I move—

Sir, I am not surprised that the hon. the Deputy Minister is a bit tardy about moving the Third Reading of this Bill. After the discussion in the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage he is clearly reluctant to go on with this Bill. Nothing that has been said by the hon. the Deputy Minister or by hon. members on the Government side has made us change our mind in regard to this Bill. We are opposed to the Bill not because, as was said by the hon. member for Wonderboom, we cannot make up our minds as to whether the African should be taxed or not. We are prepared to have any group taxed if it is proved that the taxation is justified. Sir, we are opposed to the Bill because neither the Deputy Minister nor hon. members on the other side have enlightened us as to whether or not this taxation is in fact justified; whether it is fair in the circumstances or whether the system of collection which they propose is practical. Sir, the new principle in this Bill is that the Bantu will be dissociated from the other race groups as far as direct taxation is concerned. The question of taxation is a difficult one, and for that reason the Government appointed the Franzsen Commission to go into the question fully. Sir, the Franzsen Commission has reported but it reported on taxation as it affects the community as a whole, not just one group. Admittedly it is stated in the report that the Department of Bantu Administration advised the commission that the Department was considering the question of Bantu taxation, but the commission itself does not make any recommendations as far as taxation is concerned; it does not say whether the proposals now before the House were ever submitted to them. It does not deal with Bantu taxation at all. It only deals with taxation as applied to the community as a whole.

Sir, the Bantu pays more kinds of taxes than any other group. [Interjections.] That is so, and I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to contradict what I am going to say. The Bantu pays our income tax; he pays a special income tax of his own at an income level which is lower than that applicable to other groups; the Bantu, for instance, starts paying at an income level of R360. He has a fixed basic general tax which is paid by all males and which is commonly known as the poll tax or “kopbelasting”, and he pays a tribal levy for different purposes. He pays specially for his education, whereas other groups in the lower income brackets do not even pay for books. We heard yesterday from the hon. member for Kensington that he pays the salaries of 15 per cent of his teachers. The other groups are not called upon to do so. Sir, the latest budget proposals introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced a new principle in indirect taxation—the sales tax, as he calls it, or the purchase tax as we prefer to call it. That tax will have a greater effect on the lower income groups than it will have on the higher income groups because the people in the higher income groups are the people who receive relief in direct income tax. Sir, what does the African receive under this Bill? He is relieved of the obligation to pay the income tax paid by other groups, but in place of this, he will now have his own tax, and this tax has been increased over and above the tax that was introduced in 1958. On R360 the tax has been increased from 50 cents to R1.20; on an income of R480 the tax has been increased from R2 to R2.76; on an income of R600 the tax has been raised from R5. The Minister will argue that the Bantu is getting a reduction in his tax because the general tax— the poll tax of “kopbelasting”—has been reduced from R3.50 to R2.50, a reduction of R1. If he is in the lower income group he will receive a benefit of 30 cents if his income is R360. If his income is R480 he receives a reduction in tax of 24 cents per annum. But, Sir, it must be remembered that the basic general tax is only paid by males. The female African will receive no relief at all. She is the only person who will receive no tax relief from this Parliament this year. Everybody else receives some relief, but she will not. In fact, her tax will go up, because she does not pay the basic general tax payable by males.

As I pointed out yesterday in the Committee Stage, the African in the lower income group receives nothing from the Budget introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I referred yesterday to the fact that the Minister of Finance interjected to say that the Bantu would not pay tax on most commodities he buys, but that of course is quite wrong. The hon. member for Wonderboom suggested that the United Party should accept these proposals because he said they amounted to a reduction in tax for the Bantu. I am not interested in whether it amounts to a reduction of taxation in the higher income groups. We cannot equate the tax which they will pay in terms of the Schedule now before the House with the tax paid by any other group. We know that under the proposals now before this House, the African gets no rebate for family allowances, for his children; he is not allowed to deduct for medical expenses or for pension contributions or for insurance which he pays. It is impossible for us to say whether the scale on which he will now pay will actually be less than that paid by other groups. As far as the lower income group Bantu is concerned, we know that he will pay more, because he pays at a rate at which the other groups do not pay. The Minister must not tell me that the other groups pay personal tax. Certainly they pay personal tax, but in the Cape Province they only start paying at a salary rate of R600 per annum. In the other provinces, admittedly, they pay a personal tax, but the Bantu also pays a personal tax although it is not called that; it is called a general tax, which every African male pays, and it has the same effect as the personal tax.

The hon. member for Wonderboom also suggested that we should have accepted this Bill because the money collected will go towards the education of the Bantu; it will all be paid into the Bantu Education Fund. But that is no reason. We are glad to see that all this money is going towards the education of the Bantu, but the Bantu is already paying to-day where the other groups do not pay, as I pointed out earlier. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Algoa does not have to pay for the books of his children in the lower standards, as his domestic servant has to pay. He does not have to pay for 15 per cent of the teachers’ salaries in the white schools, as his domestic servant has to pay. [Interjections.] One of the reasons given for this Bill is that there is a new method of collecting the tax, that this tax will be collected by the P.A.Y.E. system. Our objection to the 1958 proposals on which this Bill is based was that we did not know then, and we do not know now, whether the Bantu can in fact afford to pay these taxes. One of the reasons why the tax was not collected may be because he cannot pay it. That is why we have asked, as we asked in 1958, for a general inquiry by a special commission into this question of the incidence of taxation on the Bantu, to discover what he can afford to pay. If we are going to tax him on a different basis from all the other groups, we must have a full inquiry into what he can afford to pay and how the taxation is going to work out, bearing in mind all the other taxes the Bantu pay.

The Minister pointed out, quite rightly, that there is no taxation on benefits in kind. Who are going to benefit by that? It will be in the main the Africans working on the farms and the domestic labour. They are the ones who will benefit because they get benefits in kind; they get their food and their clothes and in many cases they get accommodation. But the bulk of the Africans will not benefit from that. Those in the towns working in the factories and for the municipalities will not benefit from this concession which has been given to certain of the groups. We want to know how it is going to work out. The Minister said that one thing the African resents is that he is paying the tax and he sees that the man working next door to him does not pay. He hoped that this position would be resolved by this Bill. But the men that he referred to were his farm labourers. The general tax which they pay will not be collected by the employer and that still has to be paid in a lump sum.

It will not be deducted monthly from his pay and we will still have the same position where some of the Bantu will pay that general tax and others will not. Therefore you will still have resentment there. There should be a departmental inquiry which should go into that matter to see how the difficulty of collecting all these different kinds of tax from the Bantu can be resolved. We know too that the employers’ associations have approached the Minister because they have certain difficulties in regard to the collection of tax. We want to know what those difficulties are. The Minister has not told us. We want to know how they can be resolved. The hon. Minister has not told us that. All he has said is that he admits this is not the final solution. We can go on discussing this Bill, the different forms of taxation contained in this Bill as well as the different methods of collecting the taxes, but we shall not really know unless we can get evidence from the people directly concerned as to how it is going to affect the African and the employer who will be responsible for collecting the tax. That is why we ask for an inquiry. We proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed in this regard, but that has been turned by this House. However, the Government can still appoint a commission, like the Franzsen Commission, to go into this question. The hon. member for Wonderboom has said that two Select Committees have considered this question. Those committees did not consider this question; they did not consider the taxation of the Bantu. That was never before them. They considered other forms of taxation but not taxation of the Bantu. I do not know what the hon. member for Wonderboom is talking about. No commission has done so, and the Franzsen Commission did not do so. Therefore, we refuse to give our consent for the passing of this Bill until the Government has given us all the facts in connection with the taxation of the Bantu, how it will affect them, and the full impact of the taxation. Therefore, we shall vote against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have given my reasons for opposing this Bill in some considerable detail at the Second Reading and again during the Committee Stage on the principal clauses of this Bill. Therefore, I do not propose to make a lengthy speech at this stage. I naturally am going to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, because it is in exactly the same form as was presented to us in the Second Reading. No pleas for some amelioration have apparently softened the hon. the Minister’s heart during the Committee Stage, but he has, however, promised that he will see to it that this Bill is implemented in a humane fashion, or so I understood him to say at the Committee Stage. I sincerely hope that this is going to be the case, because as I see it the burden is going to fall very heavily indeed on people who are the least able to carry any additional burden. I pointed out during the discussion of the other stages of the Bill that already figures revealed that the majority of Africans, a big percentage of those in the urban areas and by far the majority in the rural areas, are presently living at a subsistence level. Even a very small amount added to the necessary expenditure of the Bantu who have very tightly stretched budgets, makes it an almost intolerable burden. The hon. Minister for Finance has done that in his Budget with the sales tax. This is going to fall very heavily indeed upon people in the lower-income groups, because many of the item which he has taxed fall into the list of necessities and not of luxury goods at all.

Furthermore, I must say that I disagree in principle anyway with the concept of special tax Bills for special racial groups. I accept the concept of special tax Bills for special racial groups. I accept the concept that every modern state accepts namely that each person shall be taxed according to his ability to pay. Whether a person be a European, an Indian, a Coloured or a Bantu. I think the same basic principle should hold good for all. Here the tax is levied upon the African person who is least able to afford it at a lower level than any other racial group. White people, Coloureds or Indians only commence paying tax well above the R1,000 per annum level. There, if they are married people, the rebate allowed immediately wipes out the tax, so that these groups pay at a much higher level. The African group will start paying, male and female, at R360 per annum. I can see the underlying theme of this Bill is the white man’s burden. This has been the old theme. Since time immemorial, that it is left to the white man to carry the burden of providing all the essential services for the Africans in this country. I want to point out that Africans contribute a great deal to this country, not only in the taxes which they already pay and which have been mentioned by the hon. member for Transkei, but also by virtue of their labour, which is not rewarded sufficiently by any means.

One forgets that when one complains about the services that are subsidized, for example the transport services, housing, expenditure on schools, and so on. They are essential services, I might say, which are subsidized, anyway, for the other income groups if they are unable to afford the services. One forgets the amount contributed to the development of this country in the form of low paid African labour. The white man’s burden is not nearly as heavy as one would believe if one listens to politicians going from platform to platform at election time. Instead of imposing special taxes on Africans, I would say, a better way of lifting the so-called “burden” off the shoulders of the white man would be to make the African a more productive person, to enable him to earn a proper taxable income at the same level of taxable income levied on other racial groups. In other words, we should remove the restrictions on the productivity of Africans and enable them to obtain the necessary training, which will enable them to be more productive members of society, earn a higher income and thereby make a bigger tax contribution to the coffers of the State. So, as I say, I am against the basic principle of separate taxes. I am against the built-in injustice in this Bill of levying taxes on people least able to afford to pay those taxes. I shall therefore oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind there is not really a very great difference between the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton and that of the United Party, as revealed here by the hon. member for Transkei.

So what?

“So what?” is the question from that side. They are of course kindred spirits and have precisely the same feelings about this matter. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton stated quite specifically that she was opposed to any taxation based on racial grounds. She wants one single tax on the same scale for all race groups. In passing the hon. member for Transkei made the remark that they were not altogether opposed to a group tax. But then he raised objections and asked whether it was practical to apply such a tax. Then he, like the hon. member for Houghton, mentioned all the problems the lower-income group which are now being roped in by this tax would have to face.

I now want to come to the first question. In doing so I shall also deal with the hon. member for Houghton. He asked whether the system of collection in terms of this Bill was a practical one. My reply to that is an unequivocal “yes”. There is no other practical system. The system as proposed by the hon. member for Houghton, as well as by the hon. member for Transkei and some of his colleagues in the Second-Reading debate is an absolutely impossible system to apply to the Bantu. Surely hon. members must also know that. The hon. member asked me why we could not follow the same system. Sir, here I have the tables which have been drawn up. This one is for the Orange Free State. It deals with the tax which has to be deducted with effect from 1st July, 1969; that of the other provinces does not differ much from it. But let us just see what this table implies for a small number of white employee taxpayers. We can accept that there will be the same number of employers. But if we compare the white employees with the Bantu employees the hon. member will have an idea of what would then be expected from the employer. In the first instance these tables provide that the married state of the person must be indicated; in other words, whether he is married or unmarried, because married and unmarried persons are taxed according to two different scales. Of course, the hon. member for Transkei sees his way clear to our asking the employers of all the Bantu in South Africa to inquire which Bantu are married and which are unmarried. Does the hon. member for Houghton want this to be done? The hon. member for the Transkei was for a long time, and is still perhaps, an attorney in a Bantu area. Is he not aware that these are people who do not have their marriages registered? They can therefore come and tell him that they only have one wife, or no wife at all, whereas they actually have four or five. In addition there are separate tables here for married women. But I have not yet finished dealing with the marital state. The second table here is for married women. What I said a moment ago about men applies here as well. If she is aware that there is a scale, something which the hon. member also advocated, for married women, she will as sure as fate be a widow or a married woman, even if she has never had a man in her life. A further requirement which is being laid down here is “nonresident”. If one compares this table for the Free State, which applies to you as well, Mr. Speaker, with that of the Transvaal, the Cape, Natal and South-West Africa, you will see that they also differ. Then you expect the employer, in addition to that, to determine from which Province a specific Bantu person originated? Is he, for example, from the Transkei, or is he a Venda from the Northern Transvaal. That will also have to be determined. In addition provision is being made here for monthly, weekly, daily and annual tables. These will also have to be included.

That is why we have asked for an inquiry.

The same applies to the various other groups I have mentioned here. When we come to the tables themselves there are the different scales for the different income groups. There is, for example, the monthly scale with the annual equivalent opposite. A daily and weekly scale will also have to be drawn up. Then there is a column here for married and unmarried and married with one to nine children. If the Bantu with more than one wife has to be subject to all these rebates, then I wonder how many columns we shall need for that.

Sir, I maintain that it is unpractical to come forward with a different scheme for the collection of Bantu tax, a different scheme from the one being proposed here.

How can you say that without the necessary inquiry?

I have already completed an inquiry. Unless, of course, one adopts the attitude that they should pay no other tax except income tax. Hon. members are aware of the fact that, together with the Provincial tax, these taxes yielded at the most about R200,000 per year. Of course hon. members want it like this, because then the R11 million is done for. That is actually what they are advocating. No, Sir. I maintain that this proposal for a light levy on an income exceeding R360, plus the basic tax of R2.50, is the best way. More than that, it is a tried system.

On what basis did you work it out?

I maintain that this is a tried way. It is a system which has been in operation since 1925, and which was amended in 1958. The only difference is that previously there was no pay as you earn system. I said during the Second Reading that there were tax evasions and that those defaulters were now going to be brought to book.

The hon. member had a lot to say here again about the many different kind of taxes to which the Bantu are subject. Inter alia he mentioned income tax, but surely the hon. member knows that our income tax and personal tax can …

But I did say that, did I not?

Yes, eventually you did say it, but only after you had added up the various kinds of taxes in order to get a high total. But in reality the Bantu are in future only going to pay two kinds of tax, i.e. the determined amount and income tax according to a determined scale. Then he must still see to it that he pays his tribal taxes, but that has been the case all these years. We are merely recognizing it in this legislation.

But it is nevertheless another form of taxation, not so?

The hon. member is trying to make out a case that the Bantu are paying more kinds of tax in comparison with the Whites. That is so. The Whites pay provincial personal tax, provincial income tax and income tax. In the Cape there is, apart from that, a divisional council tax. Then there are municipal rates as well. The divisional council tax and municipal rates paid by the Whites are, after all, nothing else but the tribal tax paid by the Bantu. The hon. member also mentioned figures which the hon. member for Kensington mentioned yesterday afternoon, in regard to those people who were sending their children to private schools. But among the Whites there are also people who are not satisfied with the provincial schools, and who are consequently also sending their children to private schools.

In addition the hon. member alleged that taxes were being increased, particularly the tax for women. Let us dwell for a moment on the first category, i.e. those with an income of between R360 and R480. The figure I am going to furnish is not an imposing figure, but it is nevertheless a fact that they will in future pay 80 cents less.

How do you work that out?

I worked it out according to the scale. Oh, for heaven’s sake! If one is not capable of working out a sum according to this scale, then I do not think even a Select Committee will save him. I worked it out like this: A Bantu woman previously paid tax to the value of R2; now she will pay R1.20. Now, can the hon. member subtract R1.20 from R2? If he did that, he would find that what was left was only 80 cents.

They previously paid 60 cents.

Order!

It seems to me one can get nothing into the head of that hon. member.

I am beginning to despair myself. It is only when you reach the group R1,740 to R3,000 that one finds that the Bantu women are paying an additional 72 cents, but then she would have had to pay income tax in any case. I do not know whether the hon. member went into all these aspects. But it seems to me I can go on explaining these tables till Doomsday. Hon. members simply do not want to accept these things like this. But now we come to another group—I do not know whether this is the group for whom the hon. member pleaded— who earned in excess of R20,100 per annum. There the amount which they are in future going to pay in tax is considerably higher than it would have been according to the scales of the additional tax. But then that person was also liable to income tax and provincial income tax. Then that person was on the same basis which even now compares very favourably with that of the Whites. Then that person was on the same basis as the Whites, for then the amount which he previously paid by way of an additional tax was deducted from that amount. I do not know whether I can explain these matters more clearly. No, the hon. member is simply trying to interpret it in this way. My interpretation and his interpretation of this Act will probably have to differ to the end. My interpretation is that alleviation had in fact been introduced as a result of these scales. The hon. member raised the matter because we are not taking into account compensation received by way of natura. It is in fact the lower income groups who are benefitted by that. It is in fact the lower income groups who also receive the benefit of any livestock or products which they possess and which has not yet been converted into currency. They will be benefitted by this. Nor is this being done because we want a simplified system of tax collection, so that we can have a practical and not an unpractical system such as the one the hon. member advocates. I do not think there is anything else the hon. member for Transkei mentioned in regard to which I need concern myself any further. The hon. member for Wonderboom was so right when he said that they were merely hiding behind this matter of a Select Committee because they did not want to adopt an attitude in regard to this matter of whether the Bantu should be taxed or not. They can go and state that they are not opposed to the Bantu having to pay his share of the tax, but that they are simply opposed to the fact that it has not been referred to a Select Committee and because there has not therefore been an investigation. Then I would rather say to the hon. member for Transkei, who spoke on behalf of the United Party, that he should rather follow the course adopted by the hon. member for Houghton and should state that he is not in favour of the Bantu being taxed as a group.

There are just a few ideas which I want to exchange with the hon. member for Houghton. She discussed the wage scales and the salaries of the Bantu which were so low here. If there is anybody whose conscience is clear, it is I, because whenever I addressed farmers at the various agricultural unions, or at other places, I have always stated that it is just that when anybody renders services, he must be properly compensated for those services. Also when I have had other opportunities to do so, I have said the same thing to industrialists and others. That is my premise. I would probably be the last person who would object to higher wages and salary scales being paid to Bantu and also to others. But I should like to know how the hon. member for Houghton can expect us to supplement the incomes of these people by not levying any taxes. To my mind that is not a logical argument. Any fiscal tax is levied on the earnings of persons. We have in this case simplified it, so that it can be paid more easily, even by those who receive a meagre salary of R30 per month. A small contribution of 10 cents per month is now being made by those who earn from R30 to R40 per month. One can almost call it a symbolical amount. Of course the taxation scales for amounts greater than this, only go up by a few cents. No, it is as impossible for me to reconcile myself to the hon. member’s standpoint as it is for me to reconcile myself to the standpoint of the hon. member for Transkei, who spoke on behalf of the United Party, when a request is made for one tax scale for all the inhabitants of South Africa, or that the amount which the Bantu are still able to contribute should be relinquished, because they are on a low subsistence level, and that this amount should consequently be collected from the rest of the taxpayers in this country. I am not in favour of that.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—96: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Otto. J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall. M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman. H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Risser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—33: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw. W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to and the Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half hour? This is the first Justice and Prisons Vote that we have had which has been properly divorced from the Police Vote. You will recall, Sir, that when the hon. the Prime Minister became Prime Minister he retained the portfolio of Police and it was not attached later to the portfolios of Justice and Prisons, which we thought was a very good thing. This is the first time that this has in fact happened. The report of the Department of Justice is up to date; we have the 1968 report, but unfortunately so far as the Department of Prisons is concerned, the last report we have is the three-yearly report from 1963 to 1966. If I may say so, the absence of an up-to-date report makes the task which it is the function of this Committee to fulfil a very difficult one, namely to examine the administration of the department and to determine how much money should be granted for the administration of the department. We have no facts and statistics upon which to judge what the situation is and how much money is in fact required, and that is the function of this Committee. After all, we are only voting money for the ensuing year, and all I have been able to get is the report from 1963 to 1966. This is most unfurtunate and it does not help the processes of our democratic machinery if we are not in a position as members of this House to know what the facts are and what the statistics for the last year at least are in this regard. I hope this is a matter which will be remedied and that we will have an annual report every year with all the facts and statistics necessary for us as members of Parliament to examine and discuss properly the Votes and the moneys to be appropriated.

The Secretary for Justice in his 1968 report has raised many important matters, some of which will be dealt with by others. I want to touch only on a few. An important question he raises is as to what the future is of Latin in so far as the legal profession is concerned. And he raises the question which one finds in every report so far, perhaps the most important question of all, namely the difficulty in regard to staff in the service. In the Department of Justice, if I may say so, perhaps the question of the shortage of staff is more important than it is in any other branch of our administration. One has the figures relating to the vacancies, and the vacancies in the Department of Justice would be alarming if they occurred in any other Department, but when we find that there are 63 vacancies on the administrative side, 179 persons being employed on a temporary basis, and 31 vacancies for women assistants and 133 being employed temporarily, the position becomes even worse. This is highlighted when one comes to page 6 of the report, where the Secretary for Justice discusses the remuneration of the professional division and says—

And then he says—

I wonder whether hon. members ever think of what happens when they pass laws in this House. These laws have to be applied, and they have to be applied by legal, judicially trained persons. The situation that exists is a lamentable one if one has regard to the fact that in the establishment of magistrates and assistant magistrates there are 60 vacancies and that there are 57 persons acting in a temporary capacity. This is not good enough and it is indeed unnecessary. It comes to the simple fact that you have to pay them more; you have to pay them a salary commensurate with their work. The argument that is put forward is that the private sector is taking them away. It is no good saying that you cannot compete with the private sector. There is no question of competition when it comes to magistrates. The only competition is for their talents, and their talent is needed in this particular department. If we are not able to man our courts with properly qualified people, then the whole administration of justice breaks down, and in the result the whole of the running of the State breaks down. The gap that exists in this regard, the field in which people are being taken from the service, is obviously the field between those who have just started and those who are very senior, and this is the field of our future in this department. What we are paying our magistrates is quite ludicrous when you consider their responsibility. It is no good saying the Public Service Commission must do this. The Magistrates cannot be equated with anyone else in the Public Service. They are fulfilling a job of judicial officers and they just do not compare with anyone else. The responsibility that rests on their shoulders is perhaps the greatest responsibility that can rest on the shoulders of any single member of the ordinary Public Service. We start them off at R3,000, increasing by R120 a year to R3,600, and then increasing by R150 a year to R4,200 per annum, and we expect them to be qualified. The Secretary for Justice has indicated in his report that they are quite properly doing all they can to provide further legal education to allow them to become more qualified. But while that is the salary offered to them, is it surprising that the department cannot hold these people and that they are leaving in that middle and most important field? It is not surprising at all and I hope the hon. the Minister will take this up. It is no good saying that it is in the hands of the Public Service Commission. He has got to see to it that these people are paid in accordance with their status, and their status is that they are the Government. The magistrate in a country district is everything; he represents every single Government Department. He is the king. Furthermore Magistrates are the only members of The Public Service who are not, in the performance of their duties, subject to the direction of the Minister or the Secretary. I hone this is going to be dealt with by the hon. the Minister.

I know there are difficulties in providing qualified people. In all the professions we find the same problem, but I wonder whether the Minister could not give attention to the thought that he might employ on a temporary, Dart-time basis, practitioners from the Bar and the Side Bar to sit as magistrates in the civil division of the magistrate’s court. He might even be able to extend it to the criminal courts.

At what fee?

