Mr. Speaker, it is with astonishment that I learnt that the hon. member for Transkei, who began the introduction of his speech yesterday evening, decided today not to proceed with his speech. From that I can draw only one logical conclusion, which is that after a good night’s rest the hon. member had had second thoughts and had changed his mind. As the 23rd speaker to participate in this protracted debate, a debate which, in my humble opinion, the hon. Opposition has made too prolonged, I do not intend dwelling on series of clauses which, in all honesty, should basically be dealt with during the Committee Stage.

It is important to note that the introduction of this particular Bill could probably be regarded as one of the most important compliments to the South African legal system, in that we are dealing here with a law of criminal procedure which has remained basically unchanged for a period of a 100 years. Just as there were consolidations of the criminal procedure laws in 1917 and 1955, changing times, changing needs, changing requirements and other demands which are constantly being made, have once again made it necessary and essential to reconsider the modernization of our present Criminal Procedure Act which came into operation in 1955. It is necessary that this has to take place on the same basis as that on which it is being done and has been done in other countries, and just as it is at present taking place, and has taken place in England, in Rhodesia and also in America. It is probably not necessary to elaborate on the necessity of modernization, to which constant attention is being given. The changing circumstances of life necessitate constant modernization. There is probably no more clear indication of this than the numerous Amendment Bills which are constantly before this House. A good example is one which was before the House 14 days ago, viz. the Bill to amend the Aliens Act, etc. This was introduced as a result of new loopholes which had to be eliminated. We are constantly dealing with new crimes. New circumstances are constantly coming to light. Inter alia there are the subversive activities of Nusas and other people. New legislation has to be produced and placed on the Statute Book to cover these new circumstances. The extent of existing crimes is changing. The extent of drug peddling activities is changing. Legislation therefore has to be modernized and adjusted to the circumstances. A good case for this was made out sometime ago by the hon. member for Florida, when, in his private member’s motion, he pointed out the increase in crime. He expressed his concern in regard to the combating of that crime.

Sir, where have we had a more typical example of this than the introduction of regional courts? A number of years ago we introduced regional courts to eliminate part of the jurisdiction, a part of the power, of the Supreme Court. Where could we find a finer example of a court which works better, more practically and more effectively than these particular regional courts today? Why should there now be such vehement resistance on the part of the Opposition to a piece of legislation such as this? It is a thorough, a neat piece of work. It is work that has been well prepared. Why should there be such vehement objections to an honest attempt to adjust the legal system, and in particular the Criminal Procedure Act of South Africa, to these changing circumstances?

It is incomprehensible, Sir. This Bill is a piece of legislation which eliminates so many bottlenecks. It is a Bill which makes so many modern adjustments in respect of the demands and needs of the time. It is a Bill which leaves the South Africa law of criminal procedure fundamentally unchanged, while it combats cumbersomeness with new justified and just aids. It is a Bill which in practice saves time and precious manpower, while our system in practice will continue to function in an honest, just and unprejudiced way. Here we are dealing with a Bill which in its application does not encroach on, affect or remove the rights of the accused. Here we are dealing with a Bill which in its application gives both the knowledgeable and the ignorant person, the literate as well as the illiterate person, a fair chance. I believe that we are dealing here with a Bill which, read in conjunction with the Bill which was piloted through earlier this session, viz. the Bill on the establishment of the South African Law Commission, comprises two pieces of legislation which make positive contributions to the streamlining, the improvement and the modern adaptation of criminal law in our legal system in South Africa.

Sir, I find the attitude of the Opposition, their vehement resistance to this Bill before the House, unbelievable, and I find this to be the case for various reasons. In the first place the attitude of the Opposition is incomprehensible because they agreed with the Bill on the establishment of the South African Law Commission. They supported that Bill, and the purpose of that measure was the removal of inconsistencies, the repeal of obsolescent features and the achievement of modernized uniformity. This Criminal Procedure Bill seeks to achieve precisely the same object. Here we are dealing with precisely the same thing. We are eliminating inconsistencies. We are removing the obsolescent features. We are replacing these with new provisions, a modern adjustment to the new requirements of the time. Now there is vehement opposition to this new Bill, which has as it object this honest aspiration.

Sir, the Opposition has stated repeatedly that there are many clauses in this Bill of which it approves. But then it turns round and says that it rejects the Bill in toto, and does so owing to the fact that there are a few clauses of which it does not approve.

In the second place the attitude of the Opposition is incomprehensible because of its vehement opposition and its vehement objection to the fact that the investigation was instituted and the Bill prepared by a one-man commission. It was said in this House yesterday already that even if this same product had resulted after three Judges had dealt with it, the resistance on the part of the Opposition would have been the same. They wanted one thing only; the Opposition would very much have liked this matter to have been investigated by a Select Committee. Sir, what real difference does it make whether it was one person or three, or a Select Committee consisting of eight or ten persons, who produced this particular Bill? The issue here is not who; the issue here is what was produced.

Sir, what we have here before the House is a Bill which was produced by a one-man commission, a Judge of Appeal. Where could one have found more liaison and more consultation than was effected in this particular case by this one-man commission? Not only were consultations held with all organizations having an association with law and justice, but memoranda were received, as was clearly set out in this report of Judge of Appeal Botha, from various quarters. There was consultation with five Supreme Court Devisions, with a great many Judges, advocates, Government departments, seven Attorneys-General, various universities, the Bar Councils, various commercial enterprises; in fact, with everyone who could possibly contribute to the formulation of the ideas contained in this measure.

Sir, how can there be any objection to the fact that this work was accomplished by only one man if the product elicited no objection in principle from the Bench —not from the Chief Justice, nor from the various Judge Presidents nor from any Judge, nor from the magistrates, nor from the legal faculties of the universities of this country? If there are objections to the details, if there are objections to minor matters contained in certain clauses, the Opposition has the opportunity of bringing these to the attention of the House and of the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage of this Bill.

Sir, the attitude of the Opposition is incomprehensible owing to its vehement objection to the fact that in this early stage, as they put it, there are already 14 proposed amendments to this Bill on the Order Paper. In that way the Opposition is trying to intimate that this Bill was put together so rapidly that proper and thorough attention was not given to eliminating any possible inconsistencies. Sir, it is a nonsensical statement to say that this Bill was put together in a short time. We know that proper notice was given by means of a Government Gazette publication in December, 1971; we know that this particular Bill probably appeared only three or four weeks ago, but the whole essence of it was already available at an early stage. We are constantly dealing with Bills in this House, and how frequently do we not have to deal with a Bill which consists of two or three pages, or of five or six clauses, in regard to which we have one or two proposed amendments? Sir, if one considers for a moment the scope of this Bill, one sees that it consists of 350 clauses and 285 pages. If there are then, at this stage, after the hon. the Minister had held consultations, after he had obtained additional information, only 14 proposed amendments, in other words an average of one amendment per 20 or 21 pages, then it may certainly not be said with justification that an excessive number of amendments are being effected to a Bill which was allegedly brought before the House in an unprepared state. Sir, I think this is a far-fetched statement, one which is devoid of all truth, and one which makes an insinuation which could only lead to wrong inferences by the public, who are uninformed in this regard. And then it is quite significant if one takes cognizance of the fact that some of these amendments are virtually of a linguistic nature only; in one case a capital letter “E” is being substituted for a small letter “e”, but the fact that 14 amendments appear on the Order Paper, is being used to kick up a fuss unnecessarily here.

Sir, in the fourth place the attitude of the Opposition is incomprehensible owing to its unjustified criticism which it levelled at various organizations; its unjustified critcism in the first place which it levelled at the person of Judge of Appeal. Mr. Justice Botha himself. He is being charged with not having had the competence to have instituted the investigation and drawn up a proper report. The hon. member for Zululand made it clear that Judge of Appeal Mr. Justice Botha was actually a mere chamber legal practitioner; that he was merely a legal adviser: that he was not a criminal advocate; that his experience of criminal prosecution was of a limited duration and that he consequently did not have the necessary experience, the necessary aptitude and the necessary competence to have produced this Bill. Sir, where could one find a more serious insinuation against the Person of a Judge of Appeal than we have had in this House in regard to the genesis of this particular Bill. For the sake of convenience, by way of supplementing their arguments, the hon. members forget entirely about this Judge of Appeal’s experience on the Bench, when he was dealing with criminal work continually. Sir, in the second place unjustified criticism was levelled at the person of the hon. the Minister of Justice. He was reproached with having brought an important Bill before the House over-hastily. By implication the reproach was levelled at him that he was in that way prejudicing the excellence and the thoroughness of our legal system; he was reproached for not having referred this measure to a Select Committee. They even went further and the word of the hon. the Minister was questioned by implication when the hon. member for Pinelands asked him by way of an interjection during his introductory speech with what division the Judge President in question, who commented favourably on clause 119 which was being objected to, had been associated. Sir, if cognizance is taken of the way in which this question was put, and the remarks which preceded this question, it can only be construed as an insinuation against the word of the hon. the Minister, and to this the strongest exception has to be taken. Sir, in the third place unfair criticism was by implication levelled at the entire Bench, the entire Bench to whom the provisions contained in clause 119 in particular were submitted, the clause which the Opposition are opposing to such an extent, because the Bench, when this clause was submitted to it, had no objection to it.

No support either.

Sir, it is being said that hon. members on that side who have had practical experience should be heeded, i.e. the hon. members for Florida and Umlazi, to whom I shall return subsequently. The hon. member for Durban North said specifically—and this was taken over by The Argus yesterday evening: “Listen, there are people who can speak from experience. The hon. member for Umlazi has had experience in his capacity as a respected police officer; the hon. member for Florida has had experience in his capacity as prosecutor in the magistrates’ courts, according to The Argus of yesterday evening. These are the persons who have had practical experience. Sir, this clause 119 is now going to be applied by the magistates’ courts; it is going to be applied by the Bench, and the Opposition has no confidence in the thoroughness and impartiality of our Bench.

Nonsense!

It is definitely not non-sense. Sir, where under the sun could one find greater practical experience than that of the entire Bench of our country? Where under the sun could one find greater practical experience than that of all the judges, all the magistrates, all the attorneys-general? Not one of these people, who have to do with the application of the law all day long, lodged any objection to this Bill. On the contrary, there was only favourable comment and praise for this particular Bill. Now it is being said by the Opposition that we should listen to the voice of practical experience. In other words, the Bench is by implication not competent because they did not lodge any objections, and because they had only praise for this Bill. For that reason they are wrong and the hon. members opposite are right. In addition, there was a serious insinuation, and unjust criticism was levelled at our magistrates in regard to their impartial competence to put the necessary questions to the accused in terms of clause 119. Their integrity and impartiality is being questioned.

The attitude of the Opposition is also incomprehensible in this sense that it has found in this good piece of Juristic work the opportunity of making political capital, of blowing up this entire matter, through the Press, into something which has far exceeded its bounds, of calling in, on the basis of this, the assistance of the General Council of the Bar, which brought out a comprehensive report containing mainly negative criticism and few positive suggestions, a report which the hon. the Minister took into account in any case when he finalized this product. The Press has been called in in this connection. The assistance of the Press has been called in to blow this matter up as if it were something terrible —to this matter as well I shall return in a moment. The hon. member for Kensington admitted in so many words that he was himself a member of the delegation to the General Council of the Bar. Add to this the fact that the hon. member for Durban North, on 3rd April, a few days ago, issued a Press statement in which he associated himself with the Press report which had appeared in The Sunday Tribune of 25th March, 1973, which contained a blatant untruth in so far as that that particular report stated that we in South Africa were replacing the accusatorial system in our law of criminal procedure with an inquisitorial system—an absolute untruth. This report in The Sunday Tribune was endorsed by the hon. member who issued the Press statement.

May I ask a question?

No, the hon. member may just as well sit‘ down. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

The Opposition is confusing the entire concept of inquisitorial and accusatorial, and blowing up the combination of these two in the Press so that the man in the street cannot understand it. Then comment is made such as that made by the hon. member for Jeppes when he spoke in this House yesterday about “confusion in legal circles throughout the country”. Then statements are made in the Press of today, statements such as “encroachment on the right of individuals”. These are the things which stem from concepts which are taken and distorted and mixed up, so that the ordinary layman cannot understand its meaning and so that he may think the country is now going to rack and ruin as a result of the terrible things which are contained in this Bill. Sir, the accusatorial trial system will continue in South Africa as it did under the 1955 Act. All of us know that it will continue. All of us know that the accusatorial system is being included in the new amendment Bill, but is being included in a more streamlined form, i.e. that a new important aid is being established which may be utilized and which may be of assistance in the interrogation by the magistrate of the accused so as to strip the misdemeanour in question of which the accused has been charged of all its troublesome and unnecessary frills, and to come to the heart of the charge against the accused. The attitude of the Opposition is also incomprehensible in so far as it is in this debate—and this is very clear even to me as a beginner—playing for time and playing to the gallery. It is raising at this juncture many matters which ought to be discussed during the Committee Stage, simply to while away the time. There is clauses to which objections in principle are little doubt about that, for only the few being lodged are mentioned here, while a whole series of clauses to which no objections in principle can be raised, are not being mentioned here. It is already clear that after six to eight hours of debating, there was not much more that could be said which had not already been said in the debate. At this stage I want to point out that the hon. Opposition is using this matter as a political football, are making of this Bill an opportunity to show the public that they are now for the first time opposing a measure tooth and nail, as they in fact express it. Then, too, they are going to ask for the additional hour so as to make up time and try to show their purposefulness and determination in their opposition to matters which they in their honest conviction should realize must be to the benefit of the country.

In the seventh place the attitude of the Opposition in this connection is incomprehensible, for its objects most vehemently to the most important clause of this Bill, namely clause 119. This is in fact ironical because clause 119 seeks to achieve one object—consequently the Opposition is objecting to this as well—which is to establish the truth. The Opposition is, believe it or not, objecting to that. This clause has only one object, and that is to bring the true facts before the court. However, the hon. member for Green Point has expressed his serious concern, for he said that he feared that if a person was charged with one crime and it appeared from the facts of the case that he had in actual fact committed another crime, that person could be found guilty of the alternative crime. Is our system of law not geared to convicting the person who committed the crime? The hon. member for Green Point then mentioned a typical example. He said that if a woman who was unacquainted with court procedure was charged with negligent driving, she could possibly, whilst being interrogated by the magistrate in terms of clause 119, disclose certain information as a result of which she might then be found guilty of culpable homicide. Is there anything wrong with that? Does the hon. member for Green Point expect that she should walk out scot-free because of a technicality? Should the surviving children and wife of the person who was killed owing to that woman’s negligent driving, be satisfied with these circumstances? I am convinced that the hon. member for Green Point would be the first person who would go to that widow if she were living in his constituency, to convey his sympathy. The object is not to acquit people of a crime they have committed. The object is to establish the truth, and nothing else but the truth; to make use of the truth to convict the person, who committed an offence, of that offence in question.

