I did my best this year to have Durban placed as high as possible on the priority list. In this regard our problem is that this is a project which will cost R5½ million. We cannot start on that project and then leave it quarter-way or half-way. Once we start that project we have to complete it. Unfortunately the allocation of funds was such this year that we could not give Durban priority. We are nevertheless fully aware of what is happening there.

The hon. member also asked whether we made sufficient use of private advocates. My reply is that we do make use of them. We do so to a large extent. I just want to quote the figures to indicate what we paid private advocates in the past three years. In 1964-’65 we paid an amount of R27,198 to outside advocates. The following year, i.e. 1965-’66, we paid R34,965, i.e., nearly R35,000.

Not in criminal cases.

No, in criminal cases.

Yes?

Oh, yes. This year—i.e., 1966-’67—we paid R54,321 to private advocates. Therefore it appears that we do make use of outside advocates and that we do so on a large scale.

Only one matter remains to be dealt with. The hon. member asked me what the latest position was in respect of my negotiations concerning the reservation of work for attorneys. I want to state very clearly what happened. Events took the following course. The attorneys made certain proposals to me to issue regulations in terms of the section mentioned by the hon. member whereby certain work, which they regarded to be their field, would be reserved to them alone to the exclusion of, inter alia, the banks, the accountants, trust companies, and quite a number of others. Because I realized that that would affect other people, I felt that I could not proceed blindly and in good faith I first consulted the banks. I have completed my negotiations with them and I shall tell the hon. member what has happened and how far I have gotten with them. I have already consulted the accountants too. I am on the point of consulting the trust companies. I have given the assurance to all the bodies and persons I have already consulted that if I issue regulations, or rather if I issue any regulations—because it is not sure that I am going to issue regulations —I will first issue them for general information, because there are more people than banks, accountants and trust companies who will be concerned in the proposed regulations. If I issue the regulations, people will also be given the opportunity to make representations to me.

As far as the banks themselves are concerned, a big deputation came to see me for an entire morning. The general managers of six banks, accompanied by their trust managers, came to see me. They were accompanied by a senior as well as a junior advocate. Altogether there were 14 of them. In addition they had an attorney. They put their case and they put their case very well. As a matter of fact, I told them so and they thanked me for my kindness. I was occupied with them for the entire morning. I also gave them the assurance and if I issued any regulations I would first give notice of such regulations so that they might make representations. But the matter did not remain at that. As far as I was concerned, I thought that we were through for the time being. But when I opened my eyes telegrams and letters were pouring into these Houses of Parliament. I telephoned them immediately and asked them what they were doing. I asked them, “Are you trying to embarrass me? It seems to me you people have instructed your various branches to prevail upon your good clients to send telegrams to Members of Parliament and the Minister before they know what the Minister is going to announce.” That is what it amounts to. They resented my saying to them that they had given instructions and denied it. I now want to read four letters to hon. members. One comes from a bank manager at Richmond in Natal. It reads as follows—

re: Your Will

We wish to draw your attention to the fact that the law societies are endeavouring to bring about legislation which would seriously curtail the rights of the individual to nominate whomsoever he pleases to undertake the liquidation of his estate on his death. Amongst those whom the law societies wish to see prohibited from undertaking this work, are the banks. Draft regulations under the Attorneys’, Notaries’ and Conveyancers’ Admission Act, which has been agreed upon by the law societies, are at present being considered by the Minister of Justice. If these become law, the banks will be prevented from accepting office as executor under your will. The bank has lodged its objections, but in your own interests we suggest you petition your member of Parliament or the Minister of Justice without delay by letter or telegram urging that the proposals of the law societies be rejected.

Yours faithfully,

Manager.

This is what was written by someone in Richmond, Natal. Now hon. members must listen to the strange letter written by a man in Warrenton, quite a different place. He does write in Afrikaans, though he is a Swanepoel, by the way.

That is a coincidence.

That is a strange coincidence.

Progress reported.