That is something to be worked out. I am talking about the principle of the thing. You have in Great Britain, for example, a system of Recorders, where you have people of ten years’ standing, who usually are silks, and who appear for two or three days a month as judges. They take the Recorder Sessions in various parts of the country. They relieve the county court judges and the Supreme Court judges of a great deal of pressure, and they fulfil a magnificent function, but they do that for just two or three days a month. That system, I believe, could be applied in this country where we need desperately to have qualified people with experience in court. I hope the Minister will give consideration to this. I think he will find that the legal profession will be quite prepared to undertake this task and to partake in the administration of justice. This might be particularly useful in the civil division of the magistrate’s court, where the practitioners, attorneys and advocates have experience of appearing in the civil courts, which would give them inestimable experience when they sit on the Bench. The members of the Department, by and large, have experience at the Bar only in criminal matters, whereas the practitioners have this experience in civil matters. I hope the hon. the Minister will give this his attention. We offer this as a suggestion which will help to alleviate this difficult situation.

Another matter which I should like to raise is the question which arose as a result of this unfortunate incident in which the three Bantu prisoners suffocated. [Interjection.] It is no good the hon. member making a noise when I am dealing with this. This is something we have to face up to.

We have discussed it already.

I am discussing a different aspect of it if the hon. member would just listen. There are so many aspects and if he did listen he would perhaps have understood what point I wanted to raise. One of the things which arose in this case before the Bantu Commissioner, was that he said—this is not what I am saying, but this is his finding— when these people came eventually before the Bantu Commissioner’s court:

These are the remarks of a judicial officer and he found it necessary to say what he said. Seeing that this is a matter which concerns the hon. the Minister of Justice, as well as the Minister of Bantu Administration, what I want to suggest is that we are dealing here with a system of justice. We find people arrested for technical offences and they are technical offences in many respects; they may or may not be a necessary part of Government but that is not the point we want to discuss here. This system allows them to be detained from between six and eight weeks awaiting trial, because as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said the other day in reply to a question, there was a shortage of judicial officers. That being so, these are situations which must be dealt with. Surely this is quite appalling. If a person is charged with murder in this country, he is brought to trial within three to five months, but if you are arrested for a technical offence, you can be kept there for six to eight weeks because of the shortage of judicial officers. This is not the only aspect I want to deal with. I believe that this breeds a disrespect for the law and that is why I raise it under this Vote. It breeds a disrespect for the authority of the State, because these people after having been arrested are introduced to gaol and to criminals for the first time and eventually it produces a loss of respect for the law. If you can go out forgetting your pass and then be kept there awaiting trial for six weeks and put in gaol, you cannot maintain a respect for that part of the law, those sanctions of the law which exist. It does not induce this in children when they see their parents, and other adults, arrested and gaoled for these sort of offences. It is the police’s job to uphold the law; their job is not to make it, but it is the hon. the Minister of Justice’s job, I believe, to ensure that the administration of justice comes up to these high standards which we expect and have in this country. I do not believe that this helps very much. One of the remarks made by the Judge in that case was that the prisons in respect of these people were so far away, some 28 miles from the court. The hon. the Minister has not spoken on this, and I think we should like to hear what he has to say as to why it is not possible to have courts nearer gaols. If it is not possible for the gaols to be nearer to the courts, why is it not possible to have the courts nearer to the gaols? Is it not possible in cases like this to have some form of night court like they have in the United States of America. There, if someone is brought up on an offence which is a technical offence, he can be dealt with there and then; can some system like this not be arranged for pass offences? Otherwise the situation that we have makes one somewhat ashamed of our system of justice. I know this is not in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Justice altogether, because it is a matter for the Department of Bantu Administration, but it is with the administration of justice that we are concerned and with which the hon. the Minister is concerned. The training of judicial officers is the concern of the Department of Justice.

Before I leave the Justice Vote, it appears to me that the time may well have arrived for the hon. the Minister and his Department to institute an inquiry into the whole process of prosecutions and the administration of the Immorality Act. I specially refer to that part of the Act which has had so much publicity lately, namely that dealing with relations between Black and White. In 1962 Die Burger said that the Act as it was at that stage, which was 12 years after the Act had been passed, had produced unforeseen by-products which do not do honour to our public image and South Africa’s name.

Order! Does that not fall under the Department of Police?

No, Sir, this is …

The administration falls under the Police.

No, Sir, this is a matter which falls under the Justice Vote. The Act falls under the hon. the Minister, and what I am asking …

All Acts fall under the Minister, but I am referring to the administration.

What I want to suggest to the hon. Minister is what we suggested in 1962, and that is whether the time has not come for an inquiry to be instituted by his Department into the working of this Act.

Which Act are you referring to?

I am referring to the Immorality Act and those aspects I have mentioned which deal with relations between White and Black. We felt that in 1962 and I think what Die Burger said in 1962 is perhaps more valid now. These recent cases do not help us as a country and it has certainly not helped our image overseas when a married couple is prosecuted.

They asked for it.

It does not concern us what they asked for; the fact of the matter is that they were prosecuted and this did not help us. This is what I was saying and this is being done by the hon. the Minister’s Department. He is in charge of the prosecutions. There have been various other matters. What held in 1962, I believe, is more valid now. This matter should be inquired into and it should be determined whether this is not in fact doing our country more harm than it is doing good. I think it needs such an inquiry, and I think that what Die Burger said in 1962 is even more true to-day, 19 years after this Act was passed. There are these unforeseen by-products. I think we should face up to the question and examine it. We must not get emotional about it, but we should examine it to see what has happened and what can in fact be done about it.

Now I want to deal with the portfolio of Prisons. As I have indicated it is difficult to perform one’s duty here in examining this because we do not have the information, the statistics or the report. Certain aspects will be dealt with by other hon. members who have visited these gaols and who have concerned themselves with the administration of the Department. I was going to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not at this stage consider the reintroduction of the system which existed under the 1911 Act and which was abolished by the consolidating Act of 1959, that is of a compulsory statutory visit to gaols by magistrates. If one speaks to magistrates who have …

You have just complained about the shortage of staff and now you want to place a duty such as that to the magistrates?

I gave the hon. the Deputy Minister and this Committee some idea as to how to relieve it. In the first place you have to pay them properly according to their status, and in the second place you can employ members of the profession to help relieve it. Those are very constructive suggestions in this regard. This is an aspect which is important, and I say this because I believe that a lot of the difficulties we have had and a lot of the bad publicity which has attended the Department of Prisons could well have been avoided had there been an independent inquiry by a judicial officer who visited gaols regularly and who heard the complaints of the prisoners. There should have been these independent inquiries, apart from the prison service. Let me say immediately that I cast no aspersions on the senior members of the prison service. My experience of them is that they are first class people who are doing a first-class job. I cast no aspersions on them at all. But I do not think I can put it as well as it was put at the time when this legislation came before the House. We complained on this side about the removal of this provision. The late Dr. Douglas Smit in fact moved an amendment—

Now, Sir, this was not accepted. But I think the motivation of this amendment was put extremely well in column 1,944 of Hansard, 5th March, 1959.

Order! Is the hon. member not criticizing an existing Act?

No, Sir, I am suggesting an improvement to it.

It is criticism of an existing Act.

No, Sir, I am pleading for this system to be further improved in the interests of South Africa’s prisons. As I said, I should like to read out the reason for the amendment, because I could not articulate it better. It reads as follows:

That is for compulsory visits of magistrates to hear the prisoner’s complaints—

Col. 6782:

Line 46: For “Durban (Point’s)”, read “Durban North’s.

interest that there was no abuse taking place in an institution in which people are under compulsory detention and compulsory punishment. What happens in a prison is in the nature of things hidden from public view, and in the public interest it is necessary that there should be periodical visits to an institution of that nature by an impartial and independent observer. It is equally important that some impartial and independent observer should visit an institution of this nature periodically in order to receive complaints. When the Minister indicates that his Department has its own inspectors, he is rather missing the point, because it is the impartiality and the independence of the visiting magistrate on which the emphasis must be placed. The magistrate has a mind which is trained to be impartial and to sift the corn from the chaff when listening to complaints. His impartiality and independence also enables the prisoner to make his complaints more freely and with greater confidence.

And further on:

Sir, I believe this would serve the interests of the Prisons Department itself. I believe it would serve the interests of our country. I believe that much of the unfortunate publicity which has been given in various respects, could have been avoided, because the advent of those complaints would have become unnecessary.

I have one minute left before I sit down. I should like to add something which I forgot to add in relation to the magistrates. We have pleaded for this before. The chief magistrates of our country, especially in the larger centres are invited to, and attend, as senior representatives of the Government all the various functions given by diplomats, other Departments, large organizations and so on. Surely, we expect our senior representatives in these places to reciprocate that entertainment. They do not have official residences in the larger urban areas. Surely, the time has come, and we can afford to give them an entertainment allowance as well, so as to enable them properly to reciprocate this entertainment in accordance with their status, which is after all that of a representative of the State.

I hope that the suggestions I have made will meet with some approval from the hon. the Minister. I hope that he will indicate to us what he is prepared to do to alleviate the impossible situation that we are going to be faced with in five years’ time in the magisterial division if, firstly, they are not paid a lot more and, secondly, the inducements are not made quite different from the inducements that any other public servant may get.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to a reasonably positive contribution from my esteemed friend on the opposite side. I should like to make some comment on most of the matters he touched upon. He stated that it was essential that the salary of magistrates be increased so that we did not have to lose so many of our staff from the Department of Justice. I was amazed to hear that in actual fact he mentioned only the salaries of the very lowest magistrate’s posts. He forgot to mention that there is in fact a post to which a salary as high as R8,400 per year is attached. There are six posts at the moment which range from R7,500 to R8,100. There are 57 posts which range from R5,100 to R6,600. In reality these are good salaries. I do not want to assert here that the remuneration received by magistrates is adequate. I am prepared to concede that the remuneration of the entire Public Service will never be fully adequate in comparison with the work these officials are doing for us. But I do want to say that this Government, and particularly this Department, are not unsympathetically disposed towards magistrates and their salaries. I just want to furnish examples, stretching over a few years, to show how sympathetic this Department has been towards magistrates. On 1st January, 1961, there was an increase. On 1st March, 1964 there was an increase. On 1st January. 1966, there was an increase. Hon. members will recall that the Minister of the Interior announced recently that there would be a further increase. I do not know whether my learned friend remembers this. I take it that he does. I do not want to accuse him of making political propaganda. But I do want to inform him and the officials that in the next few months. I think, there will quite probably be a considerable increase for them. But then they must please not think that it came about as a result of the hon. member for Durban (Point’s) plea in the House today. That principle has been accepted for a long time, and the Minister of the Interior has already approved those salary increases.

Will they be enough?

Now the hon. member is asking whether they will be enough. It is easy for an Opposition member to ask a thing like that. After all, it will never be enough for the Opposition, because they do not have to pay. The Opposition can, in fact, ask for as much as they like, for they are out of the Government. They would like to take over the Government. They can make as many promises as they like. Mr. Chairman, there is no possibility of their ever being called to account.

One of the other points raised by the hon. member was the inspection of prisons. He advocated that the old system be re-introduced, namely that magistrates should inspect the prisons. I just want to inform the hon. member that I do not know whether he has looked up the regulations of the Department of Prisons. The position is that according to Regulation 104, a Judge or a magistrate is entitled to visit a prison at any time and hold inspections there. Therefore, the matter in regard to which the hon. member for Durban (North) was making a plea is already contained in a regulation. The only difference is that prior to 1959 a magistrate was obliged to visit those prisons. To-day a magistrate or a Judge can at any time go there when requested to do so, so that if my hon. friend, for example, now wants to lay a charge with a magistrate in regard to certain prisons, that magistrate is fully entitled, in terms of Regulation 104, to go in there. I therefore do not know what the hon. member wants. After 1959, in terms of section 61 of Act No. 8 of 1959, the Prisons Act, the position is that prisons are classified into regions. The commanding officers of those regions undertakes a regular inspection of the prisons, and listens to the grievances of prisoners. Apart from that there is an inspectorate which goes into and ascertains all the conditions which prevail in prisons. These are high officers of the Department of Prisons, and people who know the conditions of prisons and know precisely what is going on there. If any complaints are made those complaints are investigated according to prescription, and the complaints are dealt with by the Commissioner of Prisons. After all, one cannot expect one Department to be obliged to hold inspections in another Department. How would the Department of Justice like it if one of the officers of the Department of Prisons had to come to the Department of Justice to undertake an inspection for a merit assessment? This is simply not done. Since the Department of Prisons became a separate Department, it is only right that those people do their own inspection work. They are doing so, but over and above that, as I have already said, the magistrate and the Judge have in terms of Regulation 104 the right to enter prisons at any time.

One of the other points my hon. friend mentioned was this unfortunate incident which we are apparently not going to be allowed to forget. I shall simply call it the Jeppe incident where prisoners were in a van. The hon. member suggested that the courts be brought nearer to the prisons. That criticism did exist and has been dealt with here. The hon. the Minister of Police has already dealt fully with this matter here and explained to us precisely what his Department had done about it. I must say that as far as I personally am concerned, he satisfied me completely that it was by no means the fault, as such of his Department. I want to concede that where a prison is very far from a trial court, we should bring it much closer to the court. But I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Justice that there is a section in our Code which permits a court to be changed from one district to another according to circumstances. In other words, if there are 100 prisoners in prison, who are being detained for passbook offences in the Benoni district, and the offences were committed in the Jeppe district, then it can be permitted, by way of an administrative ruling, that the Benoni magistrate should hear those people. The same thing can happen in regard to the Bantu courts, and I want to suggest that in future we must consider allowing something like this to take place.

I may just say that the suggestion the hon. member made in regard to private practitioners who should act as magistrates will not meet with approval from the magistrates. I think that the magistrates will be quite right in not liking this idea. These are people who have been working in the Department for 20 or 30 years already before they were appointed as magistrates, and these are people who would not like private practitioners to act as magistrates as well. The hon. member referred to the Recorder system in England. I was with the hon. member in that specific court and we saw and heard how this worked. The Recorders in England are in reality old practitioners who are doing the work for nothing.

That was not a Recorder, but a magistrate.

Yes, I know, but those persons are old practitioners who are doing the work free of charge. Over and above the fact that our magistrates will quite probably object to such a system, I should like to see the private practitioner in South Africa who can spare the time, under our present circumstances and set-up to sit in a magistrates court three or four days per month and act as magistrate. We will simply be unable to find people like that. Even now we are not finding enough people to give legal assistance, and how will we now be able to afford free magistrates.

The hon. member also spoke about the Immorality Act and asked that a commission of inquiry be introduced to ascertain whether we should retain the Immorality Act or not. I wonder whether the hon. member ever went into the origin of this Immorality Act. The Immorality Act was on the Statute Book of the old Transvaal since 1903. Section 19 (1) and (2) of Ordinance 46 of 1903, for the first time, forbade sexual intercourse between Whites and non-Whites. And who published this ordinance? It was not the Afrikaans people who did so, it was the then Lieutenant-General of the Transvaal who, when the Republic was under the occupation of the Milner regime, introduced that Act. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of burdening the House this afternoon with certain juristic aspects which have a specific bearing on the administration of the Department of Justice, but I should very much like to raise a matter here because I am convinced that it could be of great value to our entire country and also for this Committee. This matter is in connection with prisons, with specific reference to the prison institution at Leeukop. It really gives me both great and real pleasure to make a few positive references here to the credit of our hon. Minister, the head of his Department and his entire staff for what is being accomplished in South Africa to-day, in a positive way, in the interests of our prisons. It gives me even more pleasure because one is dealing here, from the hon. Minister down to the very ordinary warder, with a group of people who are, without loud acclamation or any ostentation, doing very good work on the quiet. One gets the impression that they attach great esteem and worthiness to the ideal that to perform a truly great service one should do it in a modest way. In my attempt to compliment the Minister and his Department, it is necessary for me to call in a few witnesses, particularly persons who owing to their knowledge and their profession can to-day be accepted as authorities in this country and abroad.

In the first instance I want to refer to a statement by Mr. Clifford Hynning, a very eminent American jurist who had the following to say according to the Cape Times of 15th February of this year—

At the same time this statement was made by the chief editor of the International Lawyer, a publication of the American Law Association. It is logical to accept that one is dealing here with a person who knows what he is talking about. According to the Hoofstadnuus of 20th March. 1969, Professor G. Duisterwinkel, a jurist from the Imperial University of Leyden, Holland, alleges the following (translation)—

He is of the opinion that a place such as the Leeukop prison is so modern and so well adjusted to modern rehabilitation principles that it will compare favourably with the very best in Holland. The professor went on to say the following—

There are other testimonials from responsible learned men and professional men and women from other countries. John H. Maxwell, a news editor in the United Kingdom, had the following to say on 24th September, 1968, in regard to Leeukop—

Please note, Sir, here it is not the M.P. for Randburg or a Nationalist speaking. It is one of them who is saying, “The pity is that the rest of the world cannot see it”. Mr. W. T. Arthur, member of the House of Representatives of New South Wales, Australia, had the following to say on 21st January, 1969—

Sir Richard and Lady Wild, chief justice of New Zealand, had the following to say on 22nd January, 1969—

Mr. S. S. Marquardt, news editor from Arizona—-

In view of this I maintain it is tragic to have to listen to the statements of the hon. member for Houghton, while people who are not citizens of our country, learned men and scientists from overseas countries, have these things to say about the institutions which they were able to visit in South Africa. I think it speaks volumes for the irresponsibility and hostile intent on the part of citizens of our country who are unable to say the same. Can you understand why I want to pay these people, the prisons authorities, the compliment that they deserve from our country? Who in this House can lay claim to being an upright person and does not want to join with me in doing this? The men and women who earned these testimonials for our fatherland are not the wearers of our gold and green on the sportfields, but people who have distinguished themselves on the intellectual front and who have as such earned honorary colours, equal to the gold and green of our sportfields. These people lead an isolated life. They enjoy little of the ordinary entertainment and social life; they do not have the recreational and sporting facilities which others have. They have to supply their own needs in that respect. But you can visit Leeukop and have a look at the fine sportfields and sport associations there. It will cause many to feel jealous, and I include myself, because it is with pleasure that I participate in sporting activities at Leeukop owing to the quality and the pleasure it gives me, and owing to the fine spirit of the employees and officials of that institution. The motto of these people is apparently, “Productive and Positive”. Apparently these are the two key words of these men and women who have their own sporting associations, such as tennis, bowls, badminton, jukskei, rugby, etc. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the second half hour. Since the hon. member for Randburg and the hon. member for Prinshof have both devoted their speeches to prisons, I just want to say a few words about that subject and then come back to it later after I have dealt with certain matters I wish to raise under the Justice Vote. I am sure the hon. member for Randburg will be surprised to hear me say that I agree with him that I eeukop is a model gaol, and that there have been great improvements in prisons generally during the last couple of years. About that there is no doubt—there have been improvements. I think the hon. the Minister himself quoted my remarks about Robben Island in an endeavour to refute statements made overseas. As far as Robben Island is concerned, I still think that the prisoners should be given more constructive work, more constructive than the type of work they are doing or, at least, were doing the last time I was there, work like quarry work and collecting seaweed. I think much more constructive work could be given to those prisoners. If the hon. member for Randburg had accompanied me on a visit to the new section of the Pretoria local prison, where so-called white political prisoners are kept, he would have been even more lyrical in his praise. As I stated in a Press statement after my visit there, there is no doubt that that is an excellent new section and that the white political prisoners being held there, are held under the most favourable physical conditions. I am extremely pleased that that is so. As far as other gaols are concerned, gaols which nobody ever mentions—prisons like the Fort, Cinderella and other older gaols—I think the Department of Prisons will agree with me that still a great deal needs to be done about conditions there. They are overcrowded. The blame for that cannot entirely be laid at the feet of the hon. the Minister. It can largely be ascribed to the system which causes so many thousands upon thousands of short-term prisoners coming into the gaols. We have a very high daily prison population in South Africa—as a matter of fact, near 74,000, or twice the figures in absolute numbers in Britain with a population of 55 million people. As I say, a large percentage of this prison population is short-term prisoners, people who go to gaol for pass offences and other documentary offences. These clutter up the gaols, make it impossible to manage them properly and render conditions in those gaols pretty bad. I am talking now of these gaols particularly on the East Rand, of which I know a little.

As far as the hon. member for Prinshof is concerned, I should like to say that the system of having prison visitors is an excellent one. But he should not try to restrict inspections to members of the Prisons Department only, or to magistrates and judges, who in any case seldom have the time to visit gaols. England too has a system of prison visiting. There, reputable citizens from all walks of life are organized into prison-visiting committees. They can go any time they like to any prison under their jurisdiction. This is an excellent thing from two points of view. Firstly, it ensures that good conditions are maintained at these gaols, because there is nothing like the cold eye of the public gaze upon a prison to improve conditions inside such institutions and to prevent abuses. Secondly, it does a great deal to make the prisoner, who after all is only meant to be cut off from society for the period that he has been sent to gaol, feel that he has not completely lost contact with society. Therefore, it makes his rehabilitation so much easier. This is why in other countries there is a far more liberal—I use the word with a small “1”, in the non-swear word context—interpretation of prison rules. Having said that. I believe it or not, do not want to thank the Minister. Really, that would be going too far. I am sure he would practically die of shock if I did so. It would be too much of a shock to him. However. I want to say that I am very glad of one action that he has taken in the last few months. That is of course the release of Robert Sobukwe from Robben Island. I am extremely glad about this. As I have made known over and over in this House, I want to say that I do not think he should have been kept on Robben Island beyond the time. [Interjections.] No, I think he should have served the sentence imposed on him by the courts of law. That is all. However, we will leave that to one side. He is now out of gaol and to-day I have had the opportunity of examining the order which the hon. Minister tabled yesterday and which I presume is not confidential. It is not marked “confidential” so I presume I can use it. Well. I must say that although I am glad that Robert Sobukwe is off Robben Island and is now at least able to be reunited with his family, the hon. the Minister certainly served on him the whole bag of tricks. He has not left anything out. It is the whole works. It is a five year house arrest order; he is restricted to the Kimberley municipal area; he may not enter hostels, compounds, factories or any premises where any publication is prepared. He may not enter universities, colleges, schools or educational institutions. He may not go to the precincts of any court unless he is a witness or an accused. He may not of course communicate with other banned persons. That, perhaps, one can understand. He may not assist in the preparation of a publication, and so on and so forth. He may not attend any social gatherings, political gatherings, student gatherings or anything like that. I must say I am pleased to see the hon. the Minister has made a few exceptions to the visitors that he may receive. He may not only receive his doctor; I am glad to see that he may also receive his mother and his mother-in-law. [Interjections.] Speaking as a mother-in-law myself. I object to the aside of the hon. members. He may also receive his two brothers, his sister and his two sisters-in-law. I did ask the hon. the Minister what efforts are being made to find employment for him. He said some efforts are being made. I hope he will be able to give us some more positive information during the course of this debate.

I now want to come to a question raised by the hon. member for Durban (North), namely the question of the Immorality Act. I know I am not permitted in terms of the rules of the House to criticize anything on the Statute Book. Far be it from me. In any case, as the House knows perfectly well, I moved the repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act in 1962. Therefore, I think I made no bones about my own personal convictions about this particular section. However, what I do say and what I believe I can say in terms of the rules of the House, is that very much greater care should be exercised before prosecutions are instituted under section 16 of the Immorality Act. This does fall under the hon. the Minister’s department. I am not talking now about the way in which the Police conduct their investigations. I would say that is in a manner which was not even contemplated possibly when the original section was introduced. But I am talking about the institution of prosecutions under this Act which by its very nature lends itself to all sorts of abuses by spiteful persons, blackmailers and so on. I believe that the State has a special duty, when instituting criminal actions, of making quite sure that these are carefully scrutinized. This is particularly so in the case of this Act, which has a particular significance in a racially conscious country like South Africa. There is a special stigma attached to being accused under the Immorality Act, and especially under section 16 of that Act. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that whether a person is found guilty or not guilty under this Act, somehow or other the same stigma seems to apply. We have had case after case of suicides and broken homes, as a result of prosecutions having been instituted under this section, although the people have afterwards in fact been found not guilty. May I point out, Sir, that in the four years from 1962 to 1965—I have this information from replies given me by the hon. the Minister— some 2,330 people were charged under section 16 of the Immorality Act. Of those 1,151 were convicted. Less than half the number of people prosecuted were found guilty. In the four years from 1965 to 1968, 3,177 men and women were charged, and 1,640 were convicted. There again less than half of those prosecuted were found guilty. Last year 911 men and women were charged and 459 were convicted. It seems to me that this is a very big discrepancy. I cannot speak with any knowledge but it seems to me unusual that more than half the people charged on a criminal charge should be discharged. I wonder whether this is the case with other criminal charges. It seems to me that very much more care should be exercised before prosecutions are instituted. I take as an example the Jacquesson case, which was recently disposed of. I am not a lawyer, Sir, but I know a bit about the law as it was amended last year, and the original Act. It seems to me that there was never a case. The necessity to prove domicile, which was removed last year, was not made retrospective, and everybody knows that. Now, how come this case was proceeded with when it was known that the man who was charged under the Act carried a French passport and that he lived in England? His wife is a British-born person. I cannot understand, in view of the fact that the domicile clause was not made retrospective, why the prosecution was ever proceeded with, bringing with it such odium to this country. Column after column in the overseas Press was devoted to this subject. Hon. members are always telling me not to be unpatriotic. I think it is unpatriotic to have cases like this aired overseas. I certainly cannot see why cases of this nature should ever have come before the courts at all.