In the eighth place the attitude of the Opposition, as revealed in their vehement opposition to this Bill, is incomprehensible because it suggests conflicting principles. It is a sore point with the Opposition. The whole of South Africa admired them because they supported the Schlebusch Commission report on the activities of Nusas, as referred to in that report. In that way they are making a contribution to the security of the State. I pay them the compliment that they are making a contribution to law and order. They defend their action in public and say that they will do so again. They are prepared to contribute positively to the security of the State— which is the right thing, it has to be. It goes even further, for in the meantime there has been a provincial by-election in Natal, and there the Opposition even fared a little better after they had been prepared to stand by their principles and attitude in regard to the recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission. But what is happening now? They have one condition. These persons, whose activities are being discussed here, have to be charged and prosecuted by the Attorney-General. They support this principle that the person who commits the offence has to be prosecuted; but in the same breath, through their opposition to this clause 119, they support the principle that the accused should be afforded a greater opportunity of being acquitted, while the knowledge and the proof is there that he is in fact guilty. An analysis of clause 119 indicates very clearly that it does not have the object of proving the innocent guilty, but seeks to obtain the true facts regarding the elements of the charge against the accused, so that a conclusion may be reached sooner, but still in a fair way.

We can summarize the principles contained in this Bill by saying that it contains certain essential elements which are of fundamental importance. In the first place, it is a fundamental projection of the essence of the existing Criminal Procedure Act. In the second place it is fundamentally an adjustment and a rounding off of the existing provisions. In the third place it, quite justifiably, effects certain essential amendments, but without prejudicing the case of any party as far as purely juristic trial procedure is concerned. The one important object is to arrive at the truth sooner and regulate the essential aspects, so that the accused may be charged and asked to plead at the earliest possible stage. In this way the innocent person may be afforded the opportunity of replying to the questions of the magistrate and himself reducing that charge to the true and essential facts which are relevant. It will be possible for the court to sentence in the quickest way possible the person who pleads guilty and admits all the elements of the crime. All these things take place without a single provision in the entire Bill in terms of which the innocent person may in any way be convicted. However, the guilty person will without prejudice and in the quickest possible way be convicted by applying the provisions of clause 119. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malmesbury is a member, I believe, of the Association of Law Societies. But he had the temerity here this afternoon to call into contumely the good name of his own society, together with that of the General Council of the Bar and of us, the members of the Opposition. He threw wild allegations around about who called whom in, who had “sweep-‘ed' op” whom, without one tittle of evidence to justify his wild allegations. He had no right whatsoever to make those statements. I want to say to him now, not only did he fail to establish the facts before he made his allegations, but he also refused to accept the assurances which were given by members on this side of the House during the debate yesterday. I know that the hon. member was here and that he heard them. I fail to understand how the Government side can countenance a speech such as that made by the hon. member. I do not believe that it advanced the cause of the hon. the Minister of Justice at all. If anything, I believe it weakened his cause. I believe that he was impertinent in these allegations which he threw, not only against us and against the General Bar Council, but also against his own association; because his own association also submitted a memorandum on this matter. Let me say, Sir, he is completely out of step with his own association. I wonder if the hon. the Minister of Justice agrees with what the hon. member for Malmesbury has said.

Carry on.

The hon. the Minister says I must carry on. I take that as being a rejection of all that was said by the hon. member for Malmesbury. I do not believe it is necessary to go any further with this point.

The hon. member for Malmesbury says that we called in the Press, and that the Press has blown this matter up as if it is something terrible. I want to say that if ever we in this House debated a measure which affected every single solitary soul in the Republic of South Africa, it is this measure. This measure is not only aimed at the murderers, the rapists and those guilty of treason, but affects even the housewife who goes into town and gets a parking ticket. Every single solitary person in South Africa is affected by this measure and then we hear the sort of speech we have just had from the hon. member for Malmesbury! That is why my friend, the hon. member for Durban North, demands of this Government that this measure be sent to a Select Committee. The hon. member for Malmesbury obviously does not understand what a Select Committee is all about; he does not know the difference between a commission and a Select Committee. He talks about the evidence being received from all quarters—I accept that; the honourable judge did receive evidence from all quarters—but what was the evidence he received? Nobody on this side is aware of what evidence the honourable judge received because that is secret. The big difference which the hon. member for Malmesbury must learn is that if a Select Committee were appointed, not only would it be in a position to call for all the evidence which the honourable judge received, but that evidence would also be made public when the report of the Select Committee gets tabled in the House. Not only would justice be done, but justice would also be seen to be done. Such a Select Committee can also call for papers; it can examine papers. It can do all the things which the honourable judge did, and the evidence will be made public.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. When he introduced this measure he said that no new principles were being introduced. We have been debating this measure now for two and a half days in which time it has been shown that there are most important new principles which are being introduced. There has been much debate on the new procedure in the courts which is being introduced. Of course that involves new principles. I want to deal briefly with two other principles which were introduced and which, as I have said, do not affect only rapists, murderers and those guilty of sedition, but also the man in the street and his wife, when she goes to town to do her shopping. Clause 56 contains a new provision to the effect that a notice to appear in court can now be served by registered post and that the mere production in court of a carbon copy of the notice and the sender’s receipt from the Post Office for the registered article concerned, is sufficient proof before the court that such a notice was served on the accused person. The hon. the Minister said that no new principles were being introduced. Will he tell me where this principle was included in the old Act? The hon. the Minister does not reply because it was not included in the old Act. That is why I say every single person is involved. I had an experience a little while ago of a parking ticket being posted to my business address. It was readdressed to me in Cape Town while I had returned to Natal. By the time I received it, the date on which I was due to appear had passed. In terms of this Bill I would have had a warrant out for my arrest for contempt of court through failing to appear. I serve notice on the hon. the Minister now that we will move to delete that provision in the Committee Stage. Yet he says that there are no new principles involved!

Let us go on to the very next clause. Clause 57(1) lays down that any admission of guilt fine has got to be paid within the area of jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed. In other words, if I take off in my motorcar and head for Natal when this House adjourns and I am caught in a speed trap in Kraaifontein, as has happened to other members of this House, I cannot, when I receive the summons, pay an admission of guilt fine in Natal. I have to come down to Kraaifontein to pay it. I cannot send a cheque either; it must be paid in cash. I have to come down here and pay it in Kraaifontein or in the area of jurisdiction of the court—I think the Bellville court has jurisdiction there. I cannot pay an admission of guilt fine at a police station or a magistrate’s office at my home in Natal. Yet the hon. the Minister says that no new principles have been introduced and hon. members opposite laugh when I say that every single person in South Africa is affected by this Bill. I would like to see how many people have not fallen for these minor offences; and these minor offences are included in this particular Bill

In connection with clause 119 about the procedure in court, the hon. member for Malmesbury says that the aim is to establish the truth. I want to ask him how they aim to establish the truth. By “bekruiping” the accused? I believe there are various factors which should apply here, but which do not. As the hon. the Minister knows, the General Council of the Bar and the Association of Law Societies have advised him of these facts and I want to run through them just briefly again. There is no obligation upon the magistrate to warn the accused as to his rights to remain silent and to warn him that what he says will be recorded and will form part of the record and could be used against him. There is no obligation on the magistrate to advise the accused that he has the right to have legal representation at that first hearing. There is no provision for the magistrate to explain to the accused the elements of the offence or the offences with which he is charged, nor of the possible and alternative verdicts which could be brought in against him. The magistrate, in terms of the provisions as I read them, is not required to record the questions put to him by the accused, nor to report anything else said by him to the accused for the purpose of eliciting the information which he wants.

I have had a little bit of experience of court work and I believe there are certain elements which should pertain while such an inquiry takes place. The first thing is that I believe the accused should be aware, or be made aware, of certain facts. The first one is that he is entitled to representation; secondly, that he need not answer any questions. But how often does the accused know that? Thirdly, that he need not make any statement and admissions at all. Fourthly, and most important of all, that any refusal to make a statement or to answer questions will not be prejudicial to him. What I am trying to say is that the accused must not at any stage during his trial, his interrogation, his questioning, whatever you want to call it, have any fear that failure to answer or to explain any question will be held against him. Any such doubt should be removed entirely from the mind of the accused. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in terms of this procedure which he has put forward now, how do we know that the simple, illiterate, uneducated Black man who is brought before our courts is going to understand this point? I believe it is an absolutely impossible task to expect any magistrate, prosecutor, or interpreter to get this through to the simple mind of the majority of people who appear before our courts every year. I believe we have in this country a system which is unique. It is not the same as any system which applies anywhere else in the world. It is one which has developed and evolved over the last 100 years, because of our own peculiar circumstances and it has evolved to meet those particular circumstances. Now the hon. the Minister wants to change it.

He wants to change it on the recommendation of an honourable judge, a judge of the Supreme Court, who was given what was described by my hon. friend for Zululand, an impossible task, namely to review the present situation and to produce an amending Bill. I want to say that I am not in a position to judge the situation at the level which is occupied by the learned judge. He sits there in his ivory tower and if he deals with a criminal case he deals with it under certain circumstances. He probably has an Attorney-General prosecuting, he has the finest interprets in the country, he has before him an accused who has the finest legal representation in the country, an accused who cannot plead ignorance of any fact, because he has representation. Perhaps under those circumstances I believe that what the Minister has brought forward can apply. What is the position? I see from the report of the Department of Justice that during 1971 and 1972 only 3 600 criminal cases were heard in the Supreme Court. But, as opposed to that, 14½ million cases were heard in magistrates’ courts. I believe that we have to look at those 14 million cases and the circumstances that pertain to them. What is the position there?

Our magistrates are doing a magnificent job of work. I am not critical the magistrates nor the judiciary in any way. Magistrates are very often unqualified or hold minimum qualifications, such as that which I have, namely LLD (Lower Law Diploma). [Interjections]. Hon. members may laugh, but the hon. the Minister cannot deny that he has people sitting on the bench who hold only that diploma. That is a facet of our system. But you have not only a magistrate with minimum qualifications but that magistrate has to work under extreme pressure, including legal bench work as well as administrative work. And what does he have before him? Very often he has an unqualified prosecutor with no legal knowledge or experience of law. Then he may have a junior investigating officer, namely a constable with short service in the Police. He may also have an inexperienced interpreter and an illiterate accused who is not represented. Now, can hon. members see this system applying under these circumstances? This I believe is the crux of the whole matter that is contained in clause 119. I would love to give this House a brief description of what takes place in these courts. I have experienced them, Sir, both as prosecutor and from the bench. I have experienced them more recently as a complainant and have seen what happens. I want to say to the hon the Minister that I cannot see this system working with those people because they are not going to understand it. The accused is going to be confused when he is asked questions and the elements of the case are put to him. I think it was the hon. member for Durban North who raised the question of the theft of a coat. Now, if the accused pleads not guilty then the magistrate has to put the elements of the case to him. And the elements are a coat which the accused has. The accused will say: “Yes, I have that coat.”

You are repeating yourself.

Shut up!

You do not understand it anyway.

Order! I should be glad if hon. members would cease making interjections. I should be just as glad if other hon. members would moderate their language and leave the maintenance of order to the Chair.

When the elements of a case of theft such as that are put to the accused he is going to implicate himself. He is going to say: “Yes, I have got the coat.” And what happens after that? That is recorded and used against him. I think it was the hon. member for Zululand who said that it was surely a part of our law that no man should incriminate himself.

The hon. member for Zululand drew a parallel between the one-man judicial commission which we had in this country which resulted in this Bill and the British commission which the hon. the Minister and members on that side of the House have quoted at length to justify this Bill. The hon. member for Zululand pointed out that the representation on that commission came from all tiers in the legal field. There were representatives of the Appeal and Supreme Courts right down to the level of magistrate. The Bar was represented and the Side-Bar was represented. Both the theoretical and the practical sides were represented on that commission. But something which has not been pointed out is the fact that half of those recommendations have not been accepted by the British Government; they have not become law in England.

The hon. member for Durban North called for a Select Committee. This House has heard from such members as the hon. member for Florida, the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Green Point, and, Sir, I want to add the name of the hon. member for Vereeniging. These are practising people who know what is happening in our courts today as opposed to the majority of the speakers on that side, who are speaking purely and simply from theoretical knowledge. You have heard from them, Sir, and I am sure that what you have heard from those people, together with the evidence which has been adduced by members on this side, can only convince the House that the way to handle this Bill is to refer it to a Select Committee now, before it is read a Second Time. A Select Committee will be able to take into consideration all aspects. It will be able to hear evidence from all bodies concerned, and that evidence will be public; it will be open to the public after it has been heard. Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill and the principles which we have been discussing during the Second Reading, have been very thoroughly discussed from all angles. This field has been covered extensively and it would hardly be possible to give any new angles on the subject. I do think, however, that at this stage reference can be made to a few points of criticism which have been raised by hon. members of the Opposition. In the first place I want to refer to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who has just resumed his seat. He spoke about new principles being introduced into our Act, certain principles which had supposedly been denied by the hon. the Minister. But I think the hon. member, in spite of all his training and experience, is making a few mistakes and blunders. It is unfortunate that my turn to speak must follow his so often.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Standing Order No. 51, I wish to indicate at this stage that the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill will be continued for a further period of one hour.

The hon. member for Bellville may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District had made certain blunders. He was concerned about the case where, for example, a housewife goes to town and parks wrongly. She then gets a parking ticket which has the same effect as a summons. It may happen that she takes no notice of it, or that the ticket is blown away. She may then find that she can be summonsed before the court on a charge of contempt of court. But the hon. member should know that in terms of the present Act, that alternative procedure is available to the traffic department. Even at this stage they may issue a pink ticket which is, at the same time, a summons. On it appears the date on which one must appear in court. They may already issue an immediate summons. That alternative procedure, namely that one may receive either an immediate summons or a ticket which may later be replaced by summons, already obtains in terms of the present Act. All that is happening now, is that the alternative is being eliminated; in the process one now gets one single summons.

Sir, this is what happens when an hon. member boasts about his own experience and the training he has had. From the other side one hears members of the Opposition saying that they have so much experience. The hon. member for Florida is supposed to be a person who is exceptionally competent to talk about the practical application of this Bill. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is supposed to be a person who is exceptionally competent to talk about the practical application of this Bill. The hon. member for Umlazi is supposed to be a person who is exceptionally competent to talk about the application of this Bill. But, Sir, with all due respect to these gentlemen and particularly with due respect to the hon. member for Florida, we on our side have had an ex-magistrate talking about the practical application of this Bill from years of experience. He was a prosecutor; he was a senior public prosecutor; he was a magistrate; he was a justice inspector; he was a member of the Central Merit Committee and, last but not least, he is now a member of the National Party and a Nationalist representative in this House. Sir, he supports this Bill and its practical application. What better guidance would you wish to have from a practical man than that?

Sir, this does in fact support the statement made here by the hon. member for Malmesbury, namely that the hon. judge who investigated this matter and brought out the commission report, had the benefit of memoranda from so many different people who are in practice. He heard evidence and received memoranda; that is stated here in the report. After all, hon. members of the Opposition could have seen who made contributions in this investigation which led to this report. Memoranda were received and evidence was heard from advocates and attorneys, from Government departments, from attorneys-general. Here in the report mention is made of those practical people by whom guidance was given in the process of the drafting of this report, and hon. members of the Opposition must surely take this into account. I fear that their reading of the report was rather superficial.

Sir, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, also made another remark. He said that no inferences detrimental to the accused should be drawn from his silence. After all, he knows that this is not the legal position that obtains in our country today. The silence of the accused is liable to certain inferences under our present system today, but I shall deal with that aspect a little later. However, I want to say this: Last night the hon. member for Transkei referred to the remarks by the hon. member for Umlazi, and then he referred to a policeman who makes an investigation and who will now, as a result of the procedure which we are introducing in terms of clause 119, be tempted to skimp his work and summons a suspect before the court so that he may be questioned by the magistrate, in order that the magistrate may help him to prepare his case. Sir, that is a ridiculous representation of the situation. In the first place, a policeman cannot just summons a suspect before the court without a degree of suspicion attaching to that person. There must, after all, be an arrest or a summons in terms of this Bill, and one cannot have any arrest or summons without a degree of suspicion attaching to the suspect. How ridiculous it is to suggest that a policeman can now gather evidence by summonsing the suspect before a magistrate! The hon. member for Tanskei should think twice before delivering himself of such ridiculous statements in this House. But let us go further. Surely this policeman, who has supposedly not done his homework, knows that before he may take the suspect to court— and he must take him to court within 48 hours, in terms of the provisions of the Bill—he has the right to police interrogation in the police office; this is a normal procedure. Now, what new principle is being introduced here? The police already have this right of interrogation. Is it now the idea of the hon. member for Transkei, arising from the example given by the hon. member for Umlazi, that the Police should now have their police interrogation replaced by this procedure in terms of clause 119? I think that the suggestion made by hon. members opposite is a ridiculous one.

Sir, some of the other members opposite also made remarks on which I would like to comment. The remarks made by the hon. member for Zululand were dealt with by the hon. member for Malmesbury, i.e. those concerning the judge who supposedly acted here as a single judge and presumably had a task which was beyond his capabilities. The hon. member for Malmesbury pointed out very effectively that he did not act as a single judge solely by virtue of his own experience, but had in actual fact had the assistance, help and guidance of all this other evidence which he gathered through memoranda which were submitted to him. I think that the hon. member for Malmesbury dealt very effectively with that objection. The hon. member for Zululand went further. He said that this system which we have now, was a system which had been developed in England at a time when the English were still illiterate. He said that it was this very system which suited the illiterate English so well and therefore would also suit our so-called illiterate people in South Africa very well. He spoke of the accusatorial system, the system under which a man is charged, in contrast with the so-called inquisitorial system, which is supposed to obtain on the Continent and in France. But this is a completely mistaken conception of the historic facts. The so-called inquisitorial system which developed on the Continent and had its origins mainly in France, originated during the French Revolution and gained its final form in the time of Napoleon, when the Napoleonic Code was introduced into the various countries throughout the continent of Europe. It was then that this inquisitorial system gained its final form as it still obtains in the continental system today. Now he wants to tell me that the English of a century ago had more trouble than the French of two centuries ago had at the time of the French Revolution, and that this inquisitorial system did not suit the conditions that prevailed at the time of the French Revolution. No, I think they are inventing these arguments and are trying to take up the time of the House by creating an outward show of opposition because they cannot in fact have any real objections in principle to this Bill. This is my problem with the hon. members of the Opposition. Take the hon. member for Zululand. He said here that this legislation would not speed up the procedure in our magistrates’ courts. Of course it is going to speed it up, and this has been proved by hon. speakers on our side. For example, last night the hon. member for Vereeniging pointed this out very effectively. He pointed out that the abolition of preparatory examinations would have a substantial influence on reducing the duration of criminal proceedings in South Africa. The hon. member for Transkei conceded this, but he said that we should not only look at the abolition of preparatory examinations; they conceded that and would accept that, but the application of clause 119 would prolong the whole process in the courts. After all, this is not true, Sir. In any case, I just want to make this remark pursuant to the standpoint taken by the Opposition. On the one hand they are prepared to give up preparatory examinations, but on the other they are not prepared to apply clause 119 as it reads at present; and clause 119 is now being introduced by this Bill in substitution of a preparatory examination in connection with those cases which must go to the Supreme Court for further trial. In other words, if they accept the abolition of preparatory examinations, then they are really accepting the principle that all cases which must be tried in the Supreme Court, must be tried by way of summary trial. Then the administration of justice loses the advantage of the fact that the case was put to the accused on an earlier occasion, that the charge sheet was given to him, and that the accused obtained comment on it as well as the details of the charge sheet. I fear that in their whole argument they lost sight of this point.

But I would like to come to two other standpoints stated by the Opposition. The one has been stated in particular by the hon. member for Houghton. She said, inter alia, “But what we will have is a deformed hybrid containing elements of both the old accusatorial and the new inquisitorial systems, but without the safeguards of either.” That is the statement made by the hon. member for Houghton. Hon. members of the United Party have also made remarks to the effect that the inquisitorial system would be introduced and that it was such a reprehensible system which had to be given a wide berth. After arguing with them—the hon. member for Krugersdorp handled the matter most effectively, and so did the hon. member for Wonderboom—about the essence of the inquisitorial system and discussing with them the so-called accusatorial system, the hon. members of the Opposition are now beginning to evade this standpoint. However, these words by the hon. member for Houghton still stand on record. I think that it is time for us to look at them again. She referred to “the old accusatorial and the new inquisitorial systems”. May I say to the hon. member for Houghton that I think that the inquisitorial system is older than the accusatorial system. This is a historic fact which she has not taken into account.

No, it is new here in South Africa.

I do not intend to deal ab initio with this whole matter concerning the difference between the two systems. However, it should be noted that the expression “inquisitorial system” has been used in this debate in a pejorative sense as if it means that it is something bad, something to be avoided, something which at all times contains something evil, as if it is aimed at the suppression of the freedom of people. I now want to ask whether, if this system obtains in so many continental countries, in a country such as France, where freedom of speech and freedom of movement and personal freedom is valued so highly, there could be so much wrong in this so-called inquisitorial system.

I want to assume that this pejorative sense which it has acquired, derives from the word “inquisition”, which, in our history, of course, leaves a very bad taste. It dates from the religious wars in the years 1500 and 1600. It is, however, by no means the kind of connotation which must be attached to this very fair system of law.

In the second place it derives its pejorative sense from the popular view that if one should employ such a system, the accused would have to prove his innocence rather than the State having to prove the guilt of the accused. Such a view is completely unfounded. Where this system is followed in Europe, the principle is still that the State must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt. That popular view is totally unfounded, in France, in Germany and in the Netherlands, wherever this system obtains.

In the third place there is the standpoint that this so-called inquisitorial system forces the accused to speak and give evidence against himself. However, this is also devoid of all truth. In not one of the countries where this system is followed does such a standpoint exist. This pejorative connotation which attaches to the inquisitorial system is therefore based on a total misconception. In those countries the accused is invited to speak out before a magistrate, i.e., before the trial. Certain questions are put to the accused by the prosecutor in the presence of the magistrate. The accused may put his case and in this way the whole process can be shortened.

Here in our country we have the so-called accusatorial system, but the hon. member for Wonderboom has already pointed out very clearly that in our case we can by no means talk about two systems being opposed to each other in all their forms and content; on the contrary, the lawyer referred to by the hon. member for Wonderboom, pointed out that in all systems a mixture of these two concepts was to be found. He quoted the learned Dr. Granville Williams, who gave evidence before the Rhodesian commission. Dr. Williams said on occasion—

This is precisely the situation which applies in our country to a certain extent. Mr. Justice Botha totally rejected this inquisitorial system. He did so in paragraph 1.26 of his report. He rejected it totally as being unacceptable for South Africa. Incidentally, the Rhodesian Commission of Inquiry also rejected it. In paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 31, he only recommended that this accusatorial system be adapted to a certain extent. This is exactly what is done by means of clause 119. An inquisition is not being introduced now in terms of clause 119; the magistrate is only being instructed to put certain stipulated, prescribed questions to the accused. In some cases it is compulsory; in other it is optional. The test which determines whether a system is inquisitorial or accusatorial, is the role played by the judge in the case concerned, namely whether he undertakes a specific interrogation or not. In this instance there are in fact certain questions which he must put, but this still does not mean that he has freedom of interrogation. Incidentally, magistrates and judges already have freedom of interrogation of witnesses. Now we are just taking it a small step further and extending it to the right of interrogating the accused. But this is an interrogation which must take place within a certain fixed, legally defined framework. This is not a free interrogation which may lead to the accused putting himself in a position where he could admit a crime. This is how this change came about. I just want to point out that in any case our courts already have the right at this stage to put certain questions to the accused at the end of the case for the State, such as “Have you anything to say?”, “Do you want to tell me what your defence is?” “What statement do you want to make?”. The questions which the magistrate may already put in a trial at that stage, are now only being advanced to an earlier stage, namely the stage of pleading.

This change came about as a result of the obvious defects in the existing system, defects which have been felt, not only here, but also in other parts of the world, for example by the British and in the United States of America, where there is much criticism of the existing system. These defects are also felt by the Rhodesians. We have also felt them, particularly on account of the fact that four or five out of every ten of the accused in South Africa are acquitted. It is for that reason that we had this investigation instituted and came to this House with these proposals, which are embodied in this Bill. Our needs were very clearly pointed out by Mr. Justice Hiemstra in his various articles, to which reference was made in this House before. The statistics he gave us in those particular articles, can only mean two things: either that too many innocent people are summonsed before our courts, or that in terms of our present system, too much opportunity is given to guilty persons to go free. Those who defend the existing system, must take these two alternatives into account and they must ask themselves what their standpoint is in respect of these two alternatives. Perhaps they could take the cynical standpoint that since such a large number of accused people who are in fact guilty go free—Mr. Justice Hiemstra in his article in The South African Law Journal of 1963 pointed out that between four and five out of every 10 went free—they are punished in any event, in that they have to pay the fees of the attorneys and advocates concerned.

In conclusion I would like to come to the remark made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, i.e. that an accused should not be forced to give evidence against himself, or rather, that the silence of an accused should not indicate that a particular inference should be drawn against him, that it is his right that no such inference should be drawn against him. The hon. member is completely out of step. Our existing law already provides for certain inferences to be drawn from the silence of an accused. If an accused remains silent prior to his trial and makes no comments, certain inferences may already be drawn. Such cases have been decided. There were the cases of Rex v. Mashelele in 1944 A.D., and Rex v. Patel in 1946 A.D., both of which were decided by Mr. Justice Tindall. The conclusion arrived at in those two cases was that silence could not prove the guilt of the accused, but that it was in fact relevant to the weight to be attached to his evidence for the defence which he might adduce at a later stage. If at an early stage, prior to the trial, he has not told the Police by way of interrogation that he has an alibi, but comes up with an alibi later on, the court may, in terms of decided cases and in terms of the law as it stands, attach unfavourable weight to the evidence adduced by him at that stage. What is more, silence at a trial is also liable to certain inferences in terms of our present system of law. The cases involved, are the cases of Rex v. Nyati in 1916 A.D., the State v. Letsoko in 1964 A.D. In this respect one arrives at the conclusion that the courts may draw a prejudicial inference if at the present stage an accused should remain silent in our courts and not put his defence. Hon. members will know that if a prima facie case were made out by the State against an accused and the latter gave no further evidence in his defence, in the majority of cases—I can almost say in 100% of the cases—he would be found guilty. That being the situation, I am afraid that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has erred as regards the statement he made, i.e. that our Criminal Procedure Act had to provide that no prejudicial inferences might be drawn from the silence of an accused.

In conclusion may I just say that it is this very concept, i.e. that prejudicial inferences may be drawn from the silence of an accused, which the British Commission is now inserting into their Criminal Procedure Act and which is also being inserted into their Criminal Procedure Act. This is a concept which already exists in our law. It is not a concept which is only now being introduced by this Criminal Procedure Bill; it is a principle which already exists to a certain extent in our system of law. Therefore the statement made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District as far as this is concerned, is also unfounded.

Mr. Speaker, we are about to come to the end of this long debate which began on Tuesday and as was done by the last speaker I too want to crystallize the attitude of the official Opposition to this Bill.

I want to begin by reminding this House what a Criminal Procedure Act in fact is. I suggest that in a democratic country it is the charter which embodies the rights of the individual citizen under the law as well as the rights of the State as protector of the rights and interests of society. The ideal or perfect procedure is, as has been stated in this debate, one which is fair and just in the sense that it ensures that no innocent person is convicted and that no guilty person is acquitted. So far as I am aware, nowhere in the world has a system of criminal procedure been evolved which achieves that degree of perfection. What South Africa’s aim should be, as a civilized democratic country, is in my submission to ensure that our system of criminal procedure reaches as closely the ideal that I have just stated as is humanly possible. Having established the foundation upon which our system is based, I now turn to our existing procedure. It is a procedure which has been in existence for a very long period of time. It is a procedure which has proved to be basically sound and fair and, above all, it is a procedure which is respected by our citizens of all races and by the outside world. There is no doubt, however, that over the years our society has become more sophisticated and complicated and crime has also become more sophisticated and better organized. In the view of many people our existing system makes it possible for too many guilty people to get away with their crimes. This, coupled with the fact that any system must from time to time be made as efficient as possible, has led many persons who practise law, to the view that our criminal system needs improvement. We in the United Party accept that the present system does need changes in certain respects. We are therefore not opposed to improving our present procedure so as to make it more efficient and so as to minimize the possibility of guilty persons escaping conviction. But we are opposed to changes that undermine the foundation upon which our criminal law is based and which increase the danger of innocent people being convicted. We are opposed to this Bill because in our view certain of its provisions will achieve both these undesirable results, namely of undermining the foundations upon which our criminal law is based and of increasing the danger of innocent persons being convicted.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to come more specifically to the Bill. The crux of the Bill is of course the new procedure for pleading and conviction which is contained in the main in Chapters 17 to 20 of the Bill. I should like at this stage to add that there are certain provisions in this Bill which undoubtedly improve the existing system which do have and will have our support. There are also other provisions apart from this basic fundamental one which the Bill contains with which we are not satisfied and which we will oppose. For the purpose of crystallizing this debate I propose to confine myself to the crux of the Bill. I think it is essential to be clear as to what is the effect of this new procedure.

I regret that I must take the hon. the Minister to task in respect of one aspect of his introductory address. I believe that in introducing an important measure of this sort, particularly a measure which does contain changes in one of our fundamental laws, the Minister ought to be scrupulously accurate in stating what his Bill contains. I believe that in one respect the hon. the Minister failed to do this. The hon. the Minister said—

We on this side of the House challenged this statement to the extent that we asked the hon. the Minister in replying to the debate this afternoon to indicate to us where in the existing Criminal Procedure Act we find the basic principle which is contained in these new clauses, especially the chapters to which I have referred. I would point out that it is significant that in this memorandum which was given to us by his own department there is no equivalent section to the proposed clause 105. There are also no corresponding sections in the existing Act to clauses 119 to 123 which constitute or bring about the new procedures in this Bill.

Touché!

In our view this new procedure introduces for the first time in our law radical changes of a far-reaching nature. I should like to point out that this is not only the view of the official Opposition. It is also the view of responsible and experienced bodies in the law, such as the General Council of the Bar of South Africa and the Association of Law Societies of Southern Africa. Having said this I want to examine precisely this procedure. Much has been said, particularly by the hon. the Minister and by other hon. members on his side of the House to the effect that this is not an inquisitorial procedure. Let me say clearly that so far as I know nobody has stated that the procedure under this Bill is the inquisitorial procedure recommended by Judge Hiemstra, or that it is the inquisitorial procedure which one finds in some continental countries. What has been said, and what I wish to repeat, is that the new procedure contains features of an inquisitorial system, and has elements of an inquisitorial system. We maintain this view very strongly notwithstanding, and on the contrary, because of, much that has been said by that side of the House during this debate.