There was another case, namely the case of Lieutenant-Colonel Fremantle, a recent case. The prosecutor actually said that he was not prepared to proceed with the case because of the shocking discrepancies in evidence of certain witnesses. The magistrate questioned the motives as to why the case was ever brought to court at all. This seems to indicate that there was very little scrutiny before the case actually came to court. This man, an ex-policeman, went through agony, and it was absolutely unnecessary.

I shall leave the question of the Immorality Act and the manner in which this Act is being carried out, but I do ask the hon. the Minister to ask the Attorneys-General to exercise particular care in such cases, which, as I have said, have a special stigma attached to them in this country. I may add that I am going to ask the Minister of Police to see to it that his policemen administer the Act rather differently as well.

Now I come to another subject. I have quite a number of little matters to raise with the hon. the Minister. I hope he is feeling strong this afternoon. First of all, I want to rise the question of banned persons. We have been told over and over again this year that South Africa is basking in a serene climate of peace and quiet, and we are told that this is due to the spirit of great contentment which is abroad in this country. Bearing this in mind, if this is so, I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice if he does not think that the time has come for a new attitude towards the use of his powers under the Suppression of Communism Act with regard to the banning of people. First of all, I think it is time we had a bit more information about this; we need another consolidated list. It has been a long time since the hon. the Minister gave us a consolidated list. He is very coy about answering questions in the House; he says that the information has been tabled, but he knows perfectly well that it takes hours and hours of research to go through all the documents that have been tabled in order to keep pace with people who have been banned and people who have been taken off the banned list. I think in this regard he should give the information to the country and produce a consolidated list so that we will at least know where we stand in this regard, particularly as there are all sorts of criminal charges connected with banned persons and having communication with other banned persons. It is very difficult to keep track of those. Sir, I do not know how many hundreds of people are still under ban. I would hazard a guess and say between 600 and 700. It would largely be a guess, however; I do not really know. I do know that 42 people are still under house arrest—that is the hon. the Minister’s own figure—and many others, of course, are severely restricted in many other ways, rather like Robert Sobukwe is restricted. What I want to say to the hon. the Minister is that there is a system of punishment without end under this banning power. You see, Sir, when people come out of prison who have served any sentence for any political crime or any offence against the State, many of them are placed under ban as they step out of prison. The courts have already punished them; the courts have assessed their criminal action, be it belonging to a banned organization or sticking up a poster or collecting money. In many cases for fairly minor offences people have gone to gaol, and when they come out of gaol the punishment does not end; it continues by virtue of the fact that the hon. the Minister immediately slaps a ban on these people which severely limits their freedom. I believe that this is completely contrary to the prison regulations, because the prison regulations say that every effort should be made to rehabilitate a man when he comes out of gaol. In fact, a duty is laid upon the Prisons Department to try to find employment for such people. Why exclude certain categories? In fact, not only are they excluded from the ministrations of rehabilitation officers, but their re-employment is made increasingly difficult because when they are banned they are subject to all the attentions of the Special Branch, and apart from that, if they do happen to find employment for themselves, you can be pretty sure that the Special Branch rushes along to the employer and warns him that he is employing a dangerous character. They also fall under the restrictions of the Bantu Urban Areas Act, and many of them are sent out of the urban area back to some tribal area which they may never have seen because they lose their rights under section 10 if they have been in gaol for longer than six months. To my mind this is a system of punishment without end. Sir, are we going to continue with this in the atmosphere that we have in South Africa to-day, which we are told by everybody is an atmosphere of peace and quiet?

Now I come to the Terrorism Act, another subject that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister I believe that this Act is being abused I might say that it is inherent in the nature of such an Act, the administration of which is not under the scrutiny of the court, that it may lend itself to abuse. I have to raise this under the hon. the Minister’s Vote, because he is responsible for the administration of this Act. In point of fact, of course, a great deal of what goes on after a person is apprehended under the Terrorism Act comes under his colleague the Minister of Police, and I have one or two cases to raise with him in respect of the treatment of people, arising from comments made by the courts. I want to raise one specific case here and this is the case of an African tribe which was reported in the Press not long ago. This is the case of 16 members of the Bakwena tribe. That is the one case, but the other one that I want to mention particularly-because I know a little more about it, is the case of the seven members of the Bakhubeng tribe near Rustenburg. In this case the tribesmen were first charged with murder. They were alleged to have conspired to commit murder. They were held on a charge of murder, and while they were being so held, one of the prisoners alleged that he had been interrogated and that shock treatment had been applied to him and an urgent application was brought by his advocate to restrain the Police from further interviewing him while he was in custody and that application was granted. Sir, the very next thing that happened was that the charges of murder against these people were withdrawn and they were immediately re-arrested under the Terrorism Act which put them right beyond the purview of the courts, and placed them right into the hands of the very people against whom an interdict had been issued to prevent such people from continuing to cross-examine these prisoners.

Was there not a rule nisi issued, returnable on a certain date?

At any rate, the point is that the charge was withdrawn and they were re-arrested under the Terrorism Act, and this makes me very suspicious indeed, particularly as I happen to know the circumstances in this case. Some of these people wrote to me a couple of years ago complaining that they were having trouble with the Bantu Commissioner, who had ordered them off their land, and that they had had a chieftainess imposed on them, to whom they objected because she was not one of their people, and after a long dispute the chieftainess eventually moved off elsewhere taking some of the tribe with her and leaving others behind. They said that they were then given 60 days to clear off this land, and 250 children were left without a school because the school was demolished. I know therefore, that there was a long history of tribal dispute. I want to know what possible connection this can have with terrorism. I want to know what political motives can be react into this. I am very suspicious indeed about the application of an Act which by its very nature lends itself to abuse. I do not know very much about the other case, the case of the Bakwena tribe, but this eems to be a very extraordinary case also. Sixteen people were held in this case. Three were released after several months without a charge being laid against them, and 11 were held and are presumably still being held, and two men have died in detention under this Act. I think we need an inquiry into the way in which this Act is being administered.

Finally, I want to raise the question of sentences imposed on young offenders and the disparate sentences imposed by magistrates. Sir, I have no doubt that on the whole magistrates do a very good job indeed in this country, and I realize that they work under difficult conditions, because there is a great shortage of staff and so on, but it seems to me—and possibly it is because they are so hard pressed—that the magistrates who are supposed to be commissioners of child welfare in terms of the Children’s Act, and have certain duties and powers in respect of children in need of care, including, I might say, the power to convert any trial of a juvenile offender into an inquiry under the Children’s Act, are not exercising these powers to the greatest possible extent. I am talking now largely of white and Coloured children, because the young Bantu offenders fall under the Bantu Commissioners’ courts and presumably, therefore, under the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Case after case is reported in the Press where young people are fined very heavily for what seems to be petty pilfering offences. The administration of caning is very frequent, particularly in the Bantu Commissioners’ courts, but also in the case of young offenders in the white courts. Records are not kept of these and it is very difficult to get figures. I realize that in some cases it may be considered better to administer a caning than to send the children to places of detention or reformatories, but nevertheless it seems to me that not enough emphasis is placed in the magistrates’ courts on this aspect of children in need of care. I have a couple of cases which I could bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention immediately. There is the case of the 15-year-old Coloured boy who was convicted of the theft of two cold drinks, and was sentenced to a fine of R10 or 20 days in prison. I might say that this young boy was pretty badly handled while he was in prison awaiting trial.

Did you get this from the court records?

Yes. Somebody was actually charged afterwards with assault on this young boy. The child was taken to the district surgeon and it was found that he had been severely assaulted. Nevertheless he was returned to the cells and later brought back to court and thereafter sentenced.

Is that the Paarl case?

No, that is not the Paarl case. This was after the Paarl case. The Paarl case was last year; this is a recent case. The Judge who was concerned in the review of the case felt that a warning and a discharge would have been the proper sentence for the boy. The second case did not come up for automatic review, but just luckily the Judge happened to be visiting the gaol at the time and while he was visiting the goal he found an African offender there, a girl aged 18 years, too old to fall under the Children's Act, but nevertheless not too old to fall under the provisions of the section dealing with convicted juveniles. She had been convicted on a charge of theft, and the Judge’s comments were as follows—

For this she was fined with what would amount to more than three months’ income, and the Judge commented that it had frequently been laid down that when a court imposes a fine with the alternative of imprisonment, consideration must be given to the income of the person concerned. What I want to know is what steps are taken to ensure that magistrates are fully conversant with and comply, in the exercise of their functions, with (a) the provisions of the Children’s Act, and (b) the injunction of the Judge that magistrates are meant to take into consideration the income of the person before imposing a fine.

Magistrates are only human.

Of course, magistrates are human.

That is why you have the appeal courts.

I quite agree with the hon. member that magistrates are human and that they make mistakes, but if he glances through the newspapers he will see that too many mistakes are made, Sir, there are many more cases that I could produce. The level of sentences seems to be very high indeed for petty offences committed by juveniles in South Africa. If the hon. member would take the trouble to go into these oases, I think he would agree with me.

Then, Sir, there is also the question of disparate sentences. For instance, the boy who stole cold drinks was sentenced to a fine of R10 or 20 days’ imprisonment; the policeman who assaulted him, brutally and sadistically, as the court found, received a fine of R40 or 40 days’ imprisonment, with a further 80 days’ imprisonment suspended for three years. The Judge’s comment was that “the punishment was so light that it outraged his sense of justice”. Sir, this is also something which does us no good.

While I am on this question, I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us how far he has proceeded with the investigation which he promised into the immorality cases where the two women concerned were found guilty and the white men were discharged, having been found not guilty. This occurs much more often than should happen. These people should be tried together if it is a joint crime, because the chances are that the black people cannot afford to have any defence and therefore plead guilty, and that the white people, who can afford to have defence counsel, plead not guilty. Hence we get this extraordinary situation where, in the case of a crime which must be committed equally by two people, the one is found guilty and sentenced and the other is found not guilty.

I should like to make a few observations in regard to what was said by the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. member spoke about the staff shortage, and he pleaded for higher salaries to be paid to staff members such as magistrates, etc., who are concerned with the administration of justice. These persons are from the nature of the case professional officers. I want to ask him the following. Does he mean now that all the professional officers in the Department of Justice should be lifted out of the hierarchy of the Public Service and should receive separate treatment as regards salaries, etc. Because if this is the case, I want to point out to the hon. member that the professional officers in every Department in South Africa could argue as he argued, and say that their services are just as essential as are the services of these professional officers in the Department of Justice. We cannot separate one small group of professional officers from the hierarchy of the Public Service. I think the hon. member should see that point as being a very sound reason why one cannot make such promises.

I want to make a few observations in reply to what was said by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon. With her we have made a great deal of progress. You will remember, Sir, that some years ago she did not have one single word of praise in this House for the Department of Prisons.

The prisons have improved.

At least we have got so far now that she sees that good progress has in fact been made, and not only that, but also that the Department of Prisons is not as bad as she made them out to be a few years ago. We have made progress with her, but strangely enough her thoughts did not only turn to all the positive work that is being done in the field of prisons, but when she started speaking about prisons, her thoughts immediately turned to Robben Island. Prisoners who committed offences under the Suppression of Communism Act are held at Robben Island. From there her thoughts turned to the Central Prison, where those who were convicted of high treason are being held, and she said that there were good improvements there as well. From there her thoughts turned to Robert Sobukwe, and from Robert Sobukwe to the Suppression of Communism Act, and from there to the Terrorism Act. These are all the matters she raised here this afternoon, apart from the Immorality Act. I now want to tell the hon. member for Houghton once and for all that she is not interested in the prisons of South Africa as such; she is only interested in the prisons of South Africa in so far as these so-called political offenders are concerned, and nothing more. She wants to pose in this House as the mouthpiece of those persons, and therefore she must not take it amiss of us if we do not take her pleas as seriously as she would like us to take them, because she poses here as the mouthpiece of those people we consider to be a danger to the State. That is why I do not think she can express unbiased criticism on the work performed by the prisons.

She also referred to persons who are short-term prisoners. I want to tell her that here too a great deal of good work is being done by the Department of Prisons. These short-term prisoners, of course, remain a major problem of the Department, because the Department is, as the saying goes, “on the receiving end”. All the laws are made in South Africa and people are convicted under them and are sent to the prisons, and the Department simply has to receive all that have been convicted, whether they are few or many. In this case we know that on account of the large number of Bantu working in the white areas, which results in many offences being committed, there are many short-term prisoners, because of the nature of the system we have in South Africa. This remains a problem to the Department of Prisons, but it does not simply adopt an unsympathetic attitude towards the lot of these people. In addition the system of the payment of admission of guilt fines, the Department has taken a few other steps as well to alleviate the embarrassment or the detention of these persons. I want to mention the institution of the Prisoner’s Friend to her. At all the major centres an officer or officers are appointed as Prisoner’s Friend. Such an officer notifies employers and relations by telephone or otherwise that such a person is being detained, and asks them whether they will not come to Day the fine so that he can be discharged. Through the agency of this Prisoner’s Friend the fines of a great many people are paid and they are discharged. Then there is also the system of the deferment of payment, or the payment of fines in instalments, and in this way large numbers of prisoners who received short-term sentences are discharged. And, of course, under the system of parole some of these short-term prisoners are released on parole at a very early stage of their detention. But the position is that many of them refuse to accept the parole, because they find life in prison so pleasant that some of them who are workshy, do not want to accept employment on parole, and prefer to stay in prison. These are all the various factors that have to be taken into account.

By my real purpose in getting up was to express a few words of appreciation for what the hon. member for Randburg said here this afternoon in connection with the Department of Prisons. I appreciate his words very deeply and I think it is high time that we threw the spotlight on the good work that is being done in the prisons, and that we stopped hearing all the time how badly people were being treated in the prisons. After all, they are performing a very important task, i.e. to rehabilitate people who are maladjusted in society, to readjust them in society. It is a thankless task, especially if you have people such as the hon. member for Houghton always trying to criticize the officers of the Department in the very difficult task they have to perform.

I want to mention a few of the privileges that are extended to our prisoners in the prisons. The hon. member for Randburg mentioned the recreational facilities at Leeukop, not only for the staff, but also for the prisoners. I want to stress the fact that idleness in prison is regarded as one of the worst evils by the Department, and for that reason a great deal of progress has been made in providing both outdoor and indoor recreation to the prisoners. This privilege is highly appreciated, not only by the prisoners, but also by the Department itself, because they see that it has a very good influence on our prison population. I also want to mention the case of the visits, the visiting facilities that are provided to the prisoners. You know that our long-term prisoners are divided into four groups, A, B, C and D. The short-term people and the C and D groups may receive one visit from one person every month. The B group may receive two visitors twice a month. The group A prisoners may receive two visits twice a month. Apart from these visits, the officer in charge and the head of the prison, as the hon. member for Prinshof pointed out, may visit the people as well, so that there is continual contact, and they are also free to lodge complaints, if any with this high-ranking officer, the head of the prison. I think this is also a reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) who had objections and wanted to have the system of compulsory visits by the magistrate reintroduced. The magistrates already have a very serious staff shortage. [Time expired.]

A Roman author on occasion used the classic words. “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes”, or “I fear the Greeks when they bring gifts”. I listened to the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon and I really began developing the same fear as the Romans had because the hon. member came here with praise, strangely enough, but, of course, she also came with attacks concealed in gift-wrapping. She said, “There are a lot of little things I want to raise”, and I think I can summarize her speech by saying that she made a mini-speech at maxi-length. Many of the things she raised have been dealt with by the Deputy Minister, but I just want to touch upon a few of them. The first one is this, and this also applies to the hon. member for Durban (North), who referred to the distances that awaiting-trail prisoners had to travel in order to get to the court to be tried. No, I do not think the hon. member for Houghton mentioned this: it was only mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North), but I shall return to her shortly. With reference to this, I want to tell the Department and the Minister that one learnt with gratitude of a system which was introduced by the Department of Justice and which did not receive the publicity it ought to have received, and that is the system of decentralization of magistrates’ courts, particularly in our large metropolitan areas, where the principle of taking the court to the accused has been followed. I am referring here in particular to the courts that were taken to the Bantu residential areas such as Meadowlands, Orlando. Klip Town, and Melodi at Pretoria. This is a very sound principle and we should like to congratulate the Department on it and ask the Minister to implement it further.

The hon. member for Houghton had a good deal to say about sentences. Now, it is true that one cannot say that no mistakes are made in sentences. She spoke about sentences not taking this and that into account and being disparate. Over against this, though, I do think we must take into account the fact that every criminal case is a thing on its own. One cannot treat all of them alike. There are elements which differ from one case to another. The accused differ in regard to their personal circumstances, in age, in state of health background and degree of guilt, and as to whether there are extenuating or aggravating circumstances, and another factor is previous convictions. All these things are factors to be taken into account. But there is also another aspect, and that is the frequency of occurance of a particular type of crime in a particular area. These are all factors to be taken into account in judging sentences. Having taken these into account, and while I admit that a small number of sentences are not faultless and that errors may creep in, we must also take into account the fact that judicial discretion should not be restricted too much. In these matters we must also take note of the fact that colleagues on the magistrate’s bench regularly consult one another, particularly in the large cities, where the chief magistrates arrange meetings for this purpose, and that there are such things as conferences of magistrates in our country.

I should like to deal briefly with another matter raised by the hon. member for Houghton, in that she referred to the Immorality Act, saying that more thorough investigations should be conducted before prosecutions are instituted. Do we want to instruct the Attorney-General now that he should only take those cases to court where he is quite sure that he will secure a conviction? In this case we might just as well abolish the judiciary, because then we would be leaving the final judgment to the Attorney-General. Then those cases would be heard and the court would only be a rubber stamp for the actions of the Attorney-General. I think we should at least be practical. The fact that persons are accused, that prima facie there is a case against them and that they are then acquitted, is proof of the fact that we have a legal system which we can rely on. This high percentage of acquittals is really a compliment and not an indictment. The hon. member said here that if she could have it her way, she would repeal section 16. Her reason for this is that this particular section leads to a stigma being attached to people. We do not deny that there are people who are prejudiced in this way, but I want to ask whether in other crimes there are not likewise people who are prejudiced. Does crime not always bring a stigma with it? If section 16 of the Immorality Act worries her, I want to ask her why she does not make the same plea in regard to other sections in the Act, since there is a stigma attached to all of them.

My time is running out and I should like to deal briefly with a matter which has been raised by the Secretary of Justice in his annual report, and that is the question of Latin. On page 5 of the report the Secretary-says the following—

He also says—

When we are faced with these facts, i.e. that the magistrate in whose court the attorney or counsel must appear, need have no knowledge of Latin, but that the legal practitioner is required to have it, these circumstances compel us to be realistic. In this report the Secretary says, furthermore, that he had a wide reaction to this matter, which was discussed in this House last year. We must go further than reacting; we must proceed to take action. What is very striking in this report, are the words of Mr. Justice Hiemstra that are quoted. He said the following, inter alia—

To many of our able young men are being guillotined by Latin.

Professor Joubert, again, said inter alia the following—

We must adopt a practical attitude now; not because we have anything against Latin, since we have all been enriched by the measure of Latin we studied, but we might just as well have been enriched by another, more practical language. This brings us to this anomaly. Say for instance two boys take the B. Juris degree containing no Latin, a degree for which Latin at matriculation level is not required. One of the two joins the Public Service and becomes a magistrate, while the other one does his articles with an attorney. He serves his time, but does not pass Latin at matriculation standard, with the result that he cannot be admitted to the Side Bar. Surely that is an anomaly; surely that is an impossible state of affairs. The boy from the platteland is the one who has to suffer because in practically no school in the platteland can Latin still be taken as a subject. All those young men, both those in the Public Service and those who want to enter into legal practice, are now kept from proceeding to an LL.B, degree and studying law with a view to practising it. [Time expired.]

I wish to raise the question of the detention of witnesses under the 180 day provision in terms of section 215 bis of the Criminal Procedure Act, as inserted by Act 96 of 1965. On March the 25th of this year the hon. member for Karoo asked the Minister of Police whether any Coloured or Indian businessmen were summoned to appear at the Thomas Boydell Building in Cape Town between 1966 and 1968; for what offences; by whom were they questioned; whether prosecutions followed; if so, how many and on what charges. The Minister in reply stated that approximately 1,388 persons were questioned by members of the S.A. Police—fantastic number of people—Coloureds, Indians and Malays. The object of the questioning was to discover whether they were Indians trading as Coloured people in proclaimed Coloured areas under false pretences or by virtue of having the wrong identity cards or as nominees for somebody else. The documents they were asked by the Police to produce were identity cards, licences and certificates of registration, bank statements, etc. Arising out of the cross questioning of this number of people, 44 prosecutions followed on the grounds, as stated by the Minister of Police in this House, of making false statements under oath and for contravention of the Population Registration Act and of the Bantu Urban Areas (Consolidation) Act of 1945. What I should like to know from the hon. the Minister is why the majority of these people could not have had their cases investigated in terms of the ordinary machinery provided for in the Population Registration Act itself. Section 12 of that Act provides that the Secretary himself may investigate, or designate any officer in the Public Service to investigate, and to report to him in respect of the particulars which are required to be recorded in the Population Register. I should like to know why all these cases were handed over to the Police in the first place. Why could those who were not charged, i.e. 1,344, not have been questioned by the officials of the Department of the Interior in terms of the relevant Act? On May the 13th I asked the Minister of Police another question, i.e. whether any of those cross-questioned in the Thomas Boydell Building between 1966 and 1968 for suspected offences under the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act were detained as witnesses under the 180 day provision and whether any such detentions were linked with offences under Act 44 of 1950, i.e. the Suppression of Communism Act, or the ordinary criminal code. I wanted to know how many were involved and for how long. The hon. the Minister then replied that six witnesses were so detained for periods ranging for from five to six months and that no charges were preferred at any stage against any one of those witnesses during their period of detention. Well, not being satisfied with that, I asked the Minister another question yesterday. I asked for the dates covering the periods of their detention. The Minister will know that I myself phoned him at the Union Buildings about these witnesses at the end of 1966. So, I happened to know this case very well indeed. But the Minister refused to give me these dates on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to do so. He said a warrant had been issued by the Attorney-General in respect of the detention of each of these witnesses, and that a charge had ultimately been preferred against a certain Mr. Aboo Sulliman. The Minister went on to say—

This leads me to ask the hon. the Minister whether Mr. Sulliman was in fact detained and held prior to a charge being preferred against him, and, if so, for how long? Finally, the Minister himself admitted in reply to my question that Mr. Sulliman was charged only with a large number of counts under the Common Law offence of forgery and uttering. Mr. Sulliman was convicted on 61 counts. From information at my disposal, all of this took place during the last quarter of 1966. I am quite aware that at that time a nation-wide investigation was taking place about the forging of identity cards or passports. It involved Indians and Chinese and, I believe, there was even a suggestion that certain Chinese had come into South Africa illegally. The six Indians who were held here as witnesses for five to six months under the 180 day provision were, so the Minister told me, held in connection with the prosecution of Mr. Sulliman. But I want the Minister to note that Mr. Sulliman was never charged with contravening the Suppression of Communism Act. He was only held on suspicion in terms of that Act. Subsequently the charge for forging and uttering was brought against him. Can the hon. the Minister tell me why the 180 day provision was used in a case of this kind? The Suppression of Communism Act was found to be irrelevant and, in fact, the charge against him was for forging and uttering. Six witnesses were held for nearly six months on these grounds.