Now, Sir, what is the procedure? It has been described in some detail, and I do not wish to repeat the entire procedure. The essence of it is that the accused will be brought before the magistrate at the earliest opportunity. The charge will be put to him and he will be asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. Having stated what his plea is, he will then be questioned by the magistrate in terms of the procedure which is laid down in clause 119(1) and (2). I wish to emphasize that this is not merely a procedure which gives the opportunity to the accused to make a statement, and thereby to prove that he is not guilty in order to enable him to be released as quickly as possible. It is not simply a procedure to give the opportunity to the accused to make any statement he may wish. It goes further. It enables, and indeed in some cases requires, the magistrate to put questions to the accused, and there is no doubt that whatever language you use, this is a pre-trial judicial interrogation, or if you prefer it, Sir, a pre-trial judicial questioning. The gravamen of our opposition to such a procedure is that whilst it is not the type of inquisitorial procedure to which I have just referred, namely that of Hiemstra or that which we find on the continent, it lends itself to being developed into or to become a form of inquisitorial interrogation.

Having said this, perhaps I should immediately summarize why precisely it is that we are opposed to this new procedure. I have tabulated eight reasons why it is that we are opposed to it. I see that my time is running out, so I must hurry this along a little. Firstly, it is a procedure which could lead to misunderstandings of a fundamental nature, misunderstandings which, if they occur, will lead—not “could lead”, but “will lead”—to miscarriages of justice. Why do I say this? I say this because the procedure creates inherent problems because of the difficulties of interpretation and the difficulties arising from the fact that, as has been pointed out in this debate, magistrates work under pressure and will be pressed for time not only in explaining the position, but in satisfying themselves as to what the charge is and what the elements are. The procedure also creates problems regarding incorrect or inadequate explanation of (1) the essential elements of the charge and (2) possible defences. Mr. Speaker, when one bears in mind that the bulk of those who come before the courts, as was pointed out by Judge Botha, are illiterate and unsophisticated and are generally unrepresented, one realizes—or perhaps I should say that anyone with some experience of the courts will realize—what miscarriages of justice can occur in a system of this sort. Certain members on this side of the House have dealt with the difficulty that will arise in explaining the elements of the charge to the accused. I may add just one example: How is the magistrate going to explain to an accused, especially an illiterate, unsophisticated, unrepresented accused, the elements of recklessness as opposed to negligence —recklessness which involves an objective test, not a subjective one?

Sir, I return to our reasons for opposing this measure. I have given two so far. The third reason is that in our view it will bring about lengthy delays before trial or sentence, especially in the case of serious offences, contrary to the contention of the Minister that this will tend to shorten proceedings. Fourthly, the traditional role of magistrates as impartial arbiters of the issues between the State and the individual concerned is altered radically so that he becomes involved, not only in the determination of the question of guilt, but involved to some extent in establishing whether guilt exists or not, which up to now has been the sole function of the prosecutor. Then, fifthly, I wish to quote from the memorandum of the Bar Council, which sets this out as well as possible. The Bar Council makes this point at page 27—

to which I will come back later. Sixthly, Sir, I quote again from the Bar Council at page 27—

Seventhly, I again quote from the Bar Council at page 27—

Not necessarily false—

Then, Sir, there is this practical objection: How is a magistrate to determine all the elements of the charge when he does not have all the evidence before him? This is a factor which has been dealt with at some length and, consequently, I do not propose elaborating on it.

Now I want to conclude the reasons by giving the final one, and that is that this system damages and could destroy the basic principle of our criminal justice, which is what? It is that the onus of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt rests throughout upon the State. This is the basic principle of our criminal justice. I would remind the House that Mr. Justice Botha does not suggest that any change should be made in regard to this basic principle. He does not suggest that the onus of proof should in any way be shifted or that the degree of proof which is required of the State, should in any way be lessened. On the contrary, Sir, time and time again, if one reads through his report, he rejected Mr. Justice Hiemstra’s proposals for the reason that one or other aspect of these proposals would do damage to that basic principle. And what are the essential elements of that principle? They are, firstly, the right to silence on the part of the accused. This is what Mr. Justice Botha had to say on page 6, paragraph 1.16—

And what is the second element of this basic principle? It is that the accused cannot be compelled in any way either to assist in proving the case against him or to show his innocence. Now, in our view this procedure, for the reasons I have mentioned briefly, and for the reasons mentioned by the other speakers on this side of the House throughout the debate, could well result in damage being done to these two essential elements of this basic principle upon which our entire criminal justice is based.

So, Sir, I think I have said enough to show why it is that we are opposed to this Bill. Why do we want it referred to a Select Committee? We want it referred to a Select Committee once again for several reasons. Firstly, as I have said, we accept the general view held by practitioners in the law that our criminal procedure can be improved in certain respects. We do not believe that the change which is to be introduced is an improvement and therefore we believe that it is necessary for it to go to a Select Committee for further consideration. Secondly, we point out that this is a procedure which is based on the recommendation of one judge only. It is true that this judge had the benefit of representations from a wide range of persons and bodies. He was able to hear their views, but ultimately the recommendations which he made and which is embodied in this Bill are his recommendations alone. And what is more, we know from what he said that it does not appear to be precisely the same as was recommended by anyone else, because on page 16, paragraph 3.23, he says this—

In other words, it is a hotch-potch, a conglomerate of procedures recommended by these people. So we have the position that in so far as this House can ascertain, no other person or body recommended this precise procedure. But what we do know, and that I believe is very important, is that the procedure recommended by the Chief Justice and the judges of appeal is not the procedure which is recommended by Mr. Justice Botha. This, I believe, is important and is a sound reason why further investigation into this should be made. I do not have the time—I have only five minutes to go I am told—to refer to the Chief Justice’s procedure. It is set out in paragraph 1.29 on page 9. It is a procedure, I may say, which would be far more satisfactory in my view, had it been adopted.

Thirdly, we consider that it must be referred to a Select Committee because of the severe criticism that has been made from responsible and respected bodies such as the General Council of the Bar and the Law Association.

Finally I would point out that in this very debate there have been at least two hon. members on that side of the House, the hon. member for Kroonstad and the hon. member for Potgietersrus, who virtually conceded that this Bill is going to require amendment once it has operated in practice. They virtually conceded this and the hon. member for Kroonstad in fact described it as an experiment. Surely, it is most unsatisfactory that this Parliament should be asked to change principles which have stood the test of time and to substitute a new procedure which can be described as an experiment and which has the possibility that changes will be necessary. It is a bad way to legislate. There is no need to rush this measure. The existing provision has been on our Statute Book for a long time. If our criminal law is to be changed, it is important that it must retain the respect of all the citizens of this country. If it turns out to be a system which does not ensure fair play and justice in the sense in which I have described that term earlier, it cannot maintain the respect of the citizens. I strongly urge, at this late stage, the hon. the Minister to act in statesmanlike fashion to send this Bill to a Select Committee, but if he believes a Select Committee is not the proper body to examine this legislation, then to withdraw this Bill and refer it to the South African Law Commission which was a suggestion recommended by the hon. member for Pinelands.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the speeches that have been made and I think I should now recapitulate.

Much louder, please!

Look here, switch on your hearing aid! I am not going to shout for your benefit. [Interjections.] In essence the objection is actually made up of six parts. In the first place, the hon. members of the Opposition want to have a Select Committee. The last speaker also asked for one. In the second place, criticism has been levelled against the one-man commission. In the third place, they say that there are no weighty reasons for this Bill. In the fourth place, they say that the system is inquisitorial and that it will lead to a violation of justice. In the fifth place, they say that the measure is a over-hasty one. In the sixth place, they say that it cannot in any case achieve the objectives that are being envisaged. These are the things the hon. members of the Opposition are claiming, and here I also include the hon. member for Houghton.

Before I go any further, I want to extend to hon. members on this side of the House my very sincere thanks for the support that has come from their side. In my opinion excellent speeches have been made on the part of the various members. I do not want to mention names …

What about Louis?

… but in this respect I want to convey my sincere thanks to each of the hon. members on this side who took part in the debate.

And this side?

Yes, that side, too. There are hon. members who made contributions which I enjoyed more than those made by others. I am grateful to them.

I want to deal, in the first place, with the demand that a Select Committee should go into this matter. A judicial commission is ostensibly not good enough. Now I want to know what more a Select Committee of this House should supposedly investigate, i.e. over and above what was investigated by the honourable judge. I want to go so far as to say that the Select Committee will not even have the benefit of all the evidence submitted to the judge.

Why not?

For the simple reason that they will not get the Judiciary to appear before them. They do not have the right to call the Judiciary to Parliament to give evidence before them. They may not call individual judges as witnesses. [Interjections.] It is clear that the hon. member does not know that yet. If that is news to him, I shall tell him why. In 1944 the then Speaker ruled in this House that this was unwise and that he did not expect a judge to be summoned to give evidence, for the simple reason that he would subsequently feel called upon to give an opinion on the matter. In 1970 you, Sir, gave exactly the same ruling. That is why I say that a Select Committee will not even have the benefit of the consultation which the hon. judge had prior to drafting his report.

Now you are talking nonsense !

How can the hon. member say this is nonsense? I have just told you why this is the case. Mr. Speaker ruled that it was not desirable. It is not done.

That is not the point. It is in fact desirable in the case of this Select Committee, not so?

It is not desirable. In previous cases it was also Bills. In this case the judge had the benefit of the evidence of all five of the divisions of the Supreme Court. Representations were made by seven judges.

But not on this Bill.

Of course. There were representations from I do not know how many attorneys and Government departments. What can the Opposition expect from a Select Committee? Where could such a committee obtain even more information?

He did not accept all the recommendations made by them.

But a Select Committee would not react to what is said by each witness either; it, too, has to draft a Bill.

But here it was only one man.

He had the evidence of all the attorneys-general, as well as that of two universities, the Automobile Association, the South African Federated Chamber of Commerce and Industries, the South African Federation of Women, the Regional Congress of Chambers of Commerce, the National Council of Women of South Africa, a number of private persons, more judges, the Police and also individual policemen. I cannot see what additional evidence a Select Committee would be able to obtain here than the judge had the benefit of being able to obtain.

You are talking nonsense!

The hon. member’s trouble is that the moment he does not agree with one, then he says one is talking nonsense; he should rather keep his ears open when one is talking. In the second place, criticism has been levelled at the fact that this was a one-man commission.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is it not correct that the people who were asked to comment and to make representations to the Botha Commission were asked to comment on the Hiemstra proposals and were not asked to comment on the proposals which Mr. Justice Botha has recommended?

Apparently you did not read the report at all.

He did.

It does not appear to be the case. The Hiemstra Report was only one of the matters that was referred to.

I accept that. May I ask the hon. the Minister another question?

No, you are bothering me. You made your speech and I listened attentively to you. The hon. member for Zululand referred to the honourable judge being “a chamber lawyer”. I find it regrettable that he did so. I do not think that was worthy of him. Besides, he is wrong.

Has he practised in the courts?

You keep quiet! I shall reply to you.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it permissible for the hon. the Minister to make such remarks?

Order! I should like the hon. the Minister and any hon. member to address the Chair and not to address one another directly.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Now I want to come to the hon. member for Durban North. I have said before that he makes his greatest speeches either in the Sunday Tribune or in the Sunday Times, and that is always done before a measure is introduced; before a measure comes up for discussion, one finds him, photograph and all, featuring in the newspapers. Then he is “the shadow Minister of Justice”. [Interjections.]

It is at least a fine photograph.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. young member is too big for his boots. He is not even sitting in his proper place.

And he is wearing high heels as well.

I want to ask the hon. member for Durban North what he meant when he said, “I wonder if the hon. the Minister chose the judge or whether someone suggested to him whom it should be?” What did he mean by that?

You told me just before that it was the Chief Justice who told you to appoint a commission. It was not your own commission; so I wondered about that.

You did not wonder; you made an insinuation; that is what you did. Reference was made here to “quick or slow on the draw”. If there is one person who is “quick on the draw” with regard to newspapers when a measure comes up for discussion, then it is that hon. member. He is very quick on the draw. I want to tell him frankly what my considered opinion is. His speech was the poorest one that came from that side of the House. I know of no poorer speech.

Such repartee! Oscar Wilde would be proud of you.

I just want to tell the hon. member who the judge-commissioner was in this respect and what experience he had. I am also saying this for the information of the hon. member for Zululand. The hon. Mr. Justice Botha commenced his career in the magistrate’s court. After that he became chief public prosecutor at Boksburg. I think he had sufficient experience. He definitely had more experience than has the young member for Florida who, to my knowledge—and this is borne out by the record—appeared in ten-minute prosecutions. In any case, the hon. member was not the chief public prosecutor in Boksburg. Subsequent to that Mr. Justice Botha was an advocate in the Attorney-General’s office, an advocate who prosecuted for the Attorney-General’s office. Next he served as one of the law advisors. He was responsible for the most intricate measures, in particular measures of this nature, and it is for that reason that the 1955 Act, the present Act, was entrusted to him for drafting purposes. The present Act went through his hands.

But even if he were the archangel Gabriel himself he would not have been able to accomplish it on his own.

In addition to that he was also the Judge-President of the Orange Free State. For quite a number of years now he has been the fourth most senior judge of appeal, including the chief justice, of a Bench of 11. Are these, therefore, not sufficient qualifications for handling a task of this nature? The hon. member for Durban North may at least express his regret at the insinuation he made here against this judge.

You do not remember what I said!

I remember very well: “Whether the Minister chose him, or whether he was told to appoint someone …”

It was also claimed here that there were not weighty reasons for this Bill. Allegedly I simply felt like having a new criminal procedure law drafted, and now I am coming forward with it. After all, I did state in my Second Reading speech how many requests I have received for this to be done, and that I had waited until the Law Revision Committee—of which the Chief Justice is the chairman and on which four judges are serving, and on which there are two representatives of the Bar and two of the Side-Bar and on which four professors of the Universities are serving—could decide on the matter. It was only when they had asked me to have an inquiry instituted that I did so. If this was not sufficient reason, I should like to know what does constitute sufficient reason.

In the fourth place, hon. members opposite have been making the statement that the provisions of this Bill are of an inquisitorial nature and may prejudice the accused. I believe that conclusive arguments have been advanced from this side to indicate that this measure is not of an inquisitorial nature, that it does not replace the old accusatorial system. Once again the hon. member for Durban North took the lead; he is, after all, the one who always speaks in superlatives. He said, “It abolishes rights of a lifetime.” Now I should like to know what these “rights of a lifetime” are which this Bill now “abolishes”. That was the law and that is still the law, with certain adjustments. Then the hon. member for Zululand said that an almost impossible task was now being imposed on the magistrate by clause 119.

That is true.

It is not an impossible task. There is nothing strange about it, and it is not a “pre-trial interrogation” either. That, too, was claimed repeatedly, even by the last speaker. In my Second Reading speech I pointed out at what stage a trial commenced, and I did so as follows—

That is a decision that was given in the case of Rex v. Keeves in the Appellate Division in 1926. In this respect there is not the slightest suggestion of the person concerned ever being approached before he has pleaded, be it guilty or not guilty. Now the case is in progress, and then certain questions are put to him. This is the first question put to him: “Do you wish to tender an explanation of your attitude in relation to the charge or to make any statement indicating the basis of your defence?” This is nothing strange; it is already contained in the existing Act—to be specific, in section 169(5), which reads as follows—

So, what is strange about it? Now, to this first question he may reply “yes” or “no”. If he replies “no”, that is that. Clause 119 does not empower the magistrate to go further than that. If he replies “yes”, we shall have the following position.

And if he says “no” to all of them?

If he says “no” to all of them, the position that obtains today will apply. So what? He may reply “no” to all of them. He may deny everything. Nowhere in the Bill will the hon. member be able to show me a provision in terms of which the person concerned is forced to say any more after he has replied “no”. If his reply is “no”, we shall be in exactly the same position in which we are today. But in an attempt to shorten the trial, and to the accused’s own advantage, one puts to him certain questions which may lead to his early discharge, or which may shorten the duration of the case.

Then we have the second question, which reads as follows: “Do you wish to say anything else in relation to the charge for my information or for that of the trial court, such as that when you made a statement to the authorities in connection with the offence, you were induced by duress to do so?” To that he may reply either “yes” or “no”. This reply, as well as the reply to the first question, is recorded, but that is the end of the matter as far as this sub-clause is concerned. If his reply is “no”, there is nothing more one can do.

Then there is the third question which one will ask him—now it must be borne in mind that he has already pleaded and that his case has already commenced: “In reply to the first question you said you did not want to tender an explanation or make a statement (or, You tendered an explanation or made a statement), but it is not clear to me which of the things alleged against you are being denied or admitted by you.” Let us now, for the sake of argument, take a case of rape. These things may be said to him: “The charge is rape. The charge includes three things, namely (1) you either blackmailed or overwhelmed by violence, the female complainant; (2) or had sexual intercourse with her; and (3) or it took place against her will. Now I am asking you: “Is your plea of not guilty (a) intended to place in issue all three of the elements of the offence which I have just explained to you, or (b) is it intended to place in issue only certain of the facts I have pointed out to you?” These will be the questions that will be put to him. He may say that he places everything in issue, or he may say that he does not dispute having had intercourse with the female complainant, but in fact that he did not do so against her will. In other words, she consented. Now there is no need for one to adduce further supporting evidence to the effect that he did have intercourse with her, for he has already admitted it, cut and dried.

Then we come to the fourth question: “As you do not dispute having had intercourse with the female complainant, it may be recorded that you admit that element of the charge. Therefore, the remaining issues are only concerned with whether or not there was violence and whether or not her consent was given.” The charge will then be concerned with these matters. It will no longer be concerned with the question whether he had intercourse; he has already admitted that. Sir, all these things take place after the man has pleaded. These steps are all intended to expedite the case. These steps are also to the advantage of the accused, in so far that they will expedite the case and that he will then be able to obtain his early discharge.

As far as clause 119 is concerned, I now repeat for the last time for the benefit of the Opposition that it is not a question of a “pre-trial interrogation”. The trial has already started. These questions are then put to him with that intention. If hon. members would study the legislation, they would find that this is the position.

But, surely, this is before the main trial?

Yes, it is before the main trial. One has only determined what the issues are; that is all one has determined. One has determined that the person admits that he did have sexual intercourse. Very well, then; one need not prove that further. Now one has fewer issues and that must lead to the case being expedited.

Hon. members opposite also claimed that we were being over-hasty with this measure. Good heavens, if the way in which we acted in this regard is over-hasty, then I want to know when over-hasty action is not taken! We appointed the judge in 1970, and his terms of reference were made known. He completed his task in December, 1971, and submitted a measure to us. That we published and made known again. We made it known that the measure would be open for comment until 31st March, 1972. We asked that people who had any comment to make, should come forward to do so. Instead of availing himself of the opportunity to comment on it, the hon. member for Durban North occupied himself with other things. Now, more than a year later, he went to The Sunday Tribune and criticized the measure. He was the person who said that the Bill had to be discussed here, but long before the time he went along and discussed it with The Sunday Tribune. That is where he made his great speech.

Why do you not listen to what I say, instead of making wild statements?

Before he starts, I know what the hon. member is going to say; he is going to talk a lot of nonsense. The matter was discussed in the newspaper. Everybody knew about it except the hon. member for Durban North.

The last of the objections raised on the other side is that this Bill will not achieve its objectives. Sir, I cannot guarantee that the Bill is going to achieve its objectives. I can but say that it is an attempt in the right direction at shortening our criminal proceedings, both to the advantage, of the accused and the administration of justice. It is true that we have a manpower shortage, and especially in view of the fact that we have a high crime rate, we should do everything in our power to create means for shortening the duration of our court cases.

There were various other points which were secondary to this one. There was the question of preparatory examinations, and it was said that the scales had to be balanced. Sir, where have you ever seen a system which favours an accused more than does a preparatory examination? He may sit there in the court all the time, while the preparatory examination is taking place. He need not say a word, and he is in a position to hear exactly what evidence the State has at its disposal. Then there is an added advantage as well. When he eventually appears before the supreme court, the record of the preparatory examination will be available to his advocate, as someone on this side indicated. All the advantages are therefore on his side. If the person does not remember exactly what he said, he may then refer to that record. Where can you wish to find a greater advantage for an accused and a greater disadvantage for the State than this? There he sits in court; he hears all the evidence against him; all the witnesses give evidence. Eventually he may then decide what points he wishes to touch upon. For that reason we provided that if he wants to give evidence, he ought to do so first. But we are not making that compulsory. If he does not give it in the first place, the court will in fact be entitled to draw an inference from it, but that is just.

In other words, our whole system was balanced hopelessly against justice and in favour of the criminal. Sir, surely we do not want that. At heart I do believe that there are no members sitting on that side of the House who want something of that nature. I do not think they want everything to be weighted in favour of the criminal and the State to be at a disadvantage as far as this matter is concerned. I know there are hon. members who are obsessed with their profession, but I want to say that we as Members of Parliament are called upon here to bring into being the best measures to the advantage of our country, and a person would not be fulfilling his duty here in the House of Assembly if he were to fix his mind on the favourable position which the old system created for him as an advocate or an attorney.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

We were pleased to see on the Order Paper the three amendments moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister because these take care of the problems we found in the Second Reading of this Bill. We have now altered the proposed paragraph (aB) of section 8(1) to include not only “establish and organize” but also “to participate in” and I think this will give greater powers to the Reserve Bank in dealing with this question of the clearing system.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has also taken care of the problem we had in regard to the spouses of members of the Reserve Bank. As I said during the Second Reading, we think this is an improvement and that it will anticipate problems which could have arisen had the clause remained as it was in the original Bill.

The third problem we had was in regard to the question of donations. We are happy with the solution suggested by the hon the Deputy Minister, that no donation of any property of the Reserve Bank should be made without the specific permission of the Minister. We are satisfied that this will give the necessary protection we requested in the Second Reading debate. We are happy to accept these amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in the name of Mr. S. J. M. Steyn—

There is something in this particular clause which we do not like. If you read the White Paper it says here very innocently that the existing maximum penalties no longer comply with modern norms, and that the purpose of the amendment is to correct this position. Now the position is this. We in this Parliament make laws and we prescribe the appropriate penalties for the guidance of the courts. If you read this clause, you will see that it is the intention to remove that right from Parliament in this regard and to place it in the hands of the Administration. We object to that. Over the years we have seen the inclination for Parliament to delegate these powers, but we feel that in passing laws and prescribing penalties Parliament should see those penalties. They were in the original Act. It would be interesting to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister why they intend delegating these to the Railways and Harbours Commission to prescribe penalties. We shall vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Salt River is quite wrong if he proceeds from the standpoint that a new principle is being introduced here. I can give him several examples of regulations that already exist, dealing with exactly the same subject and prescribing maximum penalties. This is consequently no new principle. During the Second Reading debate I made an attempt to indicate why it is essential for provision to be made for regulations in this particular case. I can very briefly repeat the argument. This clause and the maximum penalties relate chiefly to traffic offences on Railway grounds and within the Harbour area. We find that penalties for an identical offence committed outside the Railways and Harbours area is considerably higher than for that committed within that area. I want to give an example. During June and July last year there were two court cases that resulted from the arrest of two White men because they drove motor vehicles in the East London harbour area while under the influence of alcohol. They consequently stood trial as a result of the contravention of Harbour Regulation No. 151(1)(b)(i). One of the magistrates said in his judgment that they could regard themselves as being very lucky that they were being charged under this regulation and that the offence had taken place in the Railways and Harbours area and not outside of this area, because otherwise their penalty would have been considerably higher. There is, of course, a maximum penalty prescribed for this particular offence.

I want to go further by saying that a whole series of regulations exists that also prescribes maximum penalties. This is consequently by no means a new principle. The only object with this measure is to make penalties for offences within the Railways and Harbours area exactly equal to penalties for offences outside that area. I can point out that the Transvaal Road Traffic Ordinance, for example, makes provision for the fact that apart from the endorsement of licences or the suspension of driver’s licences, etc., the following penalties can be imposed for this kind of offence: a fine not exceeding R800 or imprisonment for a period of two years or such fine as well as imprisonment, or, secondly, in a further section, a fine not exceeding R400 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or such fine as well as imprisonment.

All that is now being envisaged is that when the legal position with respect to a similar offence outside changes and the ordinances are amended, the power should exist to bring penalties for offences within the Railways and Harbours area in line with those outside by way of regulation. I cannot see the Opposition’s objection in this connection at all.

Mr. Chairman, one point I am not completely certain about. I would have thought that in the case under discussion, the case to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred, it would have been possible to have charged the accused in that particular case in terms of common law. I would have thought that they should not necessarily have been charged in terms of Railways and Harbours legislation. If I am correct in that, this solves the hon. the Deputy Minister’s first problem and there will be no danger of a person being able to get away with a particularly light penalty. I should like to have a reply to that.

In the second place this clause is definitely repugnant in my eyes, because it gives the authorities the power, by means of regulation, to determine for themselves the fine, sentence or penalty. In other words, the penalty is not being determined by the Bill itself; it is being left completely to those who make the regulations to decide what the penalty is going to be. I think this is definitely a principle we cannot support. I think that it should be provided in the legislation itself what the eventual penalty will be. That is one of the great points of criticism we have against the Bill. I should like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply to those two points, after which we can argue the matter further.

Mr. Chairman, if it were not traditional for these matters to appear in Railway legislation, a whole series of them would not have appeared in present legislation and common law would have applied in any case. But the present position is such that provision is made for such penalties in Railways and Harbours legislation. This has always been the case throughout the years; there is consequently no new principle involved in the matter. The Railways and Harbours Acts have throughout the years made provision for penalties for such offences. The principle, therefore, remains completely unchanged. The only difference that is now entering into things is that the maximum fine or penalty can now be prescribed by way of regulation. The only motive in prescribing this by way of regulation is because ordinance and regulations of the provinces have to be amended outside this House. That is the only motive. There can consequently be no objection whatsoever. This clause is so worded as to ensure that the penalty is in accordance with the offence committed in the Railways and Harbours area. That is why the clause is worded in this particular way. The Management has no intention whatsoever of moving beyond the confines of that area, which I have just mentioned.

Mr. Chairman the hon. the Deputy Minister does not answer my two points quite fully. I hope he will deal with the question of specific example he gave, namely that the magistrate in the case he quoted said that the accused was very fortunate to have been charged under the South African Railways and Harbours Act and not under some other provisions. If this was merely a decision of the prosecuting authority, I believe that the prosecuting authority could have brought in the charge under a different provision. But the mere fact that it happened on Railway property, did not prevent a charge being brought under the other provision because if that is so, then one of the reasons the hon. the Deputy Minister gave for this provision falls away. But now the second aspect goes even deeper. I did not understand the hon. the Deputy Minister quite to answer my point there. My point is that by this amendment we will create a position where the law itself does not make clear the penalty which can be imposed, but this power is placed entirely in the hands of those who make the regulations. Now that, as far as I know, is a most unusual position. Indeed, there is no limitation placed upon the penalty that can be imposed. It would be perfectly permissible if we passed legislation, making it possible for the regulations to contain a provision laying down any long period of imprisonment or any large sum by way of a fine. But there is no limitation at all. This amendment is removing a limitation on the penalty that can be imposed by regulation. Surely, that is infinitely to be preferred to leaving it entirely in the hands of the maker of the regulations. So, Sir, it does remain a most objectionable clause.

The hon. the Deputy Minister indicates as the reason for doing this that it would then be simpler to bring the penalties under this Act in line with those laid down in provincial ordinances and other provisions. With respect, Mr. Chairman, that seems a relatively unimportant matter. If necessary they can be brought into line by approaching this House for an amendment which will enable them to be brought into line. In the absence of an explanation, it is indeed difficult to accept this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will answer the hon. member for Pinelands. Speeding on railway property was, I think the offence the hon. member referred to. Therefore, presumably he could not be charged under …

It was not for speeding; he was under the influence of liquor.

Well, driving under the influence of liquor …

Well, that is quite a different thing.

… on railway property. He could not be charged with driving on a public road in terms of the ordinance.

That is the whole answer.

It is not the whole answer because there is another problem, namely that by means of an Act of Parliament you are giving the power to the Administration not only to make regulations, creating offences …

It has got that power.

Then you also give it the power to provide penalties for a contravention of those regulations, which we have here now.

We have that power.

In respect of the penal provisions two things are being done: Firstly, you make the penal provision and then you indicate to the public and to the courts how severely we, who make the law, view the offence. The way in which you indicate to the courts how severely the lawmaker views the committing of an offence is to provide certain penalties for a conviction under that offence.

Would you be satisfied if I made the maximum R800 instead of R100?

I think we would be satisfied if there was something specific in the Bill as to what the amount is …

I am prepared to make it R800.

It is a matter of which one would like notice, as to whether or not that is the amount. We have to discuss this and see whether that amount is acceptable. This has been done before. The whole point is what Parliament thinks the maximum penalty should be. That is not for the hon. Ministers who are making this law, to decide. How seriously does Parliament regard such an offence?

Mike, have you read the original Act?

Yes.

Have you read all the regulations that can be made?

No, I have not read all the regulations but I have read the Act.

I doubt it.

And I appreciate the sort of things about which regulations can be made. As I say, the maximum should be laid down by us in this House. I want to give another reason which may in fact induce the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister to withdraw this provision. If this in fact goes through as it stands and regulations are made saying that the penalty for the contravention of the regulation might be imprisonment, I wonder—I will put it no stronger than that at this moment—whether you could successfully defend a plea in court that such a regulation was ultra vires of the Statute because it did not give you the authority to prescribe a penalty, such as we have here at the moment. I would venture to suggest that, as this stands at the moment, it gives the power to a court to impose a penalty of six months or a fine or both; in other words, without an option you can be ordered to pay a fine and to serve six months in gaol. I would take a racing bet on this without looking at the books, that if we remove this restriction, and someone in court challenges the validity of that penalty because for such a penalty there is no specific authorization, and says that they should be in no different a position from any other local authority, then my money would be on the side of the judgment which would be that there is no specific authorization for such a penalty.

I think you will lose your case.

I am not so sure about that. That may be another reason which may induce the hon. the Minister to do so. What does he have in mind? If it is to keep abreast of legislation concerning similar offences which are committed in public places, then surely the hon. the Minister’s department is able …

But I am asking you: Will you be satisfied if I am prepared to introduce an amendment instead of this to increase the maximum to R800 or two years, as is the case with the Road Ordinance? Will the hon. member be satisfied with that?