All the Indians detained in Cape Town had Indian identity cards in the first place. There was, consequently, no question of them masquerading as Coloured people. I know the Minister will tell me that they were held for their own protection. We have heard that story before. It seems that they were all being held only in connection with suspected forgeries under the Population Registration Act and not under the Suppression of Communism Act at all. But the Minister refused to reveal the actual dates of their detention on the grounds, as he said, that it was not in the public interest to do so. But why not? The Minister was quite happy to tell us quite early in the session the exact number of days each of these witnesses were held, that they were held in connection with Mr. Sulliman, whose prosecution and conviction must clearly be on record, that the Attorney-General issued warrants for the arrest of these witnesses.—If, in fact, everything is above board, I am completely at a loss to understand why the Minister refused to give the dates covering the periods of their detention. These six witnesses were subsequently released with no charge having been brought against them. I will say this, that unless the Minister is prepared to give this House this information, the general public will be confirmed in its belief that the Attorney-General issued warrants for the detention of these six witnesses before any person had either been arrested or charged, whether it was Mr. Sulliman or anyone else. I submit that unless the Minister can prove otherwise, these witnesses were arrested and held under the 180 day provision when the Attorney-General of the Cape, firstly, did not know whether anyone had been charged in connection with the witnesses concerned and, secondly, without being aware of the nature of any such charge.

The hon. the Minister may say that this is a far-fetched story. But the attorneys acting for one of the witnesses, wrote to the Attorney-General on 26th November and asked him whether he could furnish the attorneys with the nature of the charge on which the person or persons were being held. The attorneys concerned wrote to the Attorney-General on 26th November as follows:

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I want to reply directly to the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member is trying to imply that section 215 bis is being used for purposes other than those for which it has been placed on the Statute Book. As hon. members know, this particular section provides that the Attorney-General may detain certain person if he deems it to be in the interests of their safety or when he suspects that they will be tampered with, but then it must relate to some offence or other mentioned in Part II bis of the Second Schedule. This Schedule, inter alia, makes provision for the Suppression of Communism Act. In the particular case to which the hon. member referred the following happened. Sulliman was charged and detained on a charge of contravening the Suppression of Communism Act. That was the original charge against him. The Attorney-General of the Cape detained various other people as possible witnesses under section 215bis. Inter alia, he detained a person by the name of Aghmat Hoossain. I have here a copy of the detention order which reads as follows—

Given under my hand at Cape Town this 27th day of October, 1966.

(Signed) W. M. van den Berg.

In this way four or five of them were detained. After a long investigation into the offence which had allegedly been committed by Sulliman, it was eventually found that he had not contravened the Suppression of Communism Act, but that he had been guilty of forgery and uttering. Now the hon. member’s point is that, despite the fact that it was found that the accused could not be charged with an offence under the Communism Act, but could be charged with another offence, these people were still detained. Do I understand the hon. member correctly that that is the case?

It is not the only point.

I think that is actually what the hon. member wanted to imply. Now I wanted to point out that all the persons who were detained under section 215bis—and there were six of them—were released. Four of them were released on 31st March. 1967. One was released on 15th February, 1967, and the other on 16th March, 1967. Subsequently Sulliman was tried in the Supreme Court on 27th April, 1967. In other words, these people were released the moment it was decided not to take proceedings against him on suspicion of having contravened the Communism Act. After that Sulliman was prosecuted on a charge of forging and uttering. I think that will serve as an adequate reply to the charge by the hon. member for Wynberg.

As far as the Population Register and the aspect of questioning is concerned, I do not really know what the point is the hon. member wants to make. After all, the Department of Justice is only involved when the dossier is handed over to the Attorney-General. I can furnish the hon. member with no further reply in this regard.

I should like to return to the main speaker of the official Opposition and the hon. member for Houghton. I want to inform the hon. member for Durban (North) I am sorry that there is no prisons report available this year. The intention was to make one available. However, there was a great deal of statistics which had to be processed and the section concerned which had to deal with it received a particular directive which they first had to carry out. This directive was to draw up a monograph on our prisons. This is something very essential which has to be sent abroad. It is virtually complete. We are hoping to have it available early in June. The staff of the section concerned has also been supplemented, and we hope that there will be no reason for complaint next year.

Replies to the other matters have to a very large extent been furnished. It is true that there is a shortage of staff in the Department of Justice. In fact, there is a shortage of staff in all Departments. There is a general manpower shortage in the country. But we are trying, to the best of our ability, to have the work properly carried out. We are in fact succeeding in this. A finger cannot be pointed anywhere in the Republic to imply that the administration of justice has up to now suffered as a result of the oppressive shortage of staff. We are also doing our best to try to solve the problems. One of the things we are doing is to send officials to universities on a full-time basis and on full pay. They are studying at about four universities where they are receiving training in the B. Juris, degree. There are at present 250 such students studying at universities. Next year a further 50 will go to the universities. We will then have 300 students at universities taking a B. Juris, degree which will qualify them as legal assistants, or even to act as magistrates after they have acquired the necessary experience. In addition, there are 163 students who are writing their LL.B examinations at the various universities with the help of public service bursaries. The Department of Justice is hoping that it will receive the bulk of these students. It is true that there are a large number of temporary officials. You all know what the retirement age is. The people still feel fit and healthy. The strength is still there and they have the experience. Where there is a shortage therefore we are glad to make use of their services. It has also been our experience that this has been done with very good results. I am not in favour of the idea that we should make use of the private sector to help us on a temporary basis. We have not yet reached the position where this is in fact necessary. Under the circumstances I cannot agree with the hon. member that we should introduce such a procedure.

I now want to refer to the question of the entertainment allowance of our magistrates, to which the hon. member for Durban (North) also referred. It so happens that our magistrates often have to entertain people. They are invited out, and official functions are held. There come times when they have to reciprocate. But one must be very careful. If one were to grant each magistrate or chief magistrate of each district entertainment allowances, then one would have a chain reaction in the Public Service. Other officials and other departments would also ask for it. Now we have hit upon the idea of making provision in the Estimates for an overall amount for allowances of this nature. I just want to refer the hon. member to “departmental entertainments” under sub-head E on page 189. Provision is being made for an amount of R1,000 this year, whereas the amount last year was R550. If magistrates have to entertain under special circumstances, they are at liberty to apply to the head of the Department for an allowance out of this particular appropriation. He will then deal with it as he sees fit. So much for entertainment allowances.

In addition the hon. member made inquiries in regard to the three Bantu prisoners who died in the van in which they were being transported to court. He referred to the fact that the distance between the court and the gaol was 28 miles. The hon. Deputy Minister has already referred to that and has furnished the reply. The position is of course that there are only a limited number of prisons. The prisons are situated at special places. One could hardly erect a large prison next to the magistrate’s court in Johannesburg. We have the Fort there. The Fort is primarily reserved for awaiting trial prisoners, people who committed criminal offences, to put it that way. Odder B, on the other hand, is primarily reserved for people who have committed offences of another kind. We go out of our way, as far as possible, to take even the courts to the Bantu areas. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus referred to that.

The hon. member for Durban (North) asked why these people were being detained for such great lengths of time. He said that a period of six weeks elapsed, and that the Bantu Affairs Commissioner had referred to it. I just want to mention that the hon. member must remember that when the unfortunate event occurred, it involved a group of people who did not have permanent addresses. Since it was very clear that a prosecution or an investigation would take place, the authorities had of necessity to detain these people, so that they would be available as witnesses for the case which would subsequently be heard. I think that is the principle reason for that.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the Jacquesson case under the Immorality Act. Now I just want to say that this case shows us just how essential the introduction of this amendment was last year. In this particular case we could have prohibited Mrs. Jacquesson from entering the country if we had been aware of the fact that they were married and that the man was a non-White and she was a White. What happened here was apparently that the man entered the country first and that she subsequently came in here as a White. In other words, the immigration authorities were not aware of the fact that it was a White who was married to a non-White. Then the hon. member asked why the case had to be brought before the court. The entire matter hinged on the question of domicile. That is what the court is for, to settle the case. The court heard evidence in regard to this, evidence which the Attorney-General did not have any knowledge of. After the court had heard the case it was revealed that under those circumstances the people were not guilty, and for that reason they are up to this day, up to this moment, in Krugersdorp. It just goes to show how thorough and how just our legal system is. That is all it proves. What the hon. member now wants is that the case should have been shelved before it came before the court. A Coloured and a White live together and imply that they are married. Nobody knows whether they are really married or not. The husband implies that he has a French domicile. Nobody can know whether this is really the case until it has been proved in the court.

Previous sneakers on this side of the House referred to the system which the hon. member for Durban (North) requested should be reintroduced, i.e. that magistrates should be compelled to visit prisons from time to time. I gave my attention to this matter and went into it properly. But we must remember that we are dealing here with an independent, full-fledged Government Department, the Department of Prisons. It would be unfair to require the Department of Prisons to be inspected by another Department. It would be infra dig. That is why we would prefer to keep it on the basis that magistrates and Judges are at liberty to visit prisons at any time. That is the case at the moment. I think that is the right way. I am also very grateful to the hon. member for Randburg for the praise he expressed for the Department. It was well-earned praise. I also want to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Houghton that she, to a certain extent gave her approval to what was being done.

She spoke about the constructive work which was being done on Robben Island. She said that more constructive work could be done there. I do not know what kind of constructive work should be done there. The people on Robben Island are doing various kinds of work. They are quarrying stone and dressing it. Others are crushing the stone. Some are working at a brickworks, while others are working in a chalk quarry. Some are clearing away dry wood, while others are doing washing. Some are repairing clothes, doing kitchen work or repairing shoes. But we are not prepared to establish workshops for them there. I think that is what the hon. member would like. In the circumstances under which they are working on Robben Island, we are not prepared to do this. But there is a variety of work which is being done. For security reasons the work which they do must of course be of a certain nature.

I would just like to say something briefly about the Robert Sobukwe case, to which the hon. member referred. We have released Robert Sobukwe. I think we looked after him well. It is true that he has been restricted. That is correct. We are going out of our way to see whether we cannot find work for him. I can only say that at the moment there is no favourable reaction yet, but I believe that we will soon succeed. Is the hon. member for Houghton interested in what I am saying? I just want to add that his wife has already applied for work in Kimberley, and that all prospects indicate that she will find work. She is very pleased to be with her husband again. They are going to bring their children there as well.

She also mentioned that more care should be taken when legal proceedings are instituted under the Immorality Act. It is being done with the greatest circumspection. But now one must also bear in mind the type of witness one has to deal with. It happens on many occasions that according to the dossier certain details are submitted; but when the people appear in court and an attorney or an advocate subsequently twists them round little fingers, something goes wrong with the case. That is what happens. It is also a good thing that it happens. If they are found not guilty by the courts, then they are found not guilty. But that is the reason why more or less half of all the cases where charges are laid are eventually found guilty. She also mentioned the case where one person, the White, may perhaps be found not guilty while the Coloured is found guilty, or even the reverse. We have already had cases where the reverse happened. Now I just want to say that it is of course impossible that the one should be found guilty while the other should be found not guilty. But that is simply how the law works. When that happens, I step in as Minister of Prisons. In every case we have up to now immediately released the second party. That is the policy.

The hon. member also asked what the position in regard to restrictions was. I should just like to furnish the latest information in regard to restrictions. We have ascertained that on 13th May, throughout the entire Republic, there were only 370 people who had been restricted. I see the Young Progs say that this number is 750. However, that is incorrect. It is only 370. During the 12-month period ending on 30th April, 1969. three restriction orders were lifted; ten were relaxed and 250 persons whose restriction orders expired, were not subjected to further restriction orders. That is the latest position.

She also referred to the people who were charged in terms of the Terrorism Act. I do not feel like going into that matter at this stage for the simple reason that both cases are sub judice. For that reason I do not want to refer to it at this stage. The hon. member also referred to various fines which had been imposed by various magistrates. She also referred to two cases of young people who had come to the attention of Judges. I want to ask the hon. member whether she has any idea how many similar cases are actually dealt with by our courts. She must remember that approximately 80 per cent of all the administration of justice in the country is settled in our magistrates courts. Of the 1,000 going through the courts, there are only these two she mentioned to-day.

Oh no, I have only brought you two examples.

Yes, but even if it had been ten cases, even if it had been more than that, she is only able to mention these few cases out of the thousands which come to the attention of magistrates’ courts. As has been rightly stated, mistakes can be made. We are not saying that the system is perfect. However, the fact remains that the number of mistakes is extremely small. Then, on the other hand, we have our administration of justice. We have the case that it comes to the attention of the Judge of the Supreme Court immediately afterwards and that it is rectified.

I have dealt with the immorality cases. I replied to the hon. member for Wynberg’s questions. I think I have also dealt with most of the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. members on this side of the House have stated the Department’s case very well. I am grateful to them for that. I think that is all I can say at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, the Secretary for Justice once again submitted an excellent report to us this year. This report once again demonstrated to us the rate at which the Department of Justice is working to have justice done in the Republic of South Africa. It is a fact that jurisprudence probably is one of the finest and noblest social sciences known to man. Along with theology it has probably been receiving more attention than any other science from our philosophers throughout the ages; this is the science they discussed most, the one they improved and applied. Now it is also a fact that the State does not give the same amount of attention to theology as it is giving to jurisprudence, but law forms one of the foundation stones of our Government institutions.

To-day I should like to say a few words about our magistrates’ courts. If any time should be left to me, I should also like to say a few words about our masters’ offices. Our magistrates probably are amongst those people who come into direct contact with the public more often than others do. For that reason they must be authorities on human nature, have a keen knowledge of men; have knowledge of human relations, and, in addition, they must be excellent diplomats. They must know at all times how to exercise tact and how to give people the correct advice. They are consulted every day by quite a few members of the public who come to see them about some matter or other. This, however, is not the most important work done by the magistrates and the magistrates’ offices. The first duty of the magistrates is to administer justice. They deal with civil as well as criminal cases. But they also act as marriage officers, particularly in the rural areas. In the rural areas they have considerably more tasks, such as acting as chairmen of committees. In the rural areas they have to administer several departments and they act as agents for other Government Departments. But, above all, magistrates and their staff have to be qualified in law. This is their primary task. Now we have had the position in recent years that the Department of Justice has gone out of its way to give the staff in our magistrates’ offices the necessary training in law. As the hon. the Minister said a moment ago, several bursaries were awarded this year and courses have been arranged for the training of magistrates and officials. This, of course, is something which we also welcome most heartily. Magistrates were also given another increase during the past year. I think all of them are very grateful for that. But I nevertheless want to ask once again to-day—and in this regard I have to agree with the hon. member for Durban (North)—that we should to some extent reconsider the position of our magistrates. These people carry a tremendous responsibility. They have to administer justice daily. The remuneration given to them possibly is not what it ought to be at this stage. There are a few of them whose remuneration is in fact high, but the majority of the magistrates do not get the remuneration they in fact deserve. Consequently I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister cannot possibly give consideration to placing the magistrates, particularly as far as their status is concerned, on a higher level. By those means we may possibly be able to attract better brain-power to our magistrates’ offices, to the benefit of our country. It is an every-day occurrence for some of our most able officials in the magistrates’ offices to be coaxed away by the private sector, by making these posts of the magistrates and in magistrates’ offices more attractive, such posts will serve as an incentive to our young people in particular to make a career for themselves in the Department of Justice. As the Secretary for Justice said, our judiciary straddles a wide aspect of our society. But it is alarming to see how many members of our judicial staff are being coaxed away from our departments at present. For that reason I want to ask that we should give very serious attention to attracting more people for our magistrates’ offices. In this connection I should also like to ask that the training which is available to officials in our magistrates’ offices should perhaps be propagated more intensively amongst them. I am aware of the fact that it is very difficult for the men, particularly those in the rural areas, to study by means of correspondence courses. Many of them have complained to me that these are difficult subjects and that correspondence courses are so impersonal that it is not easy for them to understand the lectures. Therefore I should like to suggest that the Department should give consideration to approaching and requesting attorneys in the rural areas, through the various legal orders in the provinces, whether they will come to the assistance of these men in the magistrates’ offices by lecturing to them. I am convinced that many of the attorneys in the rural areas will only be too pleased to lend a hand.

Then I want to ask whether the Department of Justice cannot have a documentary film made showing how urgent the need is for properly legally trained men in the Republic at present. These films can deal with the various aspects of the activities of the Department of Justice and of the activities of young men in the magistrates’ offices and with the assistance rendered by the State to give these young men a legal training. These films can also deal with the advantages attached to a career in the Department of Justice. Various other departments are making strong propaganda at present in order to attract people to them. I feel the Department of Justice should keep up with developments and should also try to attract people to the Department. We sorely need them to-day. As a matter of fact, as is shown in the report, there are 908 vacancies in the Department of Justice at the moment, and we shall be able to fill these vacancies only by presenting the Department in a very favourable light, as the position is in reality.

Sir, I should like to come to another aspect. Possibly one of the reasons for the present small number of law students is the question of Latin. I should not like to express an opinion on the advantages or disadvantages of Latin. I myself like Latin, but it may perhaps serve as an obstacle to many students to enter the field of law. I want to ask whether active steps cannot be taken now to constitute the ad hoc committee, which is being envisaged and for which the Secretary for Justice has also asked, for investigating the entire question of Latin and the advantages and disadvantages of Latin. Perhaps the duties of this Committee can be extended so as to include an investigation by the committee of the standard of legal training in the Republic of South Africa. We find to-day that the various universities do not all require the same standard for legal training. There are some of the universities that require only a kind of “legal Latin” from their law students; other universities require an intensive Latin II course. The ad hoc committee may possibly investigate this matter so as to ascertain whether a uniform standard cannot be laid down. It is unfair for only a certain section of the society in the Republic to have ready access to a study of law, whereas another section may be put off by the fact that the requirements of the university they would like to attend are higher; in that case they very easily switch to another course.

Mr. Chairman, before my time expires, I should just like to refer to prosecutors in our magistrates’ courts as well. Recently it has often struck me, especially in our regional courts, that a quite junior prosecutor comes up against a senior advocate in a major and very important case. This junior prosecutor possibly does not have the necessary training or experience which that senior advocate has. I readily admit that our junior prosecutors must start somewhere to gain experience of this very important work, but if we can make our legal profession more accessible to good intellects and can attract more men to the Department of Justice, we may perhaps have more capable men available to put into the field for competing on a high level against senior advocates and other trained jurists in major court cases, especially in our regional courts.

Then I should like to raise one final matter in connection with our magistrates. To-day we have the problem that we may perhaps have a shortage of well-trained magistrates, but I want to suggest that the Department may possibly consider appointing some of our senior magistrates to particular areas as regional court magistrates. They can then deal more expeditiously with cases; they can do efficient work and they can bring about many savings, as far as travelling and other expenses are concerned. [Time expired.]

I have one matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Justice, and it concerns the magisterial district of Rehoboth in the Territory of South-West Africa. This magisterial district is a large one; it is approximately 11,000 square miles in extent, of which approximately half is what is known in South Africa as the Baster-gebiet. The other half of the district consists of white properties, white farms and one white village. This white area is situated all around the territory of the Basters, the Rehoboth-gebiet, as it is known. I want to make representations to the hon. the Minister for this white area to be included in the surrounding magisterial districts. My reason for doing so is this: In earlier days there were facilities for Whites, such as hotels and shops, etc., within Rehoboth. Those facilities no longer exist, and Whites who are resident within Rehoboth magisterial district no longer use Rehoboth as a town where they do their business, but they are dependent on the Rehoboth magistrate’s court for their licences, and that is where their court cases are heard. The result is that when they visit the town, they have to spend the day under the trees. My request is that this white area should be added to the surrounding white areas. Rehoboth will then form a separate district belonging to the Baster population. I have discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs as well, and I may say that he will welcome Rehoboth becoming a purely Baster magisterial district. At present the Whites in that area have to suffer inconvenience when they visit Rehoboth. This is the only representation I want to make to the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Mariental will understand if I do not follow up the point which he raised with reference to his constituency in South-West Africa. I want to come back, first of all, if I may, to a remark made by the hon. the Minister in dealing with the complaints or suggestions which have come from this side of the House that greater care should be taken before prosecutions are launched under the Immorality Act. The hon. the Minister brushed aside the complaints about the recent Jacquesson case with the remark that there was no proof of their having been married. Sir, I am afraid that that is a rather thin reason to advance in an attempt to justify the prosecution. Surely whether they were married or not would have been the first matter that would have been investigated by the police. It only remains for me to say that the whole prosecution in this case was a most unfortunate one in so far as South Africa is concerned.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has given the reasons as to why we have no up-to-date Prisons’ Report before us. I want to raise one or two points which appear from the Estimates and on which I hope he will be able to give us some information in the absence of a more recent report. When one compares the sum of R24,800,000, which is provided for in the Estimates for the Department for this year, with the figure of R15,493,000 which appears in the last available report, one finds that there is an increase of some 60 per cent in the administration expenses of the Prisons’ Department as from 1965-’66 to 1969-’70. Sir, I have attempted to find some figures showing the prison population, and it appears that in 1965-’66 the daily average number of prisoners who were looked after, fed, supervised and guarded, was some 72,000. The Estimates before us indicate that it is anticipated that in 1969-’70 the daily average will be 90,000. This represents an increase of about 25 per cent as against a 60 per cent increase in costs. It is self-evident, of course, that the increased costs are due partly to the increase in salaries and allowances, but that does not account for the whole of this substantial increase.

Sir, another matter which appears from the Estimates is that there have been certain changes in the establishment of the Prisons’ Department. The numbers of both Whites and non-Whites have been increased by approximately 10 per cent over the total figure of last year. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us please what the staff position is in the Prisons’ Department. One finds that there was a wastage of 933 as against a total establishment of 7,400, and reference is made in the last report to a successful recruitment campaign. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether this new establishment is being maintained and whether the Department has been able to maintain this establishment at full strength?

So far as the capital aspects of the loan expenditure are concerned, there are some alarming figures in so far as Prisons are concerned. One finds, for instance, that in 1965-’66 the balance to be carried forward in respect of renewals and extensions to prisons still to be undertaken, was R6,689,900. But according to the present Estimates, the amount to be carried forward in respect of work still to be done, after a substantial increase in the amount to be spent this year, is R26,393,000. It would appear from these figures that there is a considerable backlog throughout the Prisons’ Department of necessary work that has been allowed to accumulate in the case of new buildings and extensions to prisons. One realizes that this period covers the time when, in terms of a Cabinet decision, capital expenditure had to be restricted, but I think it is important to keep the prisons up to date and in an efficient state so far as buildings are concerned.

This brings me to the next point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister and that is the question of escapes which are occurring from prisons. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the number of prisoners who are escaping and are at large, especially in built-up areas, is causing grave concern. There have been certain unfortunate and very distressing crimes which have been committed and which are attributable to escaped prisoners. I want to deal with one example only and that is the prison at Bellville. The hon. the Minister was good enough, in response to questions which I put on the Order Paper, to give me certain information, and it appears that during the years 1964 to 1968 no fewer than 95 prisoners escaped from the Bellville gaol. Although a number of them were apprehended within a matter of a week or so, there are some who were at large for considerable periods of time. In fact, 10 of these escaped prisoners were at large for a period of longer than six months. I know that the Department, where there are instances of escapes due to negligence, takes action against the prison officials concerned, but I wonder whether these disciplinary measures have been taken to a sufficient extent to prevent these escapes. If, as I believe they are, the majority of escapes are from work parties which are away from the prison, perhaps at some farm, is there sufficient supervision of those work parties to ensure that the escapes do not take place? I would like to refer the Minister to the report for 1965-’66, which indicates that out of 1,600 escapes in 1966, 1.200 were in fact from working teams or public hospitals or whilst on transfer from one prison to another. It seems to be a matter which needs attention, particularly because it is creating a great deal of public alarm at present.