I am just doing legal duty here: perhaps hon. members who are part of the transport group will answer the question.

Mr. Chairman, the two hon. gentlemen who discussed this matter apparently did not look at the Bill as such and simply entered the debate now. There are two matters here that I find very apposite. The first matter in connection with the clause is that the limitation on higher penalties is now being removed and those penalties are now being brought into line with penalties that are applied in areas removed from railway property. These penalties were confined to offences on railway property, and in this connection the hon. the Deputy Minister has stated the case very clearly.

The second point which hon. members object to relates to regulations. The principle of the making of regulations is contained in the principal Act. If hon. members were to have examined the principal Act, i.e. Act 70 of 1957, they would have seen that the following is very clearly stated in section 3(2): “The regulations may provide penalties for any contravention thereof or failure to comply therewith …” There the matter is stated very clearly. In section 3(1) a whole four pages are taken up with matters in respect of which regulations can be made by the Administration, subject to the approval of the State President, as long as this is not incompatible with the principal Act. Now hon. members are objecting in the first place to the regulations, but the system of regulations is nevertheless something that is laid down in our legislation. Everywhere we encounter the matter of regulations. The regulations can, in any case, be discussed again, and it is surely the task of Parliament and of the Opposition to discuss the matter here if a regulation does not suit them. They have the fullest opportunity, as in the case of ordinary legislation, to discuss here a regulation laid down as a result of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we now have the strange position here that the hon. the Minister of Transport agrees with us in principle but is actually placing in jeopardy the matter as stated by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must listen closely to this. The hon. the Deputy Minister says the regulations should incorporate the right to pay a fine. Our standpoint is that, as in the past, the Act must provide the fine. The hon. the Minister of Transport agrees with us that the Act must provide the fine and not the regulations.

But listen to me now. Read the Act. The Act states at present that one can provide the fine by way of regulation. It is now only the maximum that is being taken out of the Act. This is nothing new. One has only limited the maximum.

As the matter now stands the hon. the Minister of Transport agrees with us. That is why he asked whether we would be satisfied with R800.

†This is horse trading. But in asking whether we will be satisfied with R800 he in fact accepted the principle as stated by the hon. member here. I believe the Deputy Minister is wrong. He can come back to us and say: Look, let us argue about increasing the amount. What would you say it should be? With that I am satisfied. But do not embody that in the regulation. That in fact is the principle upon which we differ.

That is right.

It is as simple as that. I am very happy to hear that the hon. the Minister of Transport is agreeing with us.

I do not know what hon. members are arguing about. I do not think one of those hon. members has read the present Act. It is a bulky Act. How many of the hon. members have already read this Act?

It looks like the Criminal Procedure Bill!

Yes, it is almost as bulky. The Act contains dozens of pages in which it is provided that regulations can be made in connection with certain matters. The penalties are fixed by way of regulation and not in the Act. The regulation provides the penalties. [Interjections.] It is not the Act, but the regulations that provide the penalties. [Interjections.] Heavens, I am glad that I am not a legal man, otherwise I would have been just as stupid. As I have said, the Act makes provision for the making of dozens of regulations. The present Act provides, inter alia—

That is how the present Act reads. Now only the following words are being deleted, i.e.—

Therefore, as the Deputy Minister said, the principle has already been accepted. All we are now asking is that the maximum should be removed. The proposal is now that the provision of the maximum fine of R100 or six months’ imprisonment in the Act should be deleted. In other words, one can prescribe certain penalties by way of regulation and bring such penalties in line with those provided in the road ordinances if offences, of the kind mentioned by the Deputy Minister, were to occur. Do hon. members now want the principle of a maximum penalty to remain in the Act now?

Yes.

Well, then we make it R800. Are hon. members satisfied with that? Then the principle, about which hon. members are complaining, remains in the Act. I shall give such an undertaking. We cannot change it now. The hon. member must now withdraw his amendment and then I shall change the clause in the Other Place, i.e. that instead of a maximum of R100 it should be R800. This would then be brought in line with the Road Ordinance. Are hon. members satisfied?

Yes.

I am glad, Sir, that I am not an ex-engine driver otherwise I would have understood it long ago.

I merely wish to say that we are now in agreement with the approach made by the other side. We are glad that a limitation upon the amount that can be imposed by way of fines or imprisonment will be retained. In view of the assurance of the hon. the Minister, we will withdraw our amendment.

We shall now move the amendment.

The hon. the Minister says the amendment will be ready immediately. In these circumstances we will withdraw our amendment and will accept the approach which is being made by the hon. the Minister.

Order! It is not necessary for the hon. member to withdraw the amendment because it is not an amendment in the true sense of the word. It was merely an indication of the intention of hon. members to vote against the provision.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore move the following amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Sir, this particular clause is one that we do not like and we would like some elucidation from the Minister. Sir, if you are a permanent employee, you suffer under this particular section at the present moment, and it is the intention of the Administration now to extend this to casual employees. We know that the Railway Administration has the power to reduce an employee’s pay and to reduce his grade, and that employee has very little say in the matter. Up to now this has not applied to casual employees. One must realize that casual employees are not people who are taken on from day to day. In many cases they are people who have been in the employ of the Administration for the greater part of their lives but they have never qualified for permanent employment, mainly for health or other reasons. We do not like to see these provisions extended to casual employees. We do not intend voting against the clause, but I would like to hear what the hon. the Minister’s reasons are, other than those given in the White Paper, for extending these provisions to casual employees.

Sir, experience has taught us that the conditions of service of servants employed in a casual capacity must sometimes be amended in their own interests as well, and such an amendment has no legal validity unless negotiations are first held with them according to prescription. All that is now being done is to place servants employed in a casual capacity on the same footing with servants employed in a permanent and temporary capacity. No further distinction is being drawn between them. All that is happening is that the negotiation aspect is now being eliminated as far as the servant employed in a temporary capacity is concerned. Nothing detrimental to them is being envisaged, and I think the hon. member for Salt River ought to be very grateful for this amendment we are introducing. It definitely ought to be to the benefit of these servants.

Sir, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question. It says here that a person may be employed in a casual capacity, but it is not stated for what length of time this person shall be a casual worker. It does say that he can be employed without a medical examination. Does this mean that this person who is a casual employee and may remain a casual employee for a great length of time will be excluded from membership of the sick benefit society? Sir, this is a very important point. I understand that this would preclude large numbers of people from receiving medical benefits.

Sir, this provision does not affect medical benefits. The purpose of this clause is to be able to employ in a temporary capacity people who are not strictly medically fit or who are beyond a certain age perhaps. It does not go beyond that. It does not affect their medical aid privileges whatsoever.

Sir, one does not want to delay the Committee, but there is nevertheless a small point concerning servants employed in a casual capacity which the hon. the Deputy Minister has perhaps not thought about. As I understand the position, the position of a servant employed in a casual capacity can at present neither be improved nor aggravated without his permission being obtained in that connection. It is now envisaged to amend his position so that he will simply be treated like servants employed in a normal capacity. As long as the position of servants employed in a casual capacity is being improved, one has no objection, of course, but the Act now also allows their position to be aggravated without their being consulted in the matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister must remember that servants employed in a casual capacity are not in the same position as a person on the fixed establishment; he is deprived of many privileges. That being the case, I believe that some undertaking or other ought to be given that his position cannot be aggravated unless he is consulted in the matter.

As the clause now stands he will not be consulted in the matter, and that is what bothers me. He is not an ordinary servant; he does not have the benefits of the man on the fixed establishment, and I feel that his position must not be aggravated until such time as he has been consulted in the matter.

Servants employed in a temporary capacity have the same access to the staff associations of the Railways as those employed in fixed and casual capacities. They have the same bargaining privileges through their staff associations, which offer them the same protection as is offered for the other two classes of servants. So there is no reason for concern. If, for argument’s sake, they were to be adversely affected, they would have the same protection as other servants of the Railways because the staff associations would look after their interests.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

I wonder whether we could have a little further elucidation on this particular clause. We agree with the principle that the money of the pension fund should be invested separately and that it should be a separate fund, but what we would like to hear from the Minister is this. In the case of this particular fund, which is normally invested with the Public Debt Commissioners, it says here that it can be invested with another financial institution outside the borders of the Republic of South Africa or the territory of South-West Africa, where such investment is a requirement of foreign legislation. It is not clear what the Minister has in mind here. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us a little more of what he has in mind about the investment of this money in foreign financial institutions.

I tried to explain this situation during the Second Reading of the Bill. At the moment there are in the employ of the S.A. Railways and S.A. Airways roughly 600 personnel outside our borders who are employed in about 23 foreign countries. Some of these foreign countries have legislation which makes it compulsory for anybody employed in that country to contribute to a local pension fund or annuity fund. Merely to comply with the legislation inside the country where S.A. Railways or S.A. Airways personnel are employed it was necessary to make legal provision so to invest for those members in such a fund.

Arising from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement, we understand that, but these employees who are overseas are not necessarily South African personnel and they have not necessarily contributed to this fund under normal circumstances. Can the Minister tell us whether he has consulted the various associations in this country and are they happy about their money being invested to protect another fund outside this country?

It has nothing to do with the Superannuation Fund of the S.A. Railways at all and it will not be to the detriment of contributors to that fund. It is merely to comply with the requirements of other Governments in their countries. It can affect both South African citizens as well as citizens of the country concerned where they are in the employ of the Railways or the Airways.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, in The Argus of 26th March an article appears under the heading “Stealing nations’ rainfall” and according to this article, Mr. Morris Strong, the head of the United Nations Environmental Research Programme, said the following—

The newspaper report went on to say—

I think that Mr. Strong, through this speech, has again stressed the importance of the study of meteorology in this phase in which we find ourselves now. I think one may also say with justification that we have entered a new era as far as research in respect of meteorology is concerned, because I think that mankind has come to realize that although he has already studied the moon and the environment of the moon, he still does not have sufficient knowledge of the environment of the territory in which he lives.

For this reason I should like to make a plea this afternoon for facilities and additional funds so as to enable the meteorologists of South Africa to fulfil their great responsibility in this connection. When we look at the wide field in which research is being done in this connection, we realize that funds and facilities will not be the be-all and end-all of this research but that people and human material are just as important in this connection. To name just a few of these fields, there is a vital need for information on the influence of nature and the weather on agricultural production. There is the importance of the provision of weather services on a regular routine basis for aviation. There are the necessary Weather forecasts for shipping by coastal radio stations and the drawing up of weather analyses in code and also by means of facsimiles of surrounding oceans, a study of the environment with a view to compiling data for the various government departments with a view to, inter alia, the building of dams, water canals, runways for airports, townships and even guidance in the field of air pollution. Then, last, but most certainly not least, perhaps even the most important, is the responsibility for research as allocated to South Africa by the International Meteorological Organization and also the World Weather Organization. They entrusted this responsibility to South Africa from the time of the International Geophysical Year of 1957-’58. Because of the lack of time one can really do no more than touch briefly on these fields, but I nevertheless want to try to emphasize a few of the most important facets. As far as research and extension services in the sphere of agriculture is concerned, cognizance was already taken by us last year of legislation and also of the laying down of regulations which must be complied with before a permit and subsequently a licence may be issued for weather modification. I want to express my appreciation to the department for the very important decision which was taken to zone a region in the Eastern Free State as an area for research in the sphere of studying rainfall, increasing rainfall as well as combating hail. One realizes that this sphere involves largely experimental activities, but in order to carry out the experiments, operational activities will also be necessary.

In view of Mr. Strong’s speach and in view of the dangers to which he referred, I once again wish to emphasize this research in the Eastern Free State. As far as the dangers are concerned which were emphasized by Mr. Strong, we realize that we in South Africa, too, must already think in these terms. Now I am referring to the possibility of operational projects in our neighbouring states and particularly in the neighbouring state of Lesotho where there has already been talk of the artificial precipitation of snow for sport and ski-ing purposes. We of the Eastern Free State who are acquainted with the natural air currents, who know the toll which can be taken by the south wind when it blows over the snow-covered Maluti and Drakensberg mountains, and we who know the toll it takes in respect of our live-stock and the sensitive plants, fruit trees, etc., want to ask the department to consider studying the dangers envisaged by Mr. Strong in his speech. Then I want to plead for additional funds and additional facilities for the purchase of apparatus for the meteorologists who are at present engaged in this research, which is very important for our agriculture and also for the Department of Water Affairs. We know that the project is also aimed at increasing rainfall in view of the catchment area of the Vaal Dam having its beginnings even in that region.

Secondly, as far as the meteorological service to aviation is concerned, the importance is emphasized by the fact that meteorological information and pre-flight information and documentation to all scheduled but also as far as possible to all unscheduled flights must be supplied. I think the particularly fine record of our airways and also of civil aviation in South Africa says a great deal for the work done by our meteorologists. As far as the importance of the forecasting of the weather and conditions at sea for our shipping is concerned, I think that the meteorological participation in this aspect has risen to a very high priority with the addition or allocation to the department of combating oil pollution. So in this regard, too, the meteorologist and the oceanographer will play a very important role. It is of major importance to the effective combating of oil pollution for the sea currents and also the air currents to be known.

I want to mention something in connection with environmental study and the availability of data to the various Government departments. One has no desire to undervalue the importance of the construction of dams, water canals, runways for aircraft and the establishment of townships, but I think one of the most important contributions the department can make in this connection is a study of the normal air currents, the humidity of the atmosphere, atmospheric pressure, etc., with an eye on air pollution. In the past few weeks we in Cape Town have read and heard a great deal about atmospheric pollution. I think the matter of atmospheric pollution is over-exaggerated in many instances by people like myself who are not experts in this connection. I think the discussions were mainly concerned with the smog, the visible smog which one finds in Cape Town. It is interesting to note that the use of this word “smog” in Britain can be traced back as far as 1905. The word “smog” was formed by the contraction of the words “smoke” and “fog”. When, however, one reads the report of the International Meteorological Organization which deals with air pollution and the role which meteorologists may play in this connection, one finds that the dangerous influences are of a diverse nature. Much has been said here in Cape Town about health aspects and the influence on vegetation, but it is perhaps interesting to note, too, that marble and metal, particularly when it has been chiselled or moulded in the form of monuments or statues, erode at an extremely rapid rate as a result of pollution. For example, it has been found that the obelisk, Cleopatra’s Needle, which was moved from Alexandria in Egypt to London approximately 80 years ago, has eroded more in those 80 years than in the previous 3 000 years. Already at an early stage, experts made representations for no motor traffic to be allowed at the Acropolis of Athens because of the fear that the marble in the temples would erode as a result of pollution. In this afternoon’s Argus there is a cartoon depicting leave being taken in a dignified manner of our national monuments. Perhaps there is more to the cartoon than meets the eye at first glance. Particularly here in Cape Town where to an ever greater extent we have buildings of steel construction enclosed in glass, this erosion, although invisible, is taking place at a particularly rapid rate.

Lastly, and perhaps the most important, there is South Africa’s share in the World Meterological Organization or the world defence force, although not in the military sense. This is one sphere in which South Africa has always been accepted without reservation despite our political differences. Consequently this is why such close attention is paid to South African experts when Marion Island, Gough Island and Sanae are under discussion as far as the Antarctic section is concerned. In respect of this section I should like to make a plea for the purchase of a new oceanic research ship. I think a ship which would meet the requirements which we set at present, would cost approximately R15 million while in a year or two’s time it would cost something like R18 million. A ship of this kind which can be used by all our universities and which could indeed be a floating university for us, would not only be an investment for us but also a guarantee of good continental relations and would also enable us to fulfil the responsibility allocated to us in the interests of meteorology. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to follow the hon. member who has just sat down, but I would say to him that, of course, we passed two Bills last year dealing with the question of weather modification. One of them was at the behest of the Department of Transport. I suggest that he gets the record of the Select Committee that sat on those two Bills. He will find there a great deal of information which will be of immense value to him.

I gave evidence before that Committee.

Nevertheless his memory can be sharpened a bit. I just want to say that, when he asks for more money for the purposes of getting further equipment and for further research, we are with him. I want to say to him that, if he has read the report of the Select Committee, he will realize how vital it is for the Department of Transport that they shall have the most modern equipment and the most modern methods of determining what is happening with regard to the weather, which includes weather modification. They made it very clear indeed in the course of evidence given before that Select Committee that the civil air services, so far as we in South Africa are concerned, are to a large extent dependent on the correct forecasts which can be made in respect of weather conditions. Therefore he need have no doubt as to the value and importance which the Department of Transport attaches to the question of weather modification.

I do not want to dwell on that matter. I want to say to the hon. member for Mossel Bay that I listened to what he had to say the other day with a great deal of sympathy. I was glad to see the hon. member come forward with us by taking part in the debate and referring to the importance of dealing with the pollution of the sea by oil. The hon. member for Mossel Bay dealt with that. We do, however, regret— and I am sure that I am voicing the regret of everybody in this House—the reason which has prompted him to come forward in view of the disasters that have occurred in his area. We have been running the risk of that happening for a long time, and of course we are continually running the risk of a very much greater disaster. I want to deal for a moment with this question of oil pollution of the sea and the beaches.

It was the case when the Department of Industry had charge of that facet of the pollution problem, that there was an arrangement entered into with local authorities, the Provincial Administration in Natal, and so forth, whereby it was eventually accepted that the cost of dealing with a major oil spill would be handled at the cost of the State. A minor spill would be handled at the cost of the local authority or province, whichever the case might be, because there are areas that are not under the control of a local authority. This led to continual debate as to what was the difference between a major spill and a minor spill. I have been given to understand that the position now is that that old method of determining who was to pay for the costs of clearing up oil-polluted beaches has been done away with, and that a new system has been adopted. The new system, I understand, is based upon the source which is responsible for the oil pollution. When the source of the pollution can be determined, the State pays the cost of clearing up. When the source cannot be determined, the State only pays half. I think this is a determination which is going to cause just as much trouble as the old one when it comes to trying to actually find out who has to pay. I have here a cutting from the South Coast Herald of last week when, at a meeting of all the Natal local authorities, the Natal Municipal Association, at Mooi River, the mayor of Margate dealt with the new method of assessing how the cost of clearing the oil pollution should be allocated, the system whereby it would be allocated on the basis of the source of the spillage. I think he makes a very good point indeed when he asks: “How can a local authority determine the source of oil spillage?” I flew down from Durban a week ago and when we were coming in to land at Port Elizabeth I saw a ship anchored in the roadstead with an oil-slick drifting away from it of about 500 yds. long. There was another slick which may have come from that ship; I do not know, because there was a gap of clear water in between. But there was quite a big substantial slick. If those slicks go ashore at Port Elizabeth, how are the people of Port Elizabeth going to determine where that slick has come from? I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, in view of this very important matter indeed which affects the whole of our shore-line and where we are facing the possibility of a major disaster almost from hour to hour, and the matter is becoming so acute, that there should be the clearest possible knowledge in respect of this particular matter. I want to say that for the purpose of fighting it— and we on this side of the House have asked for it for three years—the control of oil pollution should be taken away from the Department of Industry and given to the Department of Transport, or the Navy, because of their command of ships. I understand that they are building at the present time something like four fast boats to the order of the Department of Transport for the purpose of dealing with pollution on the sea. Here is this question of how to determine the source. The financial obligation that goes along with it has apparently been provided for.

The other point is that when an oil slick is on the sea close inshore and when because of the way the wind and the tide are setting, it is likely to be on the beach in half an hour, who deals with that oil slick? This is the time-old problem that our local authorities have had to deal with. They cannot deal with that problem while the oil is on the water. They have got to sit with their hands folded while they watch the oil come ashore. Mr. Chairman, please, can we have that particular matter dealt with?

I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that an oil slick that comes ashore is all sea-borne. The oiling of our beaches, whether large or small, is all sea-borne oil. It is the only way that you have oiling of our beaches. It is allsea-borne. We pressed for the Department of Transport to have control of this particular matter of dealing with that type of pollution, because they have command of the boats. They can use aircraft and they are in a position to handle the matter very quickly. But I want them also to institute a system of early communication. One of the things that is necessary in dealing with this matter, particularly if we were to meet with a really big disaster, is that there should be the quickest communication between the point where the disaster takes place and the appropriate authorities. A quick communication system should therefore also be organized by the Department of Transport without any difficulty. They use it already for the purpose of their aircraft. That can be used to bring knowledge quickly to the appropriate authorities. Speed is one of the most important things. Lastly, will the hon. the Deputy Minister consider a small handbook setting out the main principles of the problem of oil pollution of our beaches, who is responsible and the proper procedure to be followed by laymen as well as officials and local authorities, Government authorities, the Police, and so forth. This handbook should set out very briefly who you go to and how you go about getting the machinery set into motion to deal with the matter. I do plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with this as a very pressing problem which can be of the very greatest importance and magnitude as far as we are concerned in South Africa.

I do not wish to speak at length. I wish to speak about the slaughter on our roads. This is a very serious matter and I want to speak to the hon. the Minister with the utmost concern. I think it is essential that we should with the utmost concern draw attention to this matter persistently in this House. I am convinced that we cannot delay any longer. We have reached the stage when the public is saying: Any change would be an improvement on the present situation. Last year R2 218 932 was collected in the Transvaal in provincial traffic fines. In the Cape R472 219 was collected. I believe the figure in the Free State amounts to R574 913. There is no figure for Natal but the number of traffic offences in respect of which charges were laid, stood at 29 056. This brings the total paid in respect of traffic fines to R3 366 064. From this whole picture which we read about every day and which is given to us by way of statistics, one thing is very clear to me. Our entire provincial traffic control system has failed hopelessly. We must effect a change. I am not the healer nor the person who has to give advice. Each of us sitting here has certain ideas on how the problem should be tackled. The stage at which it has become imperative to give this matter urgent attention, has now arrived. We have utilized all kinds of mechanisms; fines have been increased; more powers have been granted to traffic inspectors; a speed limit of 70 miles per hour has been introduced, and then one finds some town councils that come along and say, as was said the day before yesterday by, I think, the Benoni Town Council, that 70 miles per hour is too low and that it should be increased because it is causing accidents. We have also introduced alcohol tests; the permissible percentage of alcohol in the blood has been reduced. In this connection there are also paradoxes. In my town a man was recently charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. In the first part of the court case he was found not guilty of negligent driving and of driving under the influence of liquor, but in the same case he was found guilty because the amount of alcohol in his blood was too high. Sir, we have held symposiums on traffic, and it is, being written about daily, but I say here today in all earnest—I cannot emphasize this enough—that the number of accidents on our roads is something unheard of. It is something which we can tolerate no longer. Sir, I just want to put this question, and then I shall resume my seat: Has the time not arrived to place the whole traffic control system in the hands of our South African Police? Sir, the Police are people with status; the public has respect for them. But the public does not have respect for people who are not trained, who take a course in traffic which means nothing and who then come and poke their head through your window and issue you with a spot fine. Sir, I suggest that we should consider putting the whole traffic system under the control of the South African Police, who are vested with power and status and who are regarded in this light by the public.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say immediately that I agree with everything the hon. member who has just sat down has said in regard to road safety. This is one of the matters requiring the most urgent attention in South Africa. I think his suggestion that the Traffic Department should be brought under the control of the South African Police has a great deal of merit, but I believe that something far more important is involved; I believe that what we have to do is to upgrade the role of the traffic officer in South Africa, as I have said in this House before. The role he plays is so important that he deserves far better treatment from members of the public; he also deserves far better training, and in addition to that training, of course, he deserves far better remuneration. When we achieve this, I believe that we will be putting traffic officers in the role that they deserve to play, and that is the role of the expert who is doing everything he can to save our lives. Sir, I will always listen with a great deal of attention to anything that is said about road safety, because it is a matter which is very near to my heart. But in the time available to me, I would like to turn to another matter which is not quite so popular and certainly will not be quite so popular with the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of the road transportation boards. Sir, I regret to say that I believe, despite the fact that the road transportation boards treat all those who appear before them with the utmost courtesy, that they are nothing but a farce. I say this because I cannot recall a single instance where the local road transportation board or the Road Transport Commission has found in favour of an applicant and against the South African Railways. I do not know of such a case. I should be pleased to hear if there have been such cases. I am precluded from talking about the Chatsworth issue, because that matter is still to receive the attention of the courts. But, Sir, what I find most interesting is the fact that during the Durban strikes a deputation came from Durban to see either the Deputy Minister of Transport or the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour, and it was then pointed out to the Government that Durban would have to increase the salaries of its non-White bus drivers. It was agreed, of course, that this was necessary. Then it was pointed out that if this took place, it was natural that the busfares on the Bantu buses would have to be increased to meet these increased salaries. This is what I find most strange. I am not discussing the merits of the issue at all but I understand that in reporting back to the authorities in Durban they were told that application to the Road Transportation Board for an increase in these fares would in fact be almost automatically granted. These are the words that were passed on to me. I would like to know how the Road Transportation Board can take an attitude like this, or how it can be said to take this attitude, when the Minister of Transport himself has emphasized time after time and year after year that this is a statutory body and that he has no influence over it at all. But it goes further than this. I have here some correspondence dealing with a particular case which they handled. One of the objections lodged by the S.A. Railways to this application for transport certificates, which were coming up for renewal, was that the S.A. Railways Administration said they could provide the facilities in a satisfactory and sufficient manner to meet at a reasonable charge the transportation requirements of the public. But do you know, Sir, what the actual position was? The S.A. Railways were carrying these particular items at a figure of R39 per metric ton, and the transport contractor who lost his certificate, carried the same article at R24 a ton, a difference of R15 per ton on this item. These were concrete pipes which were being sent by rail from Durban to Uitenhage. There were other matters brought into this too. If the hon. the Minister cares to see the record I will make it available to him. But here was a clear example, to my mind, where the Road Transportation Board bent over backwards to protect the S.A. Railways, as they are entitled to do, but not at the expense of the public; because here the public concerned were going to pay and is paying a much greater amount than they would have needed to pay if this matter was run on straightforward business lines and the competition was there. I want to repeat what I said earlier on this particular subject, that I have come to the conclusion from the information I have that the Road Transportation Board is nothing more or less than a body which is there to protect the S.A. Railways; even that might be excusable, but when it protects the S.A. Railways at the expense of the public then I believe I am right in saying that the Road Transportation Board should be immediately overhauled; and that the Minister is not correct when he says he has no influence over the Road Transportation Board. I believe that the very fact that he appoints members of that board is all the influence he needs.

I would like then to go on to another matter in the time available to me, and that is the question of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. I see from the latest figures, and from statements I have made to this House on previous occasions, that the M.V.A. Fund is still making very handsome profits indeed. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he would have tremendous difficulty, and would fail, to convince the public of South Africa that any increase in the rates of motor vehicle insurance would be warranted for a very long time to come. In this connection I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to one or two other aspects of the MVA Fund. At the moment the fund stands at something like over R115 million and of this figure only R4 million is invested with building societies. This is the average figure which has obtained for the last four or five years. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that out of the R32 million invested by this fund every year, a far greater amount should be invested with the building societies providing the interest rates he can receive from the building societies, is no different from that he receives from other bodies. Then I believe he would be doing the ordinary person in South Africa a favour by seeing that more money went to the building societies, which would at least then in turn come back to the public by way of housing loans.

Before I conclude on this matter I would like to restate my belief that the Fund is making sufficient profits, and I believe that the claims have levelled out. Experience would show this. The outstanding claims estimate now is also levelling out. I believe that the time has come to extend the scope of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act to include the balance of third party insurance, a subject which I have raised in this House before. I believe there is sufficient money in this fund to do this. It would be possible to limit the extent of the balance of third party insurance. One could limit it to say, R1 000 per accident. However, the public of South Africa deserves it. It is something which happens in every other country of the world and we could do it under our present premium structure. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give this matter more attention than it was given when I raised it in a debate in this House.

Finally, I should like to return to the question of road safety. I should like to say to the hon. member for Carletonville and the other hon. members on that side of the House that one has read in recent weeks of an agitation or suggestion that the speed limits on our roads should be eliminated or increased so that a person would be able to drive at higher speeds than the present 70 miles per hour. I believe that those who have the authority to speak out should speak out in this matter. Everywhere in the world where investigation has been done it has been proved conclusively that the higher the speed limit the higher the fatal number of accidents on the roads. I remember that at previous occasions hon. members of this House pleaded for higher speed limits. I understand that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not quite convinced of his own attitude in regard to higher speed limits. I should like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to all of those who believe that higher speed limits on our roads would assist us, that I should like to see the speed limits on our roads reduced progressively to a lower and lower speed until we catch up with our accident rate. Something has to be done about the accident rate in South Africa. The hon. member for Carletonville is perfectly correct. We do not seem to scratch the surface, because the accident rate continues to soar.

We have been told for a long, long time that we are going to have a central registration of drivers’ licences. We are still waiting for this. We know that the new Road Safety Council is doing things which have not been done before. They certainly get plenty of money out of the 50 cents that they get out of each MVA which is taken out. Although they have made some fine recommendations up to now those are still merely recommendations. This is the problem with road safety in South Africa, as I see it: We have had recommendations for 20 or 30 years, but very little action. I think the time has come for some action. We have been told for years, for instance, that night traffic courts were one of the things we needed in South Africa. I think this goes back 20 or 30 years, but we still do not have night traffic courts. We are still not making the headway that we should make in this alarming matter. [Time expired.].

Mr. Chairman, although I am not in full agreement with the hon. member who has just sat down as regards his criticism of the application of the road motor transportation legislation. I have some sympathy for his difficulties with that application. However. I think the opportunity for discussing the merits of the application of that legislation will arise at a later stage when we revise the legislation concerned.