I would also request the Minister to be kind enough to indicate whether any steps have been taken in the Department of Justice for the take-over of the control of the Deeds Office from the Department of Lands. I believe it is a matter which has been requested and sought by the legal profession for a very long time, and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether any action is contemplated in that regard so that the Deeds Office would then fall under the Department of Justice?

I want to follow up only one matter raised by the hon. member for Green Point, and that is the question of escapes. I have figures here in front of me, but I think the Minister will prefer to use these figures himself, which indicate that for the period ended 30th June, 1968, the actual number of detainees increased and escapes decreased by the very large number of 400, which is an indication that the Department is doing everything in its power to combat this problem.

As one who recently raised this matter under the Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure Vote, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Green Point and ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with the inter-departmental investigation into the question of transferring the Deeds Offices to the Department of Justice. I think the involved nature and the volume of work necessitate the transfer of these Offices to the Department of Justice, particularly when the new development also comes into operation, and that is that we shall go so far as to give title deeds to owners of flats.

Then, we know this Minister as a very charming Minister, and as a charming Minister he recently did a very fine thing. He appointed a woman as an acting judge, and what makes this even more remarkable, a woman who is a housewife at the same time. Now, I do not want to deliver a plea here for a particular woman to be given an appointment in a permanent capacity, but I want to say it would be a fine thing if the emancipation of the woman in the professional world could be confirmed in practice by this Minister by means of the ultimate appointment of a woman as a permanent judge.

Then I should like to come to the question of the classification of hotels, and I should like to express my appreciation for the measure of progress made in this respect as well during the year covered by the latest report. We see for example, that 452 applications were received. Thirty-nine applications were carried forward from the previous year. During the year 326 applications were approved, 58 were refused, and 107 were still under consideration. I have personal experience of the trouble taken and the patience exercised by the Minister and the chairman of the Liquor Board, as well as by the Liquor Board itself, as far as these classifications are concerned, and the trouble taken to be specific, by the Chairman of the Liquor Board in this connection. Consequently I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and to Mr. le Roux. As far as this matter is concerned, I am a minor authority and I should like the voices of people who have a great deal to do with this matter to be heard here. I want to quote what Mr. Hennie Venter, outgoing chairman of Fedhasa, recently said in his presidential address at the 21st anniversary of the Federated Hotel Association. He said, inter alia, the following (translation)—

In my opinion it is hardly possible to give these two gentlemen a more glowing testimonial of appreciation and gratitude.

I now come to the particularly thorough report of the Secretary for Justice, and I should also like to refer in brief to the possible ad hoc committee to be appointed to go into all aspects of legal training. I want to make a plea that this should be a very properly and widely constituted commission that will go into all aspects of this matter, not only the question of the abolition of Latin, of which I am in favour, and the compulsory introduction of a modern European language or a Bantu language in the place of Latin, but also into all other aspects of the qualifications required to meet the particular demands of life in this modern world. So for example I should like to mention one question which in my opinion has become a burning issue, and that is that jurists who have a purely academic training and who go out to practise as attorneys, should in future have a thorough training in book-keeping as well and should be made to pass a stiff examination in this connection.

In conclusion I should like to deal in brief with the question of prisons. The very important work prisons are doing at present, has already been emphasized here. I think it is also common knowledge that the warder of to-day is a specialist and a technical man and not merely the man of the past who merely carried a key and effected physical detention. Because his work is so technical and so important to-day, and because he is doing work which is constantly subject to the scrutiny of the outside world as well, I feel that everything within our power should be done to attract to this Department a very fine type of man. Now it is so that in spite of the thorough training given to these people at Kroonstad, as well as in practice, we are faced with the position that our recruiting is not as is to be desired, and I want to advocate that much more funds should be made available in future for our recruiting attempts. In addition I want to advocate that in this connection, as far as remuneration is concerned, we should look beyond the salary scales of the Public Service, and should remember that these people are doing difficult work, that they work over weekends, which most definitely cannot be put on a par with the work of the ordinary public servant, and that because of this the question of remuneration should be investigated in order to alleviate the staff problem to some extent.

Practising lawyers on this side of the House will deal with the question of legal training raised by the hon. member for Kroonstad. I would, however, support him in his suggestion that as part of legal training there should be a course of bookkeeping. Secondly, the hon. member for Durban (Point) will deal from this side of the House, with the question of the classification of hotels, which was also referred to by the hon. member for Kroonstad.

What I would like to deal with now is the question of prisons, and I would like to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to Pollsmoor Prison with which I know he is familiar. I have had several inspections of that prison and also of Westlake Prison, and while I remain in disagreement with the policy of the Government that those prisons should have been situated where they are situated, I would nevertheless like to say that as the result of my inspections I believe the department is providing for the staff of those prisons first-class amenities and facilities. There are, however, certain things which are required at Pollsmoor to which I would like to draw the Minister’s attention. I think the main requirement is the provision of a recreation hall, a library and reading lounges for the prison staff, as well as more adequate mess facilities than exist at present. I find from acquaintanceship with members of the prisons staff that they are well disciplined, and I believe they are dedicated to the job they are doing. I was most impressed by what I saw at Pollsmoor Prison.

However, there is an unsatisfactory aspect referred to by the hon. member for Green Point, namely the escapes. There has been only one escape from Pollsmoor Prison since 1964, which is a first-class record of achievement. There have, however, been numerous escapes from working parties and from lorries taking prisoners back and forth from the prison. As to the prisoners themselves, I was impressed with the opportunities given to them for training as part of the rehabilitation scheme, but there are other problems at Pollsmoor. One of the main problems, I think is the fact that there are approximately 1,550 prisoners there at the moment, of whom one-third are awaiting-trial prisoners. Awaiting-trial prisoners have been kept at Pollsmoor for up to nine months. I am prepared to admit that that is due to court congestion and to the shortage of investigating police officers. But it seems to me to be a most undesirable practice that remands should be granted as often as they are by our courts and that prisoners should be kept at Pollsmoor, awaiting trial for as long as they are. Quite apart from that there are cases where awaiting trial prisoners are kept for two months and are thereafter either acquitted or else are found guilty and sentenced to only one month. In effect they have been sentenced to one month but have served a three months sentence. This is surely an undesirable situation. Another aspect I want to raise is the unproductivity of those awaiting trial prisoners. They are kept there at considerable expense to the State and all that they are able to do, as far as I can make out, is to clean the cells in which they are kept. They are unable to perform any productive work of any sort.

Another aspect is that criminals, petty offenders and awaiting-trial prisoners are very often kept together in the same cells. I know that in some cases efforts are made to separate them, but I believe that this system could effectively be improved. In particular I think of Native prisoners who are there as a result of pass book and similar offences. They are very often, while kept separate from Coloureds, not kept separate from hardened criminals. Another aspect which has caused me some concern and which I have tried to investigate myself is the question of assaults on prisoners by prisoners. I have inspected the 32 cells at Pollsmoor and at night, as the hon. the Minister is aware, there are four warders who control those 32 cells. In each of those cells there are approximately 50 prisoners and I am not satisfied that assaults do not take place by prisoners on prisoners in those cells during the absence on duty elsewhere in the prison area of those warders. I think this is a matter which can be gone into by the department more thoroughly. I am aware of the opportunities that exist to draw the attention of a warder. For example, a prisoner can make himself heard and ask for assistance from a warder. There is also the bell switch which turns on a red light and which enables a warder to see that a prisoner is in difficulties. But I do feel that that system is not as adequate as it might be. Furthermore it appears that there are considerable numbers of assaults by prisoners on prisoners in vans and lorries carrying those prisoners to and from prisons. This occurs not only in vans and lorries, but also in the Police cells, but of course this is a matter that falls under the Police Department.

There are two other matters I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister: The first is the question of the long-promised magistrate’s court for Simonstown. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will be kind enough to let us know how far that matter has progressed and when we can expect a magistrate’s court to be built in Simonstown. I have no need to tell him that the present very old magistrate’s court is completely inadequate for its purposes. The last point I wish to make is with regard to the magistrate’s court at Muizenberg, which is equally antiquated and which is wholly unsuitable for the proper administration and performance of justice.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation for the appreciative remarks addressed to the Department of Prisons by the last three speakers. I should like to reply at once to what the hon. member for Green Point said in connection with the staff position. The staff position as at 1st May, 1969, was that there were 5,117 posts for white men. Of those posts 4,953 were filled, which means that there were 164 vacant posts. There were 535 posts for Coloured and Indian men, of which 480 were filled, which left 55 vacant posts. For Bantu men there were 2,983 approved posts, of which 2,689 were filled, which left 294 vacant posts. From these figures the hon. member can deduce that the position is not at all as critical as he thought it to be. Special warders were also appointed in terms of regulation 9 (1) (a) and in terms of this regulation 185 white men, three Coloured and Indian men and 57 Bantu men were appointed. I am not dealing with the position in respect of South-West Africa now, because the hon. member did not refer to that.

I should also like to draw attention to the question of escapes by prisoners, and I should like to give more information in this regard. We have to draw a distinction between three types of escapes. Firstly, escapes from working teams, secondly, escapes by prisoners on transfer from courts, and thirdly, escapes from the prisons themselves. When one looks into these three kinds of escapes, one notices that the position is not as critical as the newspapers tried to make out. The Press makes quite a fuss of each escape and this causes one to lose one’s perspective. The following figures will illustrate this to us. I want to deal with the total average number of daily prisoners in th? Republic over a period of three years. I want to mention only the months of December, January and February of 1966-’67, 1967-’68 and 1968-’69. The daily average prison population during those three months was 73.000 in the first year, 81,000 in the next year and 87.000 in the last year. During the first period there were only 530 escapes, 682 during the second period and only 502 during the last period. When a comparison is drawn between the average prison populations and the number of escapes and that is expressed as a percentage, one sees that the actual percentage of escapes during these periods was .24 per cent during the first period, .28 per cent during the second period and .19 per cent during the last period, which in fact represents a decrease. When one has regard to the number of prisoners. the number of escapes is negligible.

Why was the percentage of escapes so high during one period?

At the moment I do not have particulars in that regard, but I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that most of these escapes take place from working teams. The vast majority of the prisoners who escaped during this period I have just mentioned, escaped from these working teams. The total number who escaped in this way, was 411 during the first period, 520 during the second period and 502 during the third period. This constitutes 77.5 per cent of the total number of escapes during the first period, 76 per cent of the total number of escapes during the second period, and no less than 80 percent of the total number of escapes during the last period. Therefore one must come to the conclusion that the majority of escapes take place from these working teams. The other escapes are not of as much significance. Hon. members will naturally be interested in the arrangements which are made to prevent these escapes. Attempts are being made to improve the security of old and insecure prisons by means of improving and strengthening such prisons so as to limit the number of escapes in that way. In the second place there is intensive screening of prisoners who work outside prisons in working teams. More strict action is also being taken against staff who cause escapes through negligence. In the fourth place the policy is being implemented of not granting prisoners who have escaped any reduction in sentence. The fifth measure is that lately dogs have been used to an increasing extent for tracing escapees. Prisoners are very afraid of these dogs. The courts have also been requested to impose heavier penalties for escaping. When prisoners are admitted and at suitable times during their detention, they are informed of this so that they are fully aware of what to expect if they were to escape. As a result of these measures I have just mentioned, this remarkable decrease in recent years is noticeable, as I have shown by means of the figures I have just quoted. From the comparative particulars for the three months over the past three years, it appears that our attempts have been fruitful, and this is clear from the following figures. The total number of prisoners handled by our prisons during the 12 months ended June, 1967, was 634.500, and out of this number there were only 1,973 escapes. Of this total 383 escaped from prisons whereas 1.590 absconded from working teams outside prisons. During the 12 months ended 30th June. 1968, the total number of prisoners handled by the Department of Prisons came to 130.099. In other words, an increase of 96 000 on the previous year, whereas the actual number of escapes decreased by 399 to 1,574. Of the latter number 240 escaped from institutions. This number was 383 the year before. From the working teams 1.334 escaped, whereas the number of escapes in this connection was 1.590 the previous year. The number of escapes has already been decreased. I can deal with the particular cases, because it is being alleged that these hardened prisoners are the ones who commit the crimes. So for example a report recently appeared in one of our newspapers alleging that all the serious crimes were being committed by these escapees. But whereas murder alone accounted for something like 5,000 odd of the total number of serious crimes committed, there were fewer than 2,000 escapes during the year. Therefore this statement that all serious crimes are being committed by escaped prisoners, surely is not a true one.

Mr. Chairman, with the expiry at the end of December of the five years allowed for the compulsory classification of hotels in terms of the Liquor Act, I think this is an appropriate time to take stock briefly of the position as it has developed since 1963. Over two-thirds of the licensed hotels in South Africa have been classified. This figure is higher than was originally expected. Some 440 hotels have been granted extensions, and this year 85 have fallen by the wayside. That indicates, I think, on the credit side, that one can say that the legislation introduced by this House has gone a long way towards achieving the objective of improved standards in the hotel industry in South Africa. It has also encouraged, together with other legislation and activity, the growth of a large number of combines and large companies which are entering the hotel industry in a big way with holiday inns and various other tourist hotels for the middle income group. Therefore I think that it can be said that those objectives which we set, aimed at improving the standards of hotels, have to a large extent achieved their object.

But there is also a debit side. I want to refer to that debit side. There is a debit side of those who have either sold their hotels, who have borrowed money, or who have had to close down. There are many hotels to-day which are operating with heavy bonds and heavy liabilities in the form of loans and interest which are reacting back upon the users of hotels in the form of higher tariffs.

Also on the debit side is the fact that the family man has largely been priced out of the use of hotels. The family man and the traveller without an unlimited expense account is finding the choice of hotels within his price range more and more restricted. We are finding too, on the debit side that the principles of the Malan Commission, which advocated the encouragement of mealtime drinking, are similarly being priced out, because it is only the rich man who can to-day enjoy the dining spots in most of the classified hotels. This is essentially so because the higher standards have necessitated capital investment, which in turn has pushed up the price.

But the main loss on the debit side has been the problems which are now faced by the country hotelier, the holiday hotel, the man and wive who run a small hotel, the rondavel type holiday hotel, and so on. I believe that, whilst the concept was right—and I still believe we were right in the line we took—the application has been too rigid. There has not been sufficient flexibility in its application. For instance, I believe that it is ridiculous that a fishing hotel which has bedrooms leading out onto a verandah on which fishing equipment is kept, should have to glass in the verandah, with the smell of bait, etc., because the regulations lay down that one may not go out of doors from one’s bedroom to a toilet. The wet fishermen coming home in the middle of the night, soaked to the skin, must not risk a draught while walking down the verandah. He must rather smell the bait. That is the sort of thing that has shown no flexibility and which could have been dealt with otherwise. Mr. Chairman, let us face it. Classification is to-day a departmental matter. We have a National Liquor Board, but in practice it is a departmental matter. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, now that the basic objective has been achieved, to introduce more flexibility. I say that this is more an administrative matter, because I have consulted figures and I find that we have almost instant classification. For one year it worked out that if the National Liquor Board had dealt only with classification, the average time spent on the hotels classified during that year was six minutes per hotel. This is the figure one arrives at if one counts the number of days, and assumes that they are six to eight-hour working days, and one takes into account the number of applications. So in fact this is a departmental matter, where recommendations are merely approved by a board. It is in connection with these recommendations that I feel there should be more flexibility. I have all the figures here, but I do not have the time to deal with them. I do however, want to point out that, in regard to the granting of new liquor licences, for instance, there was a considerable delay. There were 164 applications in August, 1968. These applications were only submitted to the Minister, after they had passed the National Liquor Board, on 12th March, 1969. The licensees were not advised until between 11th and 23rd April. I believe that that is not necessary. There I hope that the procedure can be streamlined so that people do not have to wait six months and more in order to find out whether they have been granted the licence for which they applied. In order to enable the National Liquor Board to have more time, I should again like to come back to the plea that, now that the required standards have been achieved, the National Liquor Board should confine itself to liquor affairs and let the Hotel Board take over hotel affairs. I do not believe that it is the job of the National Liquor Board to deal with the conditions for the running of a hotel, other than the aspects related to liquor. South-West Africa, a part of our country, now has a new ordinance, in terms of which hotel licences are handled by the Hotel Board. There is a separate liquor organization to deal with normal off-consumption liquor licences. On-consumption affairs in South-West Africa are handled by the Hotel Board. I believe that here too we should differentiate between off-consumption and on-consumption matters. The National Liquor Board should deal with off-consumption and the Hotel Board should deal with on consumption. I do not believe it is the National Liquor Board’s job to deal with entertainers in hotels, receptionists, barmen, ladies’ barmen and matters of that nature. That is an aspect of hotel running which the Hotel Board should deal with. Sir, I want to plead that this matter be given attention, now that we have reached the stage where the National Liquor Board has laid the foundations.

I also want to appeal to the Minister to promulgate as soon as possible the legislation, passed this year, which does away with the need to reclassify. Parliament has decided that hotels need not reclassify every three years. A large number of hotels are now falling due for their three yearly classification. All that it needs is promulgation. Surely it would be simple to promulgate this that so as to save them the money, waste of time, expense and effort and to save the National Liquor Board the trouble of dealing with those reclassifications. I want to appeal, too, to the hon. the Minister to completely amend the application procedure for the renewal of liquor licences. I have pleaded with the hon. the Minister before and he said that it has been simplified and that they merely have to apply and unless there is an objection there will be no problem. But here I have a report which appeared in the Press of the chairman of a local Liquor Licencing Board—I have no time to read it— wherein he deals with the waste of time of his board, lawyers and everyone else, as a result of errors in applications. The hon. the Minister knows how complicated the application form is. There is the question of certain papers that have to be attached thereto, affidavits and one thing and another. I plead with the hon. the Minister that where a liquor licence has been granted and is to be renewed, only a simple application should be necessary together with an affidavit saying that the conditions of personnel and everything else are unchanged from the year before. Only if there is any change should that be detailed. There will therefore be no need to go through the whole procedure every year. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister too to reconsider the stock book—to abolish the off-sales stock book which is not necessary except in very isolated cases. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised a question which he has already raised two or three times in previous years. One can certainly agree with him on certain of the matters which he mentioned. I want to refer to the question of applications for renewal which was raised by the hon. member. Last year, or the year before that, I also said to the hon. member that I thought that he should ask the people, who were advising him to put this request to the House every year, to place an application for renewal before him and to explain to him exactly what it contains.

But I do have examples here with me.

But then the hon. member simply does not understand it all. He comes to the House every year with the same request.

You just want to keep the job for your lawyer pals. That is all.

The hon. member must be honest now. One must live and let live. Let us come back to dealing seriously with the matter. An application for the renewal of a liquor licence is no complicated matter. It is not a cumbersome matter. It is not a very expensive matter. The applicant does not even need to be present before the board. The regulations clearly make this provision. The applicant does not need any person to represent him before that board. He does not even need to appear before the board himself in an application for renewal. He must simply ensure that his documents are drawn up correctly. It is not so complicated that the licence-holder cannot draw up those documents himself either. I am now speaking of renewals and not of a new application.

How much do I pay a lawyer for my renewal?

It is not necessary to pay the lawyer a cent.

But how much is he paid?

I am not sure of the fixed rate. There are fixed rates which have been laid down by the law societies. But a person does not need to do this. He can do it himself. In any case, Mr. Chairman, I did not think that the hon. member will understand it. It is clear that he does not understand much about the rest of the story either.

There is another matter, to which the hon. member referred, which I also want to mention. This is in connection with the reclassification of hotels after a period of three years. It is a fact that the legislation was amended. I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s reply on this matter will be. However, I want to say to the hon. member that when many of these hotels will probably have to be investigated again with a view to reclassification, this will really be essential. There are some of these hotels which have probably deteriorated. It will be necessary to make sure that they are still complying with the standards which were laid down when they were, in fact, classified. I think that there are quite a few of the hotels which could be examined again in order to determine whether they are still complying with those standards.

There is another matter, in connection with the long time it takes before a final decision about classification is reached. This may be as long as four or five months. Actually it is not five months. The applications are normally only available to the National Liquor Board by the middle of December. It takes time to forward the documents. The liquor licensing board has several applications which must be taken care of and dispatched together with reports. According to the reply given, it actually takes three to four months. But those documents must nevertheless be perused very thoroughly. The documents are, in addition, also of a technical nature. Inspections must be carried out in many of the cases. In many cases the board must make inquiries in order to obtain additional information before a decision can be given. Eventually these matters must come before the board. The Minister must give certain decisions. I think that the period of three to four months is really not an unreasonable one. An applicant must simply ensure that his application is handled correctly from the start, that his application has been properly completed, that all the information appears in it and that his building project complies with the regulations which have been framed. Those regulations have really been framed in an uncomplicated way, if one would just go to work systematically. I could mention examples to the House but it is not necessary to enter into particulars now. For example, I am now thinking of a case where a junior dark in an office simply ensured that he went to work systematically from the very first step which he had to take in order to deal with an application for classification, that application was submitted and there was not a single query about it. There was no reason for delay. There was also no reason to feel that an unreasonable period had elapsed in dealing with it. There is another interesting aspect, i.e. that last year and the year before the hon. member for Durban (Point) expressed his deep concern about the hundreds of hotels which could not be classified by the 31st December, 1968, as a result of several problems. Unfortunately I do not have the figures with me. However, I know that the Chairman of the National Liquor Board supplied the figures in a recent speech in one of the large cities where he was addressing a large number of liquor licence-holders. It was a small number, a matter of a few dozen. This was the number in respect of which certain problems developed by the 31st December, 1968.

There were 500.

No, it was much less than 500 which could not be classified. If one looks at the Secretary for Justice’s report, there was a total of 434 applications for temporary exemption from the obligation of being classified. In 1968 an extension was granted to 417. This indicates that a very large number of the hotels still contemplate being classified. I must honestly say that the few who fell by the wayside did so for reasons which do not fall under the regulations of the Liquor Act. If one takes note of which hotels did, in fact, qualify for classification—with a reasonably small capital outlay—the other reasons why hotels are not classified are surely not attributable to the provisions of the Liquor Act or the regulations which were promulgated in terms of it. I shall leave the matter there. I should also like to refer to one or two other matters.

As far as the question of specialization in the magistrates’ courts is concerned, I wondered whether it is not possible for the hon. the Minister and his Department to devote more attention to the posting of officials in the magistrate’s division of the Department of Justice. One finds officials in the magistrate’s division who are excellent administrative officers. They are excellent in purely administrative work. The moment this man is appointed to the Bench, he is bitterly unhappy. Some of these people have to do court work from one year to the next. As a person he is simply not disposed to court work. Give him an administrative job where he can work in the calm atmosphere of an office with a small staff and all is well. It does not matter how difficult that administrative work is, because he is an intelligent man. However, what does matter is that he feels at home there and is happy, and I am sure that the reverse is also true. There are also officials who have the legal qualifications and who would already very much like to do court work of one form or another at a very early stage of their lives, but they cannot do so because they are burdened with administrative work. They, again, feel unhappy there. However, my concern is with the administratively orientated person who must do court work and who must act as a judicial officer. These people age 20 years before their time as a result of that kind of responsibility which they must bear. I wonder whether the Department could not consider doing a little scientific research in this connection. Research could be done about the posting of the officials who must do this kind of work. The health of certain of those persons would possibly be improved by that.

There is another matter which, to my regret, the hon. the Deputy Minister did not raise. I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s standpoint in respect of this is, but if one looks at certain of the large gaols, and I am now thinking of the gaol at Barberton and of other prisons, where long-term prisoners are kept, which are being built in white areas, one wonders whether these prisons could not be built in the Bantu homelands. Could the Bantu homeland authorities not administer the prisons if this were to be done? I think that this is a better idea than having those large prisons built and administered in white areas. We are already building large hospitals in the homeland areas and we are specifically taking these sick Bantu from the hospitals in the white areas and placing them in hospitals in the homeland areas; I am thinking of the large hospital, which has more than 2,000 beds, in the Tswana area near Mafeking. In the light of this, could we not build prisons in those areas, so that the territorial authorities could administer those prisons? It would remove a great burden from the shoulders of our Government [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something in connection with magistrates. I want, most strongly, to express my disapproval of the criticism which the hon. member for Houghton levelled here at magistrates. She levelled criticism here because of the fact that wrong judgments are made in barely half a per cent of the cases. I myself practised as an attorney for many years, probably for 14 or 15 years, and I have nothing but high praise and esteem for the manner in which magistrates carry out their work in the lower courts. Since, as has already been stated, about 80 per cent of our cases are tried by lower courts, it speaks volumes for our administration of justice that only in a few particular cases could something, such as the hon. member mentioned here, take place. I find it particularly reprehensible that this matter is being raised in the House, since Judges already give publicity to such instances and, moreover, newspapers also readily give publicity to such a case. It was therefore altogether unnecessary to have raised this matter in the House. I think that we should rather extend a word of praise and gratitude to our magistrates throughout South Africa for the competent way in which they are handling the cases.

I also want to give my opinion in connection with another matter which was raised here, i.e. the question of Latin as a qualifying subject for law students. I should like to tell you of my experience in this connection. I do not want to go into the question of whether Latin is necessary for lawyers. From my experience as an attorney I can just say that I do not think that it is necessary for an attorney to know Latin. There is a tremendous shortage of attorneys, and I do not feel that it is necessary for attorneys in the lower courts to know Latin.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I should like to reply to the last few sneakers. I shall start with the hon. member for Potgietersrust. The hon. member and also the hon. member for Durban (North) and other hon. members referred to the question of better payment for our magistrates. As recently announced by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, certain improvements have been made to the salary structure. I do not want to anticipate the details, but I think it will be found that these improvements will contribute a very great deal towards bringing about greater satisfaction in the magistrates’ division. The hon. member for Potgietersrus also mentioned a new system of recruiting and steps to publicize the Department. In this connection I want to tell him that the Department goes out of its way to publicize its activities and to attract young people. They are addressed at schools; they are even invited to come and have tea at magistrates’ offices; they are then allowed into court to watch the proceedings in order to try to interest them in this way in the work of the Department. The hon. member referred to the possibility of using private practitioners to help with training. That would be a very good thing and one would welcome it, but I want to point out that the Department itself has a training section which produces very good results, a training section where young people who have proved that they want to continue their studies and qualify in law and who have to do so by means of correspondence, are put through the oven, as it is generally called in the Department, for a few months before the examinations. This has been done with very good results. The hon. member also referred to Latin. I shall leave that aside for the moment.

The hon. member for Mariental asked that Whites living in close proximity to the Rehoboth area who still fall under that magisterial district should be classified under the adjoining white areas of South-West Africa. I can give him the assurance that the Department is already working in this direction and that a broad investigation is going to be instituted to see whether we cannot make the Rehoboth area as such into one magisterial district only and properly classify the Whites under the adjoining white areas, and then also demarcate the Bantu areas as judicial areas under the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the increased costs in relation to the number of prisoners and asked for an explanation. I do not have the previous cost figures availab1e but, I just want to say that since 1965-’66. the date which he mentioned, the number of prisoners, as he rightly said, has increased by about 20 per cent or a little more and that our costs have quite possibly increased a good deal more, although it would most definitely not be 60 per cent, as he said. One can attribute this mainly to the fact that, in the first instance. there has been a considerable increase in the number of posts in the Department; in addition the salary scales were improved on more than one occasion over the past few years. The cost of clothing and feeding the prisoners has, of course, also increased over the years. The equipment for the prisoners is better than it was three or four years ago, with the result that there is necessarily an increase in costs. I want to leave it at that for the moment, without admitting to the correctness of the figures which the hon. member mentioned. At the same time, however, I want to admit that there has definitely been an increase of costs.

The hon. member for Green Point, as did the hon. member for Kroonstad, also mentioned the question of the Deeds Office. In this connection I can announce that the Cabinet has decided that the Deeds Office will be transferred from the Department of Agricultural Credit to the Department of Justice. The date on which this will take place has not been fixed yet; it will be determined at a departmental level.

I want to thank the hon. member for Simonstown for his fine words in connection with Pollsmoor. I know that he takes a special interest in Pollsmoor. I want to give him the assurance that the various steps for which he pleaded have already been accepted in principle. Provision has been made for them on the Estimates. The necessary planning has been carried out and the buildings are being erected. A recreation hall will be erected, as well as additional prisons for women. This is the only awaiting-trial prison that we have in the Peninsula. It replaces Roeland Street in this connection. There may be prisoners who have to await trial for a long period, but the hon. member will realize that this is a matter which is not in the hands of the Department of Prisons; it is in the hands of the Police. After a case has been remanded, the necessary investigation is carried out by the Police, and the length of time it takes before the trial takes place depends upon the duration of the investigation. It is therefore a matter in which neither the Department of Justice nor the Department of Prisons is concerned; it is mainly the Police who are concerned.

Is provision being made for a recreation hall and for a library?

I cannot say at the moment what the position is as far as a library is concerned, but provision has definitely been made for a recreation hall. The head of the department tells me that provision has been made for a library as well. The hon. member also referred to the magistrate’s court at Simonstown. He also referred to a magistrate’s court at Muizenberg; I take it that he was referring to the periodic court. I do not know at the moment what the position in connection with the two courts is. Of course, we have a tremendous programme in this regard, but we shall go into the matter and tell the hon. member later what the position is as far as the magistrate’s court at Simonstown and the periodic court at Muizenberg are concerned.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom asked for greater specialization in the magistrate’s courts. This is an extremely difficult matter. I readily concede that greater specialization will give greater satisfaction, but it also has its disadvantages. The disadvantages are, of course, that the more you specialize, the smaller your field of competition becomes, and, of course, the officials do not like that. On the other hand again, the position is that in most magistrates’ courts in the smaller districts the legal and administrative work is of such a nature that it does not justify having one person purely for administrative and another purely for legal work. Consequently it is very difficult always to apply this. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I am surprised at the extent to which the Secretary of the Department is acquainted with the preferences of each of the officials when it comes to promotion. He can easily say that this man is more suited to this field and that man is more suited to that field. This is therefore thoroughly taken into account, but as a general rule we cannot apply specialization 100 per cent.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom also spoke about the desirability, as far as prisons are concerned, of rather seeing to it that the prisons are located in the homelands. We are moving in this direction. We already have two prisons which are being erected in the Bantu homelands. One is near Blood River in the Zululand area and the other is near Umzimkulu in the Northern Transkei. But the hon member will realize that if you want to apply this principle properly, you first have to make a survey of the ethnic populations in the prisons, and then you have to send each prisoner to his own particular homeland according to his ethnic grouping.

Is it murder by ethnic groups these days? Is murder by a Xhosa different from murder by a Zulu?

I listened very patiently to that hon. member, although he did not always say things which I liked to hear, and now he must also keep quiet. To the hon. member for Potchefstroom I may just say that we are working in this direction.

Then I want to come back to the question of hotels, which was discussed by the hon. members for Kroonstad and Durban (Point). I especially appreciate the words which came from the hon. member for Kroonstad about what the former President of the Hotel Association, Mr. Venter, said when he expressed his appreciation to the National Liquor Board and myself in connection with the question of classifications. I particularly appreciate this, and I also want to say that if anyone deserves it, it is the chairman and members of the National Liquor Board, who have done an excellent job and to whom I am particularly indebted for what they have done in the past two or three years. My thoughts go back to the debates which we had under this Vote last year and the year before. I still remember that last year the hon member for Von Brandis made a special appeal to me in connection with classification and assured me that most of the hotels were going to rack and ruin. I told him that evening—it was also on a Wednesday evening after dinner, like this evening—that I could give him the assurance that according to my information there would be approximately 100 hotels which would not classify.

How many have not yet been classified?

I shall give the hon. member the figure in a moment. The fact of the matter is that it seems as though there will be fewer than 100 which will not classify. [Interjections.] According to the figures supplied to us, there are 1,555 hotels in the Republic. According to the latest figure which we have— that was a few days ago—997 have been finally classified, and since …

Only two-thirds.

The hon. member must not interrupt me now. He was the one who kicked up a big fuss about classification. Let me give the figures now. My information is that approximately 1,016 have been finally classified; 15 are still being dealt with, and then 543 remain. Of these 543 there are 441 which were granted extension and which have complied with their conditions of extension, but which cannot classify immediately.

If that is so, then your answer to my question was wrong.

No, I have never given the hon. member a wrong answer. It is beneath me to do it. The position is that extension was granted to 441 and they have to comply with it; so many this year, so many the following, and so many the year after that. What is more, we make sure that it is done. We keep them to the conditions of extension and they comply with them. In the final analysis it appears as though 74 of the hotels will have altogether ceased to exist—74 out of a total of 1,555; and this figure of 74 does not even present the true picture, because 24 of them were classified and have since been sold and have ceased to exist as hotels. As I said last year, they ceased to exist because the land on which they had been built was too expensive and could be better utilized for another purpose. Then there are approximately 52 which will get wine and malt licences. That is the picture, and I would be neglecting my duty …

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether his reply on 7th June last year in column 6742 that 138 hotels had not applied for classification, and his reply on 7th March this year that 24 had converted to wine and malt licences and that there were 85 not classified, were not correct?

No, those were the circumstances on those particular dates as at which we gave the details according to the best information that we had. Now I am giving him the position as it is to-day, and I am linking it up with what I have been saying all along.

So these figures were wrong?

Order!

The new figures are better than those of the previous year. We have improved on the figures of the previous year, but the point is that all those prophecies of doom which came from the hon. member for Durban (Point) were wrong.

Will the Minister tell us how many hotels have been sold since?

Order! Hon. members should rather make speeches than put all sorts of questions here.

What the hon. member apparently wants to know is how many hotels have been sold and have gone out of business. I have an idea it is about 24. Approximately 52 have become wine and beer merchants. I would say 50 ceased to exist. That is about the final figure. 441 complied with the conditions of extension and got extensions, Approximately 1,000 have been finally classified. If this is completed, we get precisely the same result which we tried to get across to the hon. member for Durban (Point) in 1966, 1967 and 1968. Finally I wish to express a word of thanks to the chairman and all the members of the National Liquor Board for the wonderful work they have done. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) himself said this evening, the hotels have been spruced up. We can now be proud of our hotel industry. On the whole we are better off than previously.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also spoke about the delays that are experienced.

What about my debit side?

How can the hon. member now speak of a debit side. There is only a credit side. [Interjections.] No, the hon. member made one speech and he must stop talking now, because I want to speak. The hon. member spoke about the delays occurring with the National Liquor Board. I just want to tell him that he must realize how the National Liquor Board, in fact any liquor board, works. The applications have to be in by the end of August. Then the various applications are first considered by the local liquor board. After that they are sent to the National Liquor Board. That only happens towards the end of November up to the middle of December. We must remember that there are a large number of applications. Then the procedure is that the applications are divided among the various members of the National Liquor Board. One member gets this group of applications, another member gets that group of applications and the chairman gets another group. Then the applications are considered, and in January the members meet here in Cape Town. Then every application is discussed thoroughly. Surely the hon. member would not want them to act precipitately. These applications must be discussed thoroughly. The members then meet and minutes are kept. The discussion on each application has to be submitted to me. The hon. member must realize that I am the person who, in the final instance, must decide about the recommendation of those members as to whether the licence should be granted or refused. All the discussions which are held, and which are recorded on tape, have to be typed out. The discussion on each particular application must be attached to the application concerned. Once that is done, it is sent through to me as Minister with a recommendation. I react to that. As the hon. member will notice from the reply which I gave him, I dealt with quite a number of applications within four days.

No, it was six days. You did some fast reading.

Yes, six days. It was probably over a week-end. There were 163 applications. After that the applications are sent back. Then they are put in order and the applicants are notified.

Were any applications refused?

Yes, applications were refused. Applications for grocers’ wine licences were refused. The hon. member will probably be glad to hear that. Other people are not so glad about it. Applications for ordinary bottle store licences were also refused. Various other applications were also refused. Approval does not follow automatically; the applications are properly considered.

Then the hon. member also spoke about the reclassification and asked me to issue as soon as possible the proclamation which will put that particular section into operation. I can assure him that we are doing our best to get that done as soon as possible. That particular section also contains other provisions. There is also certain administrative work which has to be carried out. I can give him the assurance that we shall abolish reclassification by proclamation as soon as possible. It is in our own interest to do away with this unnecessary work.

When will that be done?

As soon as possible. I cannot say that we shall be able to do it sooner than that.

Then the hon. member also spoke about the dual control which is exercised, namely by the Hotel Board and the National Liquor Board. I just want to tell the hon. member that as long as liquor remains a controlled commodity and as long as hotels sell liquor, I have no intention of relinquishing the control exercised over hotels by means of the National Liquor Board. This may just as well be said now. However. I have something to add to that. I want to tell him that the hotel associations are not so sure any more that control should be exercised by the Hotel Board. The hon. member would do well to take note of this. At one stage all of them wanted to be controlled by the Hotel Board only. There was the stage when the National Liquor Board had to do all the dirty work. First they had to bully hotels into classifying. Once they had been classified they had to be handed over to the Hotel Board. That was the position at one stage. It is not so certain any more that that is still the hotel owners’ point of view to-day. The hon. member can make inquiries in this connection. I want to repeat that as long as liquor is a controlled commodity and as long as liquor is sold in hotels, we shall retain control over it.

Over the liquor or over the entire hotel?

Over the liquor and over the entire hotel. We shall retain control over matters in so far as they relate to liquor.

I also want to refer to something which the hon. member for Kroonstad mentioned. The hon. member paid me the compliment of having been very charming towards a certain lady because I had appointed her as a Judge in an acting capacity. It was not I who was so charming, it was this lady who achieved such special distinction. She deserved it. She is an outstanding jurist. It was without any hesitation at all that I could recommend to the State President that she be appointed in an acting capacity. This lady really made history. She made history in that she is the first lady to enter the judiciary in South Africa. While she was acting. she did so in a particularly worthy and competent manner. She is, however, still making history in that she is the first Judge, as far as I know, to have her appointment announced in this House. It was decided to-day to appoint her in a permanent capacity to the Northern Cape Bench. I wish the Northern Cape Bench every success, and at the same time I want to wish her every success as a full Judge on that Bench.

What about the renewal of liquor licences?

No, the hon. member for Potchefstroom replied to the hon. member for Durban (Point) on that question. I do not want to repeat what he said. I think I have now replied to all the questions put to me.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 34.—Mines, R34,550,000 and and S.W.A. Vote 18,—Mines, R276,000:

Mr. Chairman, three very important events stand out quite clearly in the past year’s mining activities. I should like to deal with each one of these. Then perhaps if we have time, I should also like to go on to one or two other matters. Firstly, we had the discovery of methane gas and oil condensates. Secondly, we had the near disaster at the West Driefontein Mine. Thirdly, we had the international conference in Johannesburg.

in a little more detail. Soekor and the Superior in a little more detail. Soekor and the Standard Oil Company together made the announcement a few weeks ago of a very substantial find of methane gas and oil condensates in the Plettenberg Bay area. The Minister dramatically made the announcement in the House. There was a Press conference immediately afterwards. We were told how much gas was expected. The Minister stated that there would be 25 million cubic feet of gas coming from the drillhole every day and 100 barrels of condensate. After that there was sudden silence. We heard nothing more, except that the drillhole had been plugged, the Glomar Sirte went on its business to other parts of the world and that drilling in the vicinity had stopped I think it is time the Minister told us whether there is a possibility of this venture being proceeded with. He must tell the House whether in his opinion and the opinion of the experts, both from the oil company and from Soekor that this is going to be a profitable and an economic venture. He must tell us who is going to benefit by it and whether there is sufficient gas and oil for the whole of South Africa. There has been a strange silence about all this. I have tried to find out on my own whether anything is going to happen there, but I failed. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell the House what the prospects are of this venture opening up again, how long it is going to take and when we can expect the good things that are inherent in such a valuable find.

I want to leave it at that. I want to proceed to the West Driefontein Mine, where there was this near disaster. That was a shocking catastrophe. That was a shocking thing to have happened in one of the richest mines in the world. This mine faced complete flooding. I must say that the miracle that happened there was due to the foresight and the determination with which the mine management, and the miners themselves, played their part.

Hear, hear!

This House, I am sure, will join with me in congratulating them again for their remarkable feat. The work that was done there, the plugging by concrete of this burst, was done by white and non-white miners. I wish to join with those who have congratulated the two miners, one white and one Bantu miner, who received the miner’s V.C. for the dangerous work that they did so successfully when playing this great part in stopping the flood. But having said that, I should like to know why it has occurred. I should like to know why, in a dolomite area such as this, this flooding took place. Obviously the mining engineers in this dolomite area must have know that there was a possibility of flooding. They must have known of the dangers if flooding did take place. We in this House should like to know what precautions the mine management took to make sure that flooding did not take place. There are various methods which are used in mining to determine these dangers. One of the simplest, I think, would have been to sink probing holes in the developing area to make sure that there was not water on the other side of this wall. The Minister will have an opportunity later to reply. But this type of disaster could happen again. We in this House should like to know what precautions are going to be taken in future to safeguard the workers in the mines and the mines themselves. A terrible disaster could have taken place. We were fortunate that there was no loss of life. We were very fortunate that we were able to seal off the flooded areas. But now, what is going to happen in the future in these mines that are situated in dolomite country?

Sir, I want to pass to the third event. I want to deal briefly with the international conference. I want to congratulate the Minister, the mining houses and the mining unions, the workers, for bringing together such a galaxy of scientists to our country. People came from all over the world to Johannesburg. There one was able to learn what the recent advances have been in the study of the diseases which could attack the miner. We had people from America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland and Wales, all giving us their opinions and reading papers to us. It was very pleasing to see what a prominent part our own scientists played at this conference. They were able not only to learn from the others, but to teach as well. One fact that struck me as being a most important aspect of this conference was the close association between industry and mining when dealing with health hazards. In this discussion of the mining Vote, I briefly mentioned the desirability of bringing under one umbrella all those conditions which could quite easily lead to ill health, both in the miner and the worker in industry. I gave examples. I told the House that it was found that a worker in an asbestos factory who had been working perhaps not only in as good conditions as a pneumoconiosis sufferer who may have asbestosis from working in the mine, would also be subjected to the same type of lung disease. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, unlike the hon. member for Rosettenville who has misgivings about the discovery of natural gas at Plettenberg Bay, I want to begin by congratulating the Minister and the Government with their first success in the search for oil in the Republic of South Africa. With the discovery of natural gas in the continental shelf near Plettenberg Bay, the statement which was previously made, to the effect that oil would not be discovered in South Africa, has now been quashed.

Col. 6835:

Line 9: For “in a little more detail. Soekor and the Superior”, read “Let us deal with each of these events”.

This evening our thoughts go back to the day in June, 1966, when the late Dr. Verwoerd set the first drill in motion on the farm Kareebosch. In those days most people thought that the search for oil was a waste of money, and that it was foolish. We must remember that at that time the country was virtually in a state of emergency. The hostility abroad was increasing in intensity, and there was talk of boycotts and sanctions being applied against South Africa. Everyone was aware of the fact that South Africa was economically independent, but that we were not self-sufficient in respect of our oil supplies. In this respect the Republic was therefore very vunerable at that time. Under these circumstances Dr. Verwoerd took an individual view and purposely launched the search for oil with the words that we were going out to meet the future with confidence and faith. That faith and confidence was not disappointed because to-day we are jubilant about the first success which has been achieved in the search for oil. The discovery at Plettenberg Bay is of tremendous strategic value to us. It will have a tremendous affect on the further search for oil and ought to speed this up considerably because there is now irrefutable proof that oil can in fact, be found in the Republic. We must now accept that oil will not be found in every borehole, and that there are still many disappointments and problems to be dealt with. The fact is that it has been irrefutably proved that it is worthwhile looking for oil in South Africa.

The discovery has a further significance for South Africa, and this is that the friends of South Africa will realize anew the strategic value of the Cape sea route. It is of strategic value, not only because it offers an important military base, but also because it can, at all times and under all conditions, ensure East-West commercial shipping of, and supply it with, essential provisions.

Lastly I want to point out that the discovery of oil could save South African millions of rands annually in foreign currency. South Africa spends more than R125 million annually in order to obtain its oil supplies. There is an increasing annual consumption. In 1967 it increased by 11 per cent, and in 1968 by 14 per cent. Dr. Quass, who made a special study of South Africa’s future requirements, determined, that the demand for oil in seven years time would probably be four times as great as it is at present. Therefore we have reason to be happy about the first signs of success in the search for oil. I therefore want to wish the Minister and the Government every success, and I want to thank them for the persistent devotion with which the undertaking is being encouraged and pursued.

Sir. I should also like to express a few thoughts about the examinations which the miners are undergoing at the pneumoconiosis bureau. These examinations are treated by the miners with suspicion and distrust. One simply cannot succeed in inspiring them with confidence in the bureau. I think that the reason for this must be sought in the fact that the miners are not fully informed and kept abreast of the methods being applied and the reports being issued. We are constantly hearing of complaints that when a miner is examined at the bureau his report only bears the words “No pneumoconiosis”. He learns nothing more, and he hears nothing of the other ailments from which he could be suffering. This accusation was only recently made to me by a panel doctor. That panel doctor did not want to believe me when I tried to correct him. The facts in this connection are given in the pneumoconiosis bureau report which I have here. I should like to quote. On page 9 it is stated:

Sir, my request to the hon. the Minister is whether we cannot apply methods to bring this to the attention of the miners and in some way or other and point out to them that they are entitled to obtain the reports from the pneumoconiosis bureau if they are suffering from a malady other than pneumoconiosis. It must be explained to them that this information can be made available to them or to their panel doctor. In this connection I can give the Minister the assurance that there is a great deal of ignorance in the ranks of the miners. If this could be done, I think it would inspire confidence in the bureau.

A second matter which is also mentioned in the report, and which I want to link up with, is that there is an increasing tendency to have periodic examinations carried out in the sub-bureaux, i.e. at Klerksdorp, Welkom, Witbank, Dundee, etc. We know that the specialist and laboratory services of the bureau in Johannesburg are the best. The sub-bureaux simply do not have the excellent services available that Johannesburg can offer. Therefore I want to associate myself with the thought which is expressed in this report, i.e.:

I should like to recommend this idea, which is expressed in the report, very strongly. I believe that, if this could be done, it would help to insure the miner’s confidence in the investigations at the bureaux.

Sir, before I conclude I just want to say that we have learned from the Press that Mr. Nel, the Secretary for Mining, is going to retire, and that he is going to be succeeded by Mr. Uys. I want to assure Mr. Nel of our appreciation for what he has meant for us in the past, and for the competence and the dedication with which he managed this work, and also for the way in which he was always accessible to us when we wanted to discuss problems with him. We also want to congratulate Mr. Uys on his appointment. We have already come to know him in the past, and we know he will fill this post in as competent and worthy a manner as Mr. Nel did.

Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I want to ask hon. members please to stop talking amongst themselves like this. It is disturbing if they talk in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the close relationship between diseases which occur because of mining activities and diseases occurring because of the use of mine products in industry. A moment or two ago I pointed out what happens in an asbestos mine. The asbestos miner has to face the hazard of getting asbestosis after working for, say, 15 years in the asbestos mines. That is if he works under the best possible conditions. What I mean by best possible conditions in the mines is where the mines are looked after and inspected by the mining authorities. They are looked after very well. The asbestos itself goes into a factory and there in the factory the worker very often does not work under the same good conditions as he would in the mines. He lays himself open to asbestosis as well, but he is dealt with quite differently. In the one case when he has asbestosis he is dealt with by the mines under the Pneumoconiosis Act and in the other case, if he does get a disability through the inhalation of asbestos, he gets compensation through the Workmen’s Compensation Act. A whole host of other conditions apply. A quarry worker, for instance is protected by the Pneumoconiosis Act, if he gets silicosis, but the stone mason who does similar work, who chips stones, is covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I think these are anomalies which have to be eliminated. The only way I can see it done is to take industrial diseases as a whole and to have a new department, falling either under Mines. Health or Labour. This department should deal with these problems.

It cannot fall under Mines.

It should be taken from “Mines”. Many years ago we discussed the matter of taking pneumoconiosis away from the Department of Mines and putting it under Labour or Health. We preferred Health at that time, but we cannot carry on as we are now with similar conditions in workers who contract diseases which are brought about by the products of the mines, but they are dealt with separately. For that reason I want to put the suggestion to the hon. the Minister that the Cabinet should get together and think how we can overcome this problem. It may take a long time, but the House is soon going in recess and perhaps during that period the Cabinet may come to a solution. This is a very important matter. The hon. the Minister was at the conference, and I am sure that these points impressed him when he was there. We cannot leave it to go on as it is going on at the moment. The other anomaly is that the Minister of Mines, I cannot see him because of the activities of the Whip …

He has gone underground.

As I was saying, the other anomaly is that the hon. the Minister has no say whatsoever about the mine worker as far as labour is concerned. If a labour problem crops up and it happens to be in the mines, the Minister of Mines has nothing to do with that. He has no say in it. He must pass it onto the hon. the Minister of Labour, and he readily does so. It relieves him of a lot of trouble and then the Minister of Labour would like to pass it back again. We have to make up our minds; if we have a Minister of Mines, let him do his job. Let him look after labour matters on the mines if it affects the mines.

I want to leave it at that and I am not going to go into any further detail because of the shortness of time. I want to say a few words about pneumoconiosis as far as it concerns the miner. I feel that because of the doubt and the extreme difficulty in diagnosing pneumoconiosis in the early stage, because of the fact that pneumoconiosis very often comes on late in the miner’s life and because of the fact that at post-mortems we have seen so many cases of pneumoconiosis exposed for the first time, the miner who has been working for 25 years in a mine, should be granted a pension …

Are you serious?

Yes, I am very serious about it. The miner should be granted a pension after 25 years, whether he carries on with his work or not. Whether he carries on with his work or not, is besides the point; he should have the choice to decide whether he wants to go on with his work or not. I can tell hon. members that I know how the miner feels about it. When he has served 25 years, T feel he is entitled to a wage plus a bonus in the form of a pension. I am serious about this. Why should a fellow who has been working in the mines receive no compensation for a condition that may be there and is only discovered at post-mortem when he dies? What is the position there? His wife will get the lump sum bonus, but what about the man while he was alive? He has gone probably very often to his panel doctor and complained, and he may have gone for examinations periodically, but the condition has been missed over and over again. I think the time has come that we should review the position. I do not know how the hon. the Minister feels about it. He asked me if I am serious, but now I am going to ask him whether he is serious about it?

Will you support such suggestions to the mining companies?

Of course I will. Why should I be afraid to make such a suggestion? Do not think that I am going to run away from a thing like that. I am very serious in what I am saying. I want to know what the hon. the Minister is going to do about it, because I know what we are going to do about it. When a Minister comes along and supports it, we shall support him. But I know what will happen. We shall be told of the rise in costs, the fixed price of gold and that the profitability of gold is such at this stage that it cannot be done. That is what is going to happen and that is most probably the reply which I will get. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, if members want to ask me a question they can do so without interrupting and I shall be pleased to answer them.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to ask the hon. member whether in his speech last year he did not say that the mine-owners cannot afford to make any further concessions?

Order! The hon. member is making a speech now.

The hon. member is making a speech. I want to leave it at that and I want to get on to another problem. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I cannot carry on with that sort of thing going on.

I want to have a word with the hon. the Minister about the question of iron ore. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister if he will consider discussing this matter with the hon. the Minister of Transport. It is no good us talking about the riches of the country if we leave them in the ground. If we have something in the ground which we can sell and of which we can make use, let us take it out and sell it. How are we going to do that if the Minister of Transport has high tariff charges and has harbours which cannot cope with this sort of thing? We asked him last year, but there was no reply. The iron ore has got to remain dumped. The charges from say Post masburg to the coast are becoming prohibitive if we want to go into competition with other countries. We can have a wonderful contract with Japan, as the Minister knows, but Australia is getting in before us. The hon. the Minister must contact the hon. Minister of Transport and discuss the matter of building a reasonable harbour and off-loading points and he must reduce the tariffs for iron ore; otherwise we will have a lot of iron ore in this country, which we cannot sell. That is what is going to happen here. The Minister shakes his head.

What about the geographical position of Australia in regard to Japan?

You can talk about it when you get up. There is the survey by the Financial Mail, which I am not going to read because of the shortness of time, but I will recommend the article for reading by the Minister, so that he can see whether or not it is a fact that we are going to lose the market. It is mentioned that private individuals are prepared to build off-loading points. They are prepared to stake their money. Union Acceptances are prepared to do that, but why should the private companies do this if it is in the hands of the Minister to provide these absolute necessities? This is not a luxury for those people who are mining ore. This is something that has become essential and the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to become. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, permit me, just before I reply to a few matters touched upon by the hon. member for Rosettenville, to express my appreciation to Mr. Nel, who is going to retire this year. I want to express my thanks for all the help I have received from him. He and I are members of the same profession, the legal profession, and I have had an affinity with him which, of course, I do not have with other persons. I really enjoyed working with him; and I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to extend my congratulations to Mr. Uys together with whom I served on several commissions of inquiry into mining matters. I want to extend my sincere congratulations to him on his appointment and welcome him in his new post.

The hon. member for Rosettenville raised certain misgivings in regard to the safety aspect at the West Driefontein mine. I assume that he was aware of the fact that an investigation had in fact been made into that matter. But let me now deal with the safety aspect at the stage when the disaster occurred. A sudden inflow of 80 million gallons of water per day into a mine is something which is quite unknown in our mining industry, although mining operations in that dolomitic area on the West Rand have been in progress for years and years. But this inflow was absolutely unprecedented. Provision had been made for the inflow of approximately 17 million gallons of water per day, which was pumped out. Provision had also been made so that as much as 62 million gallons of water per day might be pumped out, but this unprecedented quantity was of course not foreseen. In addition large subterranean storage areas had been equipped and prepared for large quantities of water in the old stoped sections of the mine, and this contributed greatly to preventing the flood from being more disastrous than in fact it was. The tunnels leading to the subterranean pumping chambers were provided with high pressure water brattice walls. They could be sealed in time and prevented the pumping chambers and the pumps from being inundated. The overlying rock formations, which consist of solid dolomitic and other rock formations, had a combined width of 4,000 feet, which is known to be impermeable. In the light of previous experience gained in this area, this was regarded as adequate. The holes which, according to the hon. member, had to be drilled, were therefore unnecessary; it was known that there was water, but owing to the width of the rock formations, i.e. 4.000 feet, and particularly in the light of previous experience, it was considered unnecessary to take further steps. The chief inspector of mines and the mine manager were quite familiar with this stage of affairs, and under these circumstances they investigated the position there only a month before the disaster occurred and found the measures taken against flooding to be adequate. After the water had broken through, the safety of the lives of the mine workers was attended to first. Along with the hon. member I want to convey my congratulations and my gratitude to those mine workers and the mine management and everybody who helped to save lives and also to save the mine. The hon. the Minister attended a function at West Driefontein, on which occasion he extended his congratulations to these people and said that the skill displayed by the engineers in constructing those concrete wails was on a par with the skill displayed in the heart transplant; that saving the mine for the mining industry was just as great a scientific achievement as was the heart transplant for the medical profession. Mr. Chairman, after the disaster no request was made for an inquiry to be held, but in spite of that the Government Mining Engineer—under section 5 (3), read in conjunction with section 5 (5) of the Mines and Works Act—asked a Deputy Government Mining Engineer, assisted by the Director of Geological Survey, to hold such an inquiry. They held an inquiry and their finding was as follows (translation)—

This ought to dispel the hon. member’s misgiving about the safety aspect. The recommendations of this commission are most interesting, and I should like to read them—

I suppose the hon. member is aware that two of these dolomitic compartments have already been dewatered. The eastern shaft, the No. 4 Shaft of West Driefontein, is situated in the dolomitic Bank compartment, and what this recommendation amounts to is that, if mining operations are undertaken in the Bank compartment, which has not been dewatered as yet, it would have to be dewatered first. “This disaster proved that in spite of the fact that the overlying formation had been regarded as impermeable, this was no guarantee against floods. Geological disturbances such as large-scale movements can cause cracks in the rock from which water from the water-filled cavities in the upper strata of the dolomitic formation may penetrate the working places of the mine.” This is the second recommendation that was made. Sir, I think that this reply will shed light on this matter for the hon. member. The last recommendation reads as follows—

Now the hon. member may perhaps ask me this question: What about the dewatering of the Bank compartment, which has not yet been dewatered? This matter is already receiving the attention of the Department of Mines as well as that of the Department of Water Affairs. Application has already been made for that compartment to be dewatered. In addition the mines have now been issued with provisional permits for dewatering. At the moment they are dewatering at the rate of 4 million gallons per day. In the course of July they will be dewatering at the rate of approximately 17 million gallons per day, and their intention is to increase this rate to approximately 30 million gallons per day in July/August.

What about sink-holes in that area?

Sink holes will, of course, occur; we know that, since in cases where we dewatered other compartments elsewhere, sink-holes did occur. Sink-holes will therefore occur here as well. The provisional permit with which they were issued for the purpose of dewatering, is subject to the condition that they have to pay compensation to all bodies and persons who are going to suffer damage as a result of this dewatering process. In other words, if subsequent to dewatering sink-holes or movements should occur, the bodies and persons concerned must be compensated for that damage. A large measure of agreement has already been reached with them as regards other compartments, and I want to say to-night that I have every confidence that as far as the Bank compartment is concerned, we shall be able to make equally effective arrangements with the Chamber of Mines for compensation to be paid in the event of dewatering having to take place.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take the matter of West Driefontein any further except to say that it is quite obvious that the greatest vigilance has to be exercised continuously in all the areas where human life is involved. I am quite sure that the Department in conjunction with the Chamber of Mines and the mine managements will see that this vigilance is exercised. I think that now that this episode is coming to an end, the general feeling in the minds of the public of South Africa is one of gratitude that a major catastrophe was avoided. I think I would like to leave it at that.

Sir, last year I told the hon. the Minister that he had a great opportunity of rendering a very vital service to South Africa, as one of the major producers of uranium in the world, were to be in the forefront of uranium usage. I also suggested to the hon. the Minister that we should give our full support to a wide programme of scientific research into all aspects of uranium. I am happy to see that on this year’s Estimates the contribution of the Government towards atomic energy research has been increased, as far as the Fund is concerned, to R7.28 million from R2.5 million; this is an increase of R4.75 million, a not unsubstantial sum. If we take into account the R1.26 million provided for the Atomic Energy Board, then the Government this year is going to spend something of the order of R8 million on atomic research and development. We welcome this very much indeed. I do not want to go so far as to say that it was our suggestion last year that has brought this about. But no doubt it helped! Sir, in addition we see that private enterprise is also contributing, as it has done in the past. In the past private enterprise has contributed just under 50 per cent of the amount of money spent on research, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us whether private enterprise is going to try to meet the increased expenditure that he has authorized in terms of the Budget; in other words, that their contribution is also going to go up. Because they are going to be the people who are going to benefit eventually from the research that is done.

Sir, it is quite clear from the report of the Atomic Energy Board that we received to-day, that this research is being carried out over quite a wide area. Investigation is taking place into our uranium reserves; investigation is taking place into uranium prospecting; an investigation is taking place into enriched fuel reactor types and a long-term evaluation of nuclear power in South Africa. I think this research follows quite closely on what we discussed in the House last year, namely that these were the lines on which we should operate. We believe now, as we believed last year, that we in South Africa have to take a long-term view of uranium because, if we do, it is going to bring us a very rich and valuable return. Whatever we spend is going to bring us a very rich harvest. The hon. the Minister agreed with this point of view last year and we are glad to see that this is the policy that is now being carried out.

Sir, last year I also raised the question of our scientific workers and expressed the hope that the hon. the Minister would see that their conditions of service and their rates of pay were such that we could be certain that they would remain with us in South Africa. They are scientists of such standing that we can ill afford to lose them. We know what is happening in the world with the brain drain, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to reassure us to-night that as far as our scientists are concerned, he has put his house in order and that their conditions of service and rates of pay are such that we are going to retain our leading scientists whose services we need so badly.

Sir, last year the hon. the Minister told us under this Vote of the new nuclear power station which he said would become economically possible in 1978. We know from a paper which was presented by Professor Roux, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Board, at Potchefstroom University that there has been what he called a dramatic break-through in the construction of nuclear power stations and that there has been a dramatic drop in capital costs. We know that the cost of installation of a nuclear power station to-day in Britain is about half of what it was in 1958, and in the U.S.A, it is about a third of what it was in 1958. We wonder whether the Minister will tell us to-night what progress has been made; is everything going according to plan in regard to the nuclear power station we are going to have in the Cape?

Another item I should like some information on is the current price of uranium. When we debated this matter last year I think it was of the order of 5 or 6 dollars per lb., but the expectation at the time was that there was likely to be, long term anyway, a fairly substantial rise in the price of uranium and the overseas figures quoted were that it was likely to be 15 dollars per lb. by 1980 and that it would be about 30 dollars per lb. by the turn of the century. Will the Minister tell us the current price and the trend in uranium prices?

Now, last year we provided an amount of R10,000 towards a uranium sales organization. This year I see there is no amount whatsoever in the Estimates under this heading. Does this mean that we are now having no difficulty in disposing of our uranium production and that the time has now come when we no longer need a sales organization to dispose of that product? I know, for example, from the annual report of Anglo-American, that their uranium plants are all working to full capacity. They, as we know, produce about a third of our total production in this country and it is being disposed of without any trouble.

There is another matter I want to ask the hon. the Minister about. Can the Minister tell us what effect our gold sales on the free markets are having on our marginal mines? It is common knowledge that for some time— and perhaps very recently—we have been disposing of quite a quantity of gold on the free market at a substantially enhanced price above the official price of 35 dollars per ounce. We have probably been getting anything up to 43 dollars per ounce. This obviously can affect the marginal mines to a considerable extent. I know the hon. the Minister is not concerned with the financial side of the transaction; what he is concerned with is the life of the mines, and I would like to know from the Minister whether he can tell us, assuming that the situation continues to be no worse than it is at the moment, what likely effect the sale of gold on the free market will have on the lives of our marginal mines.

Last year, under Entertainment we had an amount of R800. This year I notice that it has gone up to R6,800. What is the reason for the increase? I wonder whether the Minister can tell us that.

The last matter I want to deal with is the question of iron ore. We have seen a lot written and we have heard a lot said about this question of the export of iron ore. I believe the time has come for the hon. the Minister. together with his colleagues, to tell us whether we have an economic iron ore capacity in this country or not. Every day we hear a different story. Private enterprise wants to build off-shore leading and the Government says they must not: then the Government wants to build and private enterprise objects. Australia is exporting ore. We are having trouble with our railage rates. We seem to be having trouble on every front of this iron ore export situation. It is one of two things. Either we have iron ore which can be economically exported or we have not. The hon. the Minister, I hope, can do as well as he has done in regard to uranium, take a long-term view and get the necessary facilities established to enable us to export our iron ore, and let us get this job done. One of the problems we have in this country with this Government is that we keep on talking about things and when we have talked for four or five or 10 or 20 years, then only do we do something, like in the case of the petrol pipeline. Has the Minister ever given thought to a pipeline for the transport of iron ore? [Time expired.]

In the first instance, I should also like to convey my thanks to Mr. Nel, who is about to retire as Secretary for Mines, and thank him for the good service he has rendered to the Department and to our country. I also want to congratulate Mr. Uys on his promotion, and I hope that he will also render the same good services Mr. Nel has rendered to us in the past. Secondly, I want to congratulate the Minister, the Department of Mines, the Pneumoconiosis Bureau and the Chamber of Mines and thank them for having been able to sponsor this international congress on pneumoconiosis in Johannesburg. I had the privilege of attending that congress and hearing there the views of the various authorities from many countries of the world. What was very striking at that congress, was that the progress made in the field of pneumoconiosis was not as extensive as we should have liked it to be. We find that in most countries of the world pneumoconiosis, whether it is asbestosis or pneumoconiosis from coal or silica, is merely being accepted as a common industrial disease. In that respect we have left them far behind, and in this country we have a specific industrial disease which we call pneumoconiosis and for which we have a council which examines and certifies these people and we also have a fund out of which those people are paid compensation. But, as I have said, it is unsatisfactory to find that these people have proved experimentally that silicosis could in fact prove cancer of the lungs, as well as mesothelioma, emphysema and chronic bronchitis, but could not determine how many of these diseases were in fact attributable to this inhalation of dust by the mineworker. This leaves us in the difficult position that we must fall back upon the basis on which we decided in the 1962 Act. I should like to call attention to a few points in respect of which I feel there is still a gap in that Act.

The first is that we have decided that the first perceptible symptoms of pneumoconiosis should be compensative. This can be established radiologically. The cardio-respiratory function is taken into account and everything —the service history, the period for which the person concerned has been working on the mine and the percentage of dust in that mine —is taken into account in deciding whether that person is suffering from pneumoconiosis and what his compensation ought to be on the basis of the degree of pneumoconiosis from which he is suffering. But what our mineworkers find difficult to understand, is that they have now heard that subsequent to the death of a mineworker pieces of tissue are removed from the lungs, and in many cases it is only at that stage that it is established that the mineworker suffered from pneumoconiosis, and then it is often said that if he had lived, he would have suffered from a cardio-respiratory impairment of 20 per cent to 50 per cent or more. In other cases, however, they say that he did suffer from pneumoconiosis, but the impairment was less than 20 per cent and for that reason the widow and the orphans are not entitled to a pension. I wonder whether it would not be possible for the hon. the Minister to eliminate this anomaly. In cases where in a post-mortem examination it is found that a person had suffered from pneumoconiosis, the widow and the family ought to be compensated, because it is so easy to say that it was only in a small part of the lung that one found pneumoconiosis in such a section. I want to say that a section is hardly a square millimeter in extent. The entire lung is not dissected and therefore there may be more symptoms of pneumoconiosis which cannot be found by means of such a section. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible for him to give consideration to paving compensation to the widows and the orphans in all cases where in a post-mortem it is found that the person had suffered from pneumoconiosis.

A second point is that we have to decide whether cancer of the lung or mesothelioma of the lung in a mineworker, together with chronic bronchitis and emphysema, should also be regarded as a stage more advanced than the first stage of pneumoconiosis. In this regard I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that, when a person is found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis, particularly once he has reached the third stage and may no longer work in the mines, the normal procedure is to eliminate him from the sick fund and then he is no longer entitled to benefits offered by the sick fund. Now this poor person has to bear, on the meagre pension he receives, all his medical expenses himself. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister for that person to be compensated for his medical expenses and his medicines so that he may not have to pay for them out of his pension.

I was almost moved to tears by the hon. member for Rosettenville’s plea that a mineworker should receive a pension after he had been working underground for 25 years, but I myself feel that 25 years, if there is no radio-logical proof, is perhaps a little short, but if a person has been working underground for 30 years or more, I do not think that we may accept that he does not suffer from pneumoconiosis to a certain extent. I think provision should be made for such a person to be granted a pension which would enable him to secure another position which might be less profitable, without losing too much of his total income, because a person who has been working underground for 30 years, is no longer young; he is elderly. But now I want to make a special plea for the person who has been working in the mines for a shorter period and who is found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis after, say, 20 years. Is it not possible for us to grant him, along with his pension, an extra allowance for a year or two so that he may attend one of these training centres for adults in order to qualify as an artisan so that he may obtain employment outside the mines? A mineworker trains for his job as a mineworker and he works there for 20 or 25 years. Usually these people are still in their forties and they still have many years during which they have to care for their families and especially for the bigger children who are at university, and once they can no longer work underground they have no other means of earning a living. Is it not possible for us to arrange it in such a way that, once these people have been warned that they are suffering from the first stage of pneumoconiosis, we may grant them an extra allowance for a year or two and so afford them the opportunity of training for a profession or a trade which they may then practise above-ground? If we could do that, I feel that we would have made a great deal of progress in helping the mineworker not to stay underground until he finds himself to be in the third stage and that his life has been shortened by 10 of 15 years or more. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I recently attended a conference called by the hon. the Minister in Johannesburg on the subject of pneumoconiosis and I have subsequently received from the hon. the Minister the conclusions which were arrived at by the Executive Committee of that conference. One of the remarks which he makes in his recent letter to me and to other members who attended the conference, is that the whole question of pneumoconiosis is to be considered anew. As far back as 1954, when I was a member of the two Oosthuizen Commissions on pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis and on which most of the present legislation is now based, I advocated that pneumoconiosis should be transferred to the Department of Health and not remain as a part of the Department of Mines. I maintained that it was a problem of the Department of Health and not the problem of the Department of Mines. From this recent letter which I have received from the hon. the Minister it is obvious that those thoughts of where the problem of pneumoconiosis should rest in the organization of the Government is now exercising the minds of Cabinet Ministers. That is what the hon. the Minister implied in his letter. I am delighted that this problem is at last being considered by the Cabinet. Pneumoconiosis is a health hazard, whether it is in a mine or in a factory. A large proportion of the distinguished gentlemen who came to the conference in Johannesburg, which lasted 10 days, were not in their own countries employed in mining departments. They were men like Selikoff of New York, Murray Brown of Chicago and the Frenchmen Avril and Champeix of Paris and Claremont-Ferrand. They are all men who are not employed in the Department of Mines, but in the Department of Health. Selikoff showed us the hazards of asbestos dust in the streets and in the demolition factories of New York. We found that Murray Brown of Chicago was employed in the Department of Health in Chicago. All these men are world-famous. Champeix did not show us pictures of mines with dust, or without dust, but he showed us pictures of asbestos factories which were as clean as a new pin. In other words, the asbestos factor at the present moment is much less a problem of mining than it is a problem of manufacturing. This problem must now either be dealt with by the Department of Health, or it must be dealt with by the Department of Labour. The Department of Labour has failed to do anything about it. Twice during this session I have asked the hon. the Minister of Labour when he is going to issue regulations for asbestos factories and he always gives me the same answer, namely “I am considering it”. In 1931 Great Britain issued regulations in regard to asbestos factories and we could at least have copied those. The point is that the great blame which is now attaching to asbestos, is not in the mines. It is there but it has been so controlled that it is not the hazard it used to be. The danger is on our streets and in particular in the factories. I was delighted to read in this letter which I received from the hon. the Minister that at last the Cabinet is taking note of the fact that pneumoconiosis is a much more important factor in the general health of the country than it is in our mines. The mines have done their work well in this regard. I hope the hon. the Minister will have discussions with the Department of Health for them to take over what I suggested in 1954, but on which I was outvoted by my colleagues on those commissions. The division now in regard to the hazards of dust is not so much in the mines, but in the public health of the country.

I also want to speak about the question of uranium. I am not happy about the educational standards of nuclear physics. I am, however, not in a position to judge and few of us in this country who do not actually work in the universities, or for the atomic energy authorities, are in a position to judge what is happening. We are in a position to ask questions and to doubt whether we are not perhaps over complacent. Although we have had excellent reports, they are beyond my understanding. But I want to speak about it from the way the world regards it. It is clearly apparent now that no single country outside America and/or perhaps Russia is now capable of handling nuclear problems and is capable of adequately perfecting the use of nuclear power. All the European countries are obviously in great difficulties. England, West Germany and Holland have recently decided to form a consortium to manufacture plutonium and to increase the use of the nuclear power by multiple centrifuges at an enormous cost. The Americans are continuing with the method which produced for them the atomic bomb. They have the advantage of having had all those years in which to study nuclear power. I feel that we should make a point now of seeing where we stand in relation to the rest of the world. We must investigate whether it would not pay us to send our students overseas to different countries or to send our scientists overseas to learn what is happening abroad. We should not wait until it is too late. There is great danger of complacency. The funds are supplied and we have no means of judgment. The only way that we can make certain is by close association with other countries. We must remember that no country is liberal and allows its knowledge and information to go out freely. Universities like Harvard insist on secrecy if anybody goes to work or study there. The same is happening in other countries. The knowledge which is imparted and published in other sciences, like medicine and that of heart transplants for example, is free and public. Information is made public in newspapers which are read by scientists. Nothing is said, however, of the secrets of nuclear power. We may be living in a fool’s paradise.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to what was said by the hon. members for Rosettenville and Parktown, I should like to point out to the House that in the field of science South Africa has some of the best brains in the world. We are already leading the world in the sphere of heart transplants, and we can also take the lead in other spheres of science. It would not surprise me if one of these days we were to lead the world in the sphere of scientific research, i.e. as regards our nuclear research. There is no cause for thinking that we are lagging behind. The hon. member said that we should train our people and see what was happening in the outside world. That is what the National Party Government is doing at the moment. They are sending our men to various places in the world. We do not have blinkers on. Everything possible is being done to gather information on what is happening elsewhere in the world and, where possible, to adapt that to our local conditions. That is what the National Party Government is doing. they do not ask other people to come here in order to show us. We go out to see what others are doing. We have enough intelligence to assimilate the knowledge of other nations and then to adapt that to our local conditions. In view of the fact that we have grown up with our roots in South Africa, we are destined for adapting the knowledge of the outside world to local conditions. It is only the National Government which can do so. No United Party government will ever succeed in doing so. They have proved that they are not capable of handling the interests of South Africa in this respect. When they were in power, uranium ore had already been discovered on the Witwatersrand. They sat on that and did nothing with it. The National Government was the Government which opened it up for exploitation.

The hon. member for Parktown said, “The Government keeps talking about this iron ore transport and export of iron ore.” I think that the hon. member’s geographic knowledge of world conditions, and that of the hon. member for Rosettenville as well, is apparently very limited. For instance, they do not appreciate that, as far as the Japanese market is concerned, Australia is situated much more closely and conveniently. It is economic conditions which dictate to us here.

So what?

Sir, this hon. member is supposed to be an authority on economics. Now he asks me, “So what?” Apparently he does not realize that an economic circumstance such as transport is a criterion which makes itself felt as regards this question of the export of iron ore, for the simple reason that Australia’s iron ore is nearer to the coast and nearer to Japan. As regards transport facilities and distance, its resources are situated much more favourably than, for instance, the iron ore resources here in South Africa. Where is our iron ore to be found? In the interior. It has to be transported long distances overland to the harbours. Therefore it has to be transported longer distances overland and oversea than is the case in any other country supplying Japan with ore.

What do you suggest?

We do not want ridiculous suggestions.

And what does the hon. member for Transkei know about iron ore? His constituency does not even have iron ore to transport. It is generally being accepted that, as regard the export of ore, South Africa has to compete with the rest of the world. In this respect it is, after all, the case that all economic conditions which are important are to be taken into account when it comes to demand and supply.

I should just like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Virginia said in regard to the exploration for oil. I must also refer to what the hon. member for Rosettenville said in regard to the economic potential of the oil field. He wanted the Minister to anticipate the economic potential. The Minister is supposed to determine what the economic potential is in regard to the whole matter of the oil discovery that was made near Plettenberg Bay. I do not know whether the Minister is able to predict what it may be. As far as my knowledge of the matter goes, I do not think the Minister is able to do so, for the simple reason that a prospect pit has not yet been sunk. A production pit has not yet been sunk. Oil is an international commodity which competes on the international market for a price, just as all mineral matters throughout the world compete on the world market for metals. An international aspect is involved, and we must have regard to that. It is a question of demand and supply. As long as oil from other places can be brought here more cheaply than it can be produced locally from the sea, the economy will dictate whether we shall exploit the oil fields at Plettenberg Bay. A great deal of additional exploration work will still have to be done. It is possible that oil might be struck considerably closer to the coast. The present drillhole is an exploration drillhole. For instance, if they are going to sink a production pit, they will of course select one on the basis of the seismic work that has been done. On the basis of the results they will then try to select a position closer to the land which, if successful, may be cheaper for conveying the oil from there to the coast by pipeline.

I should like to pay tribute here to those scientists who have done and are still doing the basic work in the exploration for oil. It is common knowledge that people such as Dr. Brock of the Anglo-American Corporation and Professor Simpson of the University of Cane Town were the first to speculate on the oil potential of our territorial waters. Like the unknown soldier and as it behoves the researcher, many others have worked and collaborated and put their ideas to work quitely behind the scenes. It is only a National Government— and I should like to emphasize this—which by means of its initiative, symbolized in an organization such as Soekor, can build on these ideas and effect the implementation thereof. But, Mr. Chairman, there is another very important aspect, i.e. that the successful exploration was effected through foreign capital and foreign technical know-how. The well-known “know-how” was provided by foreigners. In addition to that it was Americans, no less, who took the risks in spite of the high costs involved. I should like to associate myself with what has already been said by other hon. members in other debates in regard to the general re-orientation towards the Americans as a nation, and that we should do away with the idea that they allegedly want to lay an unholy monopolistic plot against the welfare of South Africa. Providence has ordained that South Africa should have a wealth of mineral riches. No other country in the world can boast of the variety with which we have been blessed. If we were to achieve success in our search for oil—there is no reason for doubting that we shall be successful in determining the economic quantities—then we would for all practical purposes be self-sufficient, something no other country in the world can say. Since the extent and profitability of the mineral industry is determined by an international market, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it appears from the report of the Secretary for Mines that South Africa’s mineral sales amounted to R1,400 million in 1968. Since our large high-grade reserves are continually increasing, our basic raw materials and strategic minerals create—by means of our exports, of which gold is the strongest one—channels through which contact may be made, continuity may be maintained and a continuous dialogue may be conducted as to how peaceful co-existence may be achieved and maintained in a multi-racial country. In this respect overseas companies which are operating locally, are rendering invaluable export services. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak mainly about the problem of sinkholes to-night. This is a very serious problem for South Africa. But before saying anything about it, I think I should draw the attention of the House to a particularly shocking book. As you know, Sir, one of the major tasks to be carried out by the hon. the Minister— and I think he realizes that it is one of his tasks—is to bring about harmonious relations between the mine-owner and the mine-worker in the South African mining industry, and particularly in the gold-mining industry.

No, not “bring about”. They already exist.

Very well, he has to maintain that peace and make it endure in the same measure in which it exists to-day. Only half an hour ago a book was brought to my attention; it is entitled “Dr. A. Hertzog— Die Nasionale Party en die Mynwerker”. [Interjections.] If there has ever been a book which can disturb good relations between the mine-worker and the mine-owner in South Africa, which the hon. the Minister is in favour of, then it is this book. Very little of the National Party is featured in it. There is a great deal of a certain Dr. Albert Hertzog in it. But just let me quote one paragraph to show the tenor of this book. Here is part of a speech which was made long ago by this Dr. Albert Hertzog. The speech is quoted here with great relish. Here he said in connection with mine-workers (translation):

That is so.

Is it so to-day?

Yes.

Then that hon. member is still the enemy of the heads of the mines? To-day there is a Mr. Tom Muller who is chairman of the Chamber of Mines, and then the hon. member says that it is still the case. But let us continue reading from this book:

Sir, this speech was made 30 years ago, and now hon. members opposite say that this is still the position. What assistance is that to the hon. the Minister, when he wants to preserve peace in the mining industry? What assistance is that to the hon. the Minister when the hon. member over there says that the position is still as it was described by Dr. Hertzog at that time, i.e. that this situation in South Africa is aggravated by the fact that the employer lacks that human sympathy which goes with national ties because he occupies the position of a stranger to the Afrikaner worker? Dr. Hertzog’s speech continues:

These are the words which Dr. Hertzog used 30 years ago. Now that hon. member says that this is still the case to-day. [Interjections.] He repeats that it is still the case to-day! [Interjections.]

Order!

Now I ask you, Mr. Chairman: If the backbenchers and the verkramptes of that Party say that it is still the case to-day that the one group in the mining industry are enemies of another group, how can the hon. the Minister maintain the peace which he would like to have in the mining industry? We should like to see him maintain it. Sir, I have said this merely by way of introduction. I hope that we are going to get a repudiation of this book by the hon. the Minister or by hon. members on that side, a book which will bring about division in the mining industry, an industry which has been peaceful up to now.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote now. That book has been referred to ad nauseum. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I have just finished with it. I said that I hoped that the Minister would repudiate that book.

I now come to the subject that I really wanted to touch on, namely the total failure of the sinkhole policy of this Government. The sinkholes in the Western Transvaal have been a problem for years and years. We were hoping that that sinkhole problem would be solved. We received assurances from this hon. Minister and from other Ministers in connection with this matter to the effect that the problem would be solved. What is the result? We find to-day that there are still many areas where thousands of people are living which still cannot be declared safe with certainty. We find that by no means all the holes, not even all the dangerous ones, have been found. We also find that the instruments and the methods of testing have not functioned in all cases as they should have.

You do not understand anything about that.

The hon. member says that I do not understand anything about it. They laugh about it. The hon. member for Carletonville finds it amusing. But do you know that 40 people have lost their lives and that 500 houses have had to be demolished as a result of these sinkholes? Those houses had to be vacated or destroyed. This is no laughing matter. I do not find it amusing. But apparently hon. members opposite find it amusing. One of the most recent incidents took place a few weeks ago. It did not happen in an area which was considered safe, and not an area about which the Minister could tell us a great deal. It happened in a residential area, namely at Buffelsfontein. A few weeks ago a 70 ft. deep sinkhole appeared there. This was in a town. It was 10 ft. from a house in Oribi Street, Buffelsfontein. It required 600 tons of rock to fill that sinkhole. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must stop trying to be funny now.

Sir, if these things continue, we are entitled to ask, not as a party, but as South Africans, why these things are still happening, things which result in lives being endangered as a result of the policy of this Government. I have mentioned the case of this one sinkhole. I can mention another case as well, that of a sinkhole near the Bank-Oberholzer railway line. On 22nd November of last year, a short while ago, this sinkhole appeared about four miles west of Bank. It was not very deep, but it was 45 to 60 feet in diameter. The main line between Johannesburg and Cape Town no longer runs along this Bank-Oberholzer railway line, but according to the railway map I have here, it is still the main line to Ventersdorp and Lichtenburg. Trains with passengers regularly pass through there. That hon. Minister or the Minister of Economic Affairs should have given an assurance to the Minister of Transport in connection with the safety of this area. Did they give that assurance? We want to know, and if they did not, why did they not know that this area was unsafe? Thousands of tons of goods are carried on that railway line daily. Hundreds of passengers are conveyed on that line.

Did that hole endanger the railway line?

Sir, the reply of the Minister himself in connection with this case was that that subsidence took place along the Bank-Oberholzer railway line. It did not appear at a distance of 100 yards, neither of a mile. It appeared right next to the railway line itself. If it had only been 10 yards closer the whole railway line could have subsided. The hon. the Minister may laugh about it. I repeat that it is not amusing. I believe that this policy of the Government to stop those sinkholes has not yet provided a solution. We heard to-night how the Deputy Minister spoke about this in a frivolous way. He said that water was being abstracted and that sinkholes would occur. I agree that excellent work was done at West Driefontein. We all agree about that, but one does not speak frivolously about abstracting water all over the area and that sinkholes must appear. These threatening disasters endanger the lives, not only of dozens of people, but of thousands of people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this was a very good debate until the hon. member for Orange Grove rose. It is very clear to me that he reads things which are not good for him. Now I want to put a question to him. When these things happened, of which mention is made in that book and about which he was so concerned, was he not a Nationalist at the time?

Yes, but I was never an Albert man.

At that time the hon. member for Ermelo buttered him up. He was one of the strongest supporters of the hon. member. Let me tell him that I have not yet read that book. Nor do I know the author, but I am very sure that that book contains a section on South African history which makes it very clear that since 1948 the mineworkers in South Africa have regularly and to an increasing extent supported this side of the House, and not that side. I should like to deal with important matters. But let me just tell hon. members that it is only a part of the history which made it possible for the mineworker, as is the case to-day, to feel that he is no longer a stranger in his own country. Let me just add that we are on the best of terms with the mining magnates, the Chamber of Mines and the president, Dr. Tom Muller, who is an honourable and outstanding person.

He is a good man.

But being on those very best terms may never mean that the mine worker is wronged. In fact, as a result of the policy pursued since 1948, the Mineworkers’ Union is on reasonably good terms with the Chamber of Mines at present. That is not to their disadvantage, but to their advantage. Now I want to tell the hon. member that he should read that book in an atmosphere of calm; that he must enjoy the times when he still thought things which were right and that he should not feel concerned about the mineworker of South Africa or about the task I have to perform. We shall look after them. We shall see to it that they are not wronged.

I should now like to say a few words on the question of Soekor. The hon. member for Rosettenville referred to the discovery of natural oil. The hon. members for Virginia and Etosha also referred to that. Let me say at once that what the hon. member for Rosettenville said is not true, i.e. that I announced it dramatically. The drama of the matter was contained in the fact that South Africa, and South Africans as all of us are here, jumped for joy in gratitude towards God for the fact that oil had been found here on the southernmost point of Africa. The drama was contained in that. I want to add that we made that oil find as a result of the far-sightedness, not only of Dr. Verwoerd, but also of his successor and the people who were involved in that, and as a result of the faith they had. However, hon. members should not forget that there was a time, before this find was made, when some of the great men of learning of the world told us that there simply was not any natural oil in this part of the world. And now it has been found. Now I want to add that I think that to friend and foe of the Republic this should mean that the potential of this Republic is not to be underestimated. I do not wish to play the part of a prophet. I can only reply as far as possible to the questions which the hon. member pointedly put to me. But as I had the privilege of making that announcement, I should like to furnish him with particulars of further steps which are and will be taken in regard to this discovery. As the hon. member rightly remarked, the hole has now been sealed off and the ship, the Glomar Sirte, has departed for other areas where it is operating at the moment. In the meantime hon. members must also appreciate that this oil find was made by the Superior Oil Company of the U.S.A., and that several of their officials and executives have paid visits to South Africa lately. They had interviews with Soekor. I also met them myself. Some of their fellow-entrepreneurs also came here to see what further steps have to be taken. So far the Superior Oil Company has not applied for exploitation rights. Exploitation rights for utilizing the gas which was discovered has not been requested as yet. These international companies keep their plans secret and they are justified in doing so, because they are in large-scale competition with other companies. Therefore we can only presume that they will first take steps in order to determine, by means of additional drilling, what the incidence on the Continental Shelf is. According to the available information the company is, in the first place, making an investigation into the availability of effective marine drills for carrying out additional exploration work. It is accepted that great speed will be evinced in this regard. But I nevertheless want to point out that the contractual obligations of the company have been met. Even if they do nothing until the year 1972, which is not at all what I foresee, they will still have met their obligations. The reason for this is that in a much shorter time this company, like numerous others, did much more than they were required to do in terms of the contract. From a national point of view there is no necessity for utilizing the gas immediately. However, studies are now being undertaken in order to determine the various possibilities for the exploitation of natural gas and to investigate effective equipment, such at platforms, pipelines, etc. In addition climatic and marine conditions must, from the nature of the case, be studied thoroughly. I am merely presenting hon. members this picture to indicate how complicated this matter is. These studies could not be made—and it would have been absurd to do so—before a find such as this one was made. The possible utilization of gas for industrial and domestic purposes, particularly in the Western Cape area and in the Eastern Cape as well, is receiving the attention of Gascor at the moment. In collaboration with Escom the possibility of using gas as a raw material in generating electric power, is also being investigated. In addition to this the Department of Planning is also involved in a study of the role which natural gas, if it should be possible to make it available in economic quantities, could play in the consumption of power pattern of South Africa. Hon. members will appreciate that it is extremely important to start determining now what the possible consumption of gas and of natural oil could be if they should be found in large quantities, something which, after all, is possible. Finally I just want to say that as far as the distribution of natural gas is concerned, the controlling part will be played by Gascor. Gascor was established as a utility company for the distribution of gas in certain industrial areas. This distribution organization, i.e. Gascor, is under State control. Just as in the case of Soekor, its shares are held on a 50-50 basis, by Sasol on the one hand and. Soekor on the other hand. More than this I cannot say at this stage. I do not think it is necessary to say more. The fact of the matter is that there has not been any unnecessary silence in regard to this matter. I want to prevent our running away with the idea, as was unfortunately the case after the announcement, that this gas will immediately be available for use. I hope this answers the hon. member’s question.

Then I just want to deal with a few lesser matters which were raised here.

†The hon. member for Parktown raised a matter in connection with the entertainment allowance which is so much higher than last year. I can assure the hon. member that the increase is solely due to entertainment connected with the pneumoconiosis conference which was held recently.

*Then the hon. member for Virginia referred to the certification of other diseases as conioses. He expressed the thought that the doctor who normally attend to this patient, should in fact be notified of that. I appreciate that thought. I may just tell the hon. member that if an X-ray or a clinical examination of a blood test brings to light any abnormality which was not known before, the mineworkers’ family doctor is invariably informed of the fact. This is, therefore, an additional service which is being rendered to our mineworkers’ community. Then the hon. member also referred to the periodical examinations at the sub-bureaux, and made certain proposals and requests in this regard. In that regard I can also satisfy the hon. member by saying that the periodical examinations carried out by the sub-bureaux, are provided in order to eliminate the inconvenience experienced by mineworkers in having to travel from remote places to Johannesburg. As the hon. member knows, a free railway ticket is at the same time made available to such a mineworker. However, I want to state here, and I hope that this will come to the notice of every mineworker, that with such a free ticket he is entitled to visit the bureau in Johannesburg for a benefit examination once a year. This is not a privilege, but a right the mineworker has.

Then the hon. member for Rosettenville raised the matter of a pension for every mineworker who had rendered 25 years’ service. Hon. members who are concerned with this matter, will know that this question has a very long history. I do not want to go into that now; I shall go into it tomorrow, for the specific reason that the standpoint the hon. member stated here has up to now never been the standpoint of the official Opposition. I do not want to respond precipitately to what he said here, but I should like to hear from his Leader, or rather to receive confirmation from him to-morrow, that this is the official standpoint of the Opposition. Then I shall definitely respond to the proposal made by the hon. member. To me this is such a completely new note on the part of the official Opposition that I shall also want to check his Hansard, with his permission, to make sure of what he said. I am inclined to feel that I might have heard wrongly, but I shall deal with this matter the moment the hon. member has given me the assurance that he stated the official standpoint.

You might as well ask first what Harry Oppenheimer has to say.

The hon. member for Geduld referred to a very important matter, i.e. the fact that in several cases it had been found at post-mortem examinations, as he rightly said, that the deceased had in fact suffered from pneumoconiosis. I want to point out to the hon. member, and I think he is aware of this—that the symptoms of pneumoconiosis established at post-mortem examinations are in most cases minimal symptoms of pneumoconiosis. In many cases this is based on microscopic examinations, as the hon. member knows. These are examinations which could not be carried out during the lifetime of the unfortunate mineworker, not even by means of the most sophisticated methods. In such cases it is only after death that it can be established microscopically whether the person concerned suffered from that disease. As the hon. member also knows, if the impairment was less than 20 per cent, the widow of such a person does not receive a pension but in fact a lump sum of R1,150. Then the hon. member also mentioned the question of the training of persons suffering from pneumoconiosis. I must say that this is a matter to which I have not yet devoted attention. I want to assure the hon. member that this is a possibility which we may investigate. However, I must also say that, as the hon. member knows, the mineworker who works underground earns more than his colleagues who work above ground. His proposal may perhaps not meet with the approval of our mineworkers, since pneumoconiosis rarely advances to a state where the mineworker is statutorily compelled to cease doing mine work. I repeat that the hon. member has made a positive proposal and that I shall ask my Department to go into that and possibly to inform him by letter as to what can be done in this regard.

Then the hon. member for Rosettenville, as well as the hon. member for Parktown, referred in a quite responsible manner to the West Driefontein matter. My colleague the Deputy Minister has replied to that, and I just want to emphasize a few points in this regard. In the first place, I want to discuss the point in regard to the safety aspect of this matter. It is quite right that our people, and members of this House as well, could possibly be concerned about the safety aspect which came to the fore in regard to this matter. I may tell hon. members that approximately a month before the disaster the conditions underground were inspected by the Chief Inspector of Mines of that area and by the mine manager. Both were satisfied that there was no cause for concern. That was a month before the time. As the hon. member knows, it might have been erroneously accepted in the past, because of the fact that it had not happened before, that there was no danger of flooding when those thick dolorite layers were found. In this case it appeared that in such formations cracks could also occur through which the water could rush in under tremendously high pressure. In regard to the safety aspect I may just say that the technical officers of the Department of Mines are kept informed all the time, and that there were never any complaints or grounds for complaints to the effect that adequate safety measures had not been taken before, during or after the disaster. As hon. members know, there was no insistence from any quarter for an inquiry to be held. However, in terms of the Mines and Works Act the flood had to be reported, and the Chief Inspector of Mines would normally have conducted the formal enquiry. However, in this case, owing to the extent of the floods and after consultation with me and with my approval, the Government Mining Engineer, under the statutory powers granted to him, ordered the Deputy Government Mining Engineer, assisted by the Director of Geological Survey, to hold the inquiry. There was some delay and I want to give hon. members the assurance that I was aware of it and that the delay in regard to this inquiry took place with my consent. Hon. members will appreciate that when this drama took place, there was tremendous tension and that these people, the very people who had to give evidence, were working tremendously hard. The mine quite rightly granted these people a few weeks’ leave and I agreed at the time that the inquiry could take place after their return to work. However, the fact of the matter is that it was found that this incident was not attributable to any act of neglect of a criminal nature, or a contravention of a law or statutorily prescribed regulation committed by any person. I just want to outline briefly the present position at this mine. The two connecting tunnels leading to the western part of the mine have been sealed effectively by means of concrete walls, and water can no longer flow in that direction. Secondly, the dewatering of the stope is being carried on uninterruptedly, and during March this year it was possible to crush approximately 80 per cent of the total tonnage of ore crushed before the disaster. To my mind this in itself is as great a feat as can be achieved by any mine or any other organization, because we must not lose sight of the fact that this disaster occurred in October and that here in March it was possible to crush 80 per cent of the normal tonnage. It is estimated that the deepest part of the mine will only be restored to full production in July, 1970.

Finally, in regard to the financial implications, it is estimated that this has had the effect that the State will receive approximately R10.8 million less in mining tax and mining lease compensation during the two years ending in June, 1970. This decrease is attributable to the higher capital and operating costs in respect of the pumping out of water, and to a minor extent to the lower rate of production. This information, I believe, will be of interest to hon. members, and I just want to conclude this aspect by joining hon. members who expressed their appreciation, as I have already done on previous occasions, for the excellent and unselfish work done here by mineworkers, mine management engineers and everybody who was involved in it. In December last year it was my privilege to entertain in Carletonville the persons concerned, along with representatives of the Groote Schuur Hospital heart transplant team, and to show them in that way that these two achievements were achievements which as firsts had not been equalled anywhere in the world.

Then the hon. member for Rosettenville also raised the question of industrial diseases and especially those occurring in the mining industry. I do not want to elaborate on that, and I just want to bring to the attention of hon. members a statement I issued just after the pneumoconiosis conference. I should also like to link up with this the question of pneumoconiosis itself. I think hon. members will agree with me when I say that both the question of pneumoconiosis and the more general question of industrial diseases should stand over until we have studied the reports thoroughly and seen what we can derive from this extremely successful conference in Johannesburg, as I also said in my statement. In this statement I said, inter alia (translation):

Then I went on to say—

I think we should take cognizance of this with gratitude. I also said at the time:

I want to reconfirm this undertaking to-night, but I do want to appeal to the trade union to exercise patience so that my Department and I may be afforded every opportunity of studying the records of the conference before we enter into talks with them. In this regard I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Central) that it is not quite correct to infer from what I said here, that I had allegedly said “that the whole question of pneumoconiosis will be reviewed anew”. That is not quite what I said, and I just want to put it right. I shall review the matter if, after this conference, it should appear that to do so would be in the interests of the mineworker. I also want to refer the hon. member to the question of industrial diseases, and I think it would be sufficient if I just said the following to the hon. member.

†A suitable and effective planning body may be established to advise the Government and industry on and to co-ordinate matters relating to the handling of industrial health problems and research in connection therewith. I can assure the hon. member that I have already discussed this possibility with the hon. the Minister of Labour and that I will take the matter further in the coming recess.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.