*At this stage I would prefer to discuss another subject which is of particular importance to me under this Vote. It concerns urban transport. We who live on the outskirts of the city and who must continually make use of facilities to move to and from the city are very fully aware of the problems to be contended with in the transport of suburban passengers. At present we are trying to combat those problems by building more and better roads. In a lecture given in Johannesburg last year by Prof. Verburgh of the Rand Afrikaans University, he said that we had spent as much as R163 million in 1970 and 1971 on urban road construction programmes. Nevertheless, this was not enough. The problem is that the more roads we build the more cars there are on the roads, and the more cars there are on the roads, the more roads have to be built. We simply cannot allow this cycle to continue in this way. Somewhere along the way there will have to be rationalization. At present there is the problem that large numbers of urban workers prefer to drive to work in their cars. What is more, they prefer to drive alone. If one takes it that an average of one and a half people are transported in a car but 27 people in a bus, one has the situation at the moment that during peak hours only 4½ people can be accommodated in private cars while the same road space would accommodate 27 people if they had been transported by bus. This liberal view which we take, i.e. that every person may choose the public mode of transport which he finds most convenient or which is most attractive to him, should be reconsidered in the light of the congestion which we are facing. This absolute freedom to drive wherever one wants must of necessity lead to congestion, which will eventually lead to chaos. It seems to me as if exactly the same thing is happening in transportation as is happening in politics. Absolute freedom leads to absolute chaos. And besides, the congestion which already exists in many of our large cities, particularly in Johannesburg and here in Cape Town, has resulted in tremendous losses in working hours, tremendous losses due to wear and tear and tremendous losses in productivity. In the same lecture delivered by Prof. Verburgh, he had the following to say on the question of productivity and losses—

It is my viewpoint that in respect of this situation, this congestion in which we have landed ourselves, a certain rationalization and co-ordination must take place. It is also my viewpoint that it is unnecessary for us to create new machinery to effect this rationalization. I see that representations have been made by the Handels instituut in which they request that a statutory transport board be established. I feel that in the National Transport Commission and the local road transportation boards we already have the nucleus of this organization. In my humble opinion they can be strengthened in order to effect this rationalization and co-ordination. They could be strengthened further by means of legislative powers to enable them to achieve this objective.

Action taken by a strengthened local road transportation board or a strengthened National Transport Commission in this connection would be threefold. Firstly they would place restrictions on private motor transport. Secondly they would bring about and co-ordinate improved public transport by bus and train. Thirdly we could introduce staggered working hours in the metropolitan areas of our larger cities. Whereas at present only a sporadic effort towards rationalization has been made by various groups of people who realize that something must be done in this connection, I believe that the local road transportation board should be used and that it should be strengthened by legislative powers. The local road transportation board can then be the nucleus or the pivot around which all the interested groups within an urban complex must revolve, so that this rationalization may be effected. As far as the limitation on private transport is concerned, this body could for example consider restricting parking in the city centre to discourage people from coming to the cities with their cars; they can consider freeing the central city areas from motor transport, and placing a restriction on the use by private motorists of certain motorways or roads during peak hours in order to leave those roads open for public transport. As far as the improvement of bus transport is concerned, more convenient transport, more comfortable buses, faster buses and more regular buses must be considered, after the co-ordination of bus transport with train transport, after the creation of parking areas at these junctions. In Europe and some other parts of the world they have gone as far as making this public transport free to the public during peak hours precisely in order to discourage motorists from driving into the city centre. In the third place I said that there is the question of staggered working hours. I note that in Johannesburg the Afrikaanse Handels instituut and the Chamber of Commerce have already taken the lead in attempting to effect this. I venture to predict that this will not succeed, unless a certain degree of official sanction is given to this undertaking. I can well imagine that it would be possible to effect these staggered working hours so that factories could be made to start at a certain time. Government offices a little later, professional offices later and shops even later. If one had these staggered hours it would not be necessary to double one’s road system in the metropolitan areas at tremendous cost simply to accommodate the traffic. Instead of building roads here in the cities, rather build them in the border areas of the homelands to enable industrial development to take place there.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned on a previous occasion, certain replies remained to be furnished to hon. members. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of furnishing those replies. In the first place, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District levelled certain accusations against the National Road Safety Council, accusations which were most unfair. In fairness to this council I have to reply fully to those accusations. The hon. member said that political appointments were made to the National Road Safety Council. I now want to tell him with the greatest emphasis at my disposal that nothing is further from the truth than that statement he made. I should like to give him and this House the assurance that I do not know what the political sentiments are of one single member of the N.R.S.C., excluding, of course, the five M.E.C.s serving on this Council, because from the nature of the case I must know the political sentiments of the M.E.C.s. What kind of people are serving on this Council

†The chairman of the council, Dr. P. J. Ridgen, is a graduate from Reading University and, after serving in the British Road Research Laboratory, he emigrated to the Republic of South Africa. Having devoted his whole life to road safety engineering, the former director of the National Institute for Road Research and the present vice-president of the C.S.I.R., seems to me particularly well qualified to guide this newly established body.

I agree.

Yes, but in all fairness, why then make the statement that the appointments were politically influenced? I think it a most unfair statement.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I explain, please?

No, the hon. member cannot explain at this stage.

The vice-chairman of this council is Mr. Stofberg; he is a member of a very large consulting engineering firm in Pretoria. I have a great admiration for the manner in which he devotes some of his time to this council. The director of this council who was appointed by me, Dr. Uken, qualified in the province of that hon. member, at the University of Natal. I appointed him because of his capabilities and he was selected by the Staff Research Institute on a purely scientific basis. I want to inform the hon. member that we shall proceed in this way to select his deputy and the other officials, and the hon. member need not think that there is any talk of political appointments in this regard.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay put certain questions to me, and I should like to reply to them briefly, in particular in regard to the George airport. Since the Department of Defence was in urgent need of an airport in that area, it was decided, after negotiations, that the Department of Defence would construct the runways and taxi-ways according to the standards laid down by the Department of Transport and under the supervision of the latter. Construction is expected to commence during this financial year. The expenditure will be as follows: In 1972-73, R34 000; 1973-74, R55 000; 1974-75, R30 000 and 1975-76, R20 000. In addition, the Department of Transport will also be responsible for the provision of power, lighting, air navigational facilities, and so forth. I just want to tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay that no provision has been made for the erection of airport buildings at the moment, but one of a few possibilities may be considered. I have in mind a prefabricated operation building with limited passenger handling facilities or, alternatively, an hotel may be erected by private initiative where the necessary arrangements may then be made. The hon. member for Mossel Bay also referred to oil pollution, but I should like rather to deal with this matter as a whole at a later stage when replying to the hon. member for South Coast.

The hon. member for Bethlehem made a plea that more money be made available for weather modification and research in this connection. I should like to endorse his views on this matter, particularly in regard to the necessity for research, and I want to thank him for the friendly remarks on his side in respect of the work which is being done by this department. I am grateful for the fact that this very fine service which is being rendered by the department does not pass unnoticed. The importance of this is being emphasized by the fact that the United States of America, in spite of the considerable amount, of work which has been done in this field, found it necessary in 1971 to earmark an amount of $16 million to be used solely for research work on hail prevention. The U.S.A., from whom we had hoped to learn, were facing a problem for which they did not have any solution themselves. It is therefore essential that before coming to any conclusions or coming to any over-hasty conclusions, we first undertake very intensive research, and I think the hon. member has rendered us a service by emphasizing this matter.

He referred to the necessity for a marine research vessel. The present vessel, the R.S.A., is getting older in terms of the economic life of a vessel, but the department is making plans in regard to a new research vessel.

†The hon. member for South Coast has raised the matter of the pollution of the sea by oil and I think for the sake of clarity that I should spend a little more time in explaining exactly what the position is at the moment. I may, by the way, mention to him that we have adopted the system which is in operation in Britain. The position is that municipalities and local authorities are not required to identify the source of the pollution at all. That is the duty of the department. But any oil slick that comes onto the beaches should be immediately tackled by the local authority. If the department then identifies the source, they of course take full responsibility for whatever cost was incurred in clearing the beaches. But if the source is not identified, which can happen as the hon. member well knows, the department undertakes to pay 50% of the costs involved in clearing the beaches. When an area falls outside the area of jurisdiction of a local authority then the provincial authority has to take responsibility and again a subsidy of 50% is made available. The hon. member referred to the necessity of a handbook and I am happy to tell the hon. member that such a handbook is already being prepared by my department.

Is it being prepared or has it already been prepared?

It is in the process of being prepared and it should be available shortly.

*I just want to go into more detail because it is essential that we see this matter in its true perspective. As you know, the question of oil pollution has been entrusted to the department for only a relatively short period. There are certain matters I want to clarify. The coast has been divided into two regions. The one region extends southwards from the Kunene River to Cape Point, and then eastwards to Cape St. Francis. This region will fall under the Cape Committee. This Committee comprises the principal officer of the marine division of the Department of Transport, Cape Town, who will be the chairman, the port captain of the South African Railways and a representative of the oil industry. The second region will extend from Cape St. Francis eastwards to the Mozambique border and will fall under the Durban Committee, which will also consist of three people appointed in the same manner. For a distance of 50 sea miles on both sides of Cape St. Francis there is going to be a shadow area with some measure of overlapping under both Committees. There are two plans, i.e. a long-term and a short-term plan. I just want to mention to you certain elements of the long-term plan. Auxilliary equipment will have to be provided, and it is the intention of the department to ensure that powerful tugs as well as spray and patrol boats, all of which will be equipped with the necessary equipment and chemicals, be dispatched to the scene of the accident without delay and that these will be at the disposal of the Department of Transport on a priority basis at all times. Negotiations are at present taking place between the department and Safmarine with a view to acquiring two deep sea tugs. Prospects are that these deep sea tugs will be available towards the end of next year.

What are the names of the tugs?

They have not been named yet. Negotiations are still being conducted with Safmarine for these tugs to be made available to the Department of Transport on a hiring out basis.

One first builds the vessel and then names it.

These tugs will be more powerful and bigger than anything we have in South African waters at the moment. They will have 18 000 horse power, compared with the approximately 10 000 horse power of our present South African boats. They will be 269 feet long with a range of approximately 10 000 miles. They will have a crew of 12 officers, together with 18 ordinary seamen. They will be capable of approximately 20 knots, which is quite fast for a tug.

Specifications for the construction of five spray and patrol boats to be used for this purpose are in the process of being completed. These will be boats of 200 tons each. They will have a draught of nine feet; they will be 95 feet long and 21 feet wide. They will be capable of 11 knots and will be able to stay on the open sea for an uninterrupted period of 30 days since they will be equipped with the necessary equipment.

As yet they do not have names either.

For the information of the hon. member for Simonstown, the hon. the Minister says that as yet these boats have not been named either. Apart from this, sound means of communication are being established at the moment. In the harbour area permanent and effective loading facilities are being established, for example storage tanks and pumps for chemicals and spraying material. Spraying equipment is being acquired at the moment and a system to pump oil from a damaged tanker to another tanker is being investigated at present. These will probably be installed on tugs. The purpose is to be able to render this service around the South African coast on a 24 hour basis, and in order to be able to do this, the necessary telex facilities are being established between the various points. On the basis of the experience gained in this connection and in consultation with Warren Springs laboratories, 12 sets of this spraying equipment, which is highly effective, have been made available and it is hoped to acquire another 18 sets in the near future.

Sir, since this department has been given the responsibility to combat oil pollution at sea, negotiations were entered into with the Commandant-General of the South African Defence Force—this is in reply to the question put by the hon. member for South Coast—that any patrol work carried out should also be carried out in respect of oil pollution and that the information be furnished to us. Furthermore, the department issued instructions to all South African pilots to report to the department whenever they notice any oil on the sea. I can tell the hon. member that the response we had was very favourable thanks to the assistance we had from the pilots who sent in reports, and consequently the department has been able to handle 35 cases of oil pollution up to now; expenses to the extent of R13 293 was incurred in this process. Sir, with this I hope to have replied to all the questions put by the hon. member for South Coast.

†I hope that the matter of the subsidy is quite clear now.

Yes, thank you.

The hon. member for Carletonville mentioned certain facts in connection with traffic fines and so forth. All I can ask the hon. member for Carletonville is that we give the National Road Safety Council, a new body which has been established in terms of an Act in 1972, the opportunity of investigating this matter once more and of studying it on a scientific basis. Everyone of us is able to suggest solutions; I have done so myself, but we have to investigate the matter on a scientific basis; we have to have this done by qualified people and I suggest that we give the National Road Safety Council a fair chance to tackle this major problem.

Sir, the hon. member for Port Natal put certain questions to me. I should like to give him the assurance that it is not at all the primary task of the National Transport Commission simply to protect the Railways. I can quote to him quite a number of cases where the South African Railways have not been protected by the National Transport Commission. Time does not allow me to deal with this in detail. This is not their primary purpose at all, let alone their primary approach, and there are numerous cases which prove that what the hon. member said here is not correct.

†Sir, perhaps I should point out to the hon. member how these boards are appointed. He says that they are appointed by the Minister to enforce his policies. That is not the case at all. The chairman of this board is an official. Another member is appointed on the recommendation of the local authority, and the third member is appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the provincial authority. Not a single instance has come to my notice yet where the Minister has appointed anybody not recommended either by the local authority or by the provincial council.

May I ask a question? I accept what the hon. the Deputy Minister says, but does he know that on the Durban local transportation board the two appointed members are both Nationalists, and Nationalists are a rarity in Durban?

It is not extraordinary at all. Why should they not be appointed? Do they not qualify? Do they not do their work? Were they not recommended by the local authority or the provincial authority?

They are two defeated Nationalist candidates.

Sir, that we can argue; I wish I had the time to argue that point.

You have the time.

The hon. member made a plea for the extension of the scope of third-party insurance to cover the balance of third party also. Sir, the position is not as favourable as the hon. member for Port Natal has tried to suggest here. I can assure him that there are considerable outstanding claims. Let me read out the list to him quickly.

Claims still outstanding for 1965-’66 are 29; for 1966-’67 there are still 268 claims outstanding. For the following year there are 633 cases. It increases progressively up to 1971-’72, when we have 14 110 claims still outstanding, and the total amount involved there, just for one year, for 1969-’70, is over R13 million. Those are claims still outstanding. [Interjection.] Experience has proved up to now that the claims, compared to premiums paid, average about 107%. If it were not for the investments made by this fund, and the interest earned by those investments, this fund could not have stayed solvent without an increase in premiums on third party.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if the interest on the investment of the funds less the expenses of the fund will result in the fund being bankrupt now, according to what the hon. the Deputy Minister says?

No, it would not be bankrupt. There is a considerable surplus in the fund. That surplus is invested, but claims are still coming in from as far back as 1965-’66. It has nothing to do with solvency, but I must warn in all fairness that if this tendency continues, we will have to consider an increase in third-party premiums. It is only fair of me to warn the House in time that such a situation might arise, and if it does we will have to consider increasing the premiums.

*The hon. member for Bellville discussed the problem of urban transport; he did so quite effectively. He explained many of the existing problems to us. I just want to tell him that it is easy to identify the problem, but it is not always so easy to find a solution for them. For that reason the Government saw fit to appoint the Driessen committee to which was entrusted the task of undertaking an intensive investigation into these particular problems mentioned by the hon. member. We hope to receive the report of this committee during the present calendar year. It will be a very comprehensive report because the investigation covers a very wide field. This is one of the major transport problems of our country, and for that reason we can appreciate that the implications of the solution will also be far-reaching. I do not want to anticipate the investigation in any way, but I am confident that the Driessen committee will come forward with recommendations which will be able to solve many of the problems. I hope I have now replied to all the hon. members.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 6.—“Treasury” and 7.—“Public Debt,” Loan Vote A.—“Miscellaneous Loans and Services,” and S.W.A. Vote No. 2.—“Miscellaneous Services”:

It is not our intention to make this Committee Stage debate an extension of the Second Reading debate, because there are a number of other matters which we want to raise with the hon. the Minister and we hope that we will be able to get replies from him.

The first matter I want to raise is under Vote 6, subhead A, “Control of Financial Institutions.” Here one finds that there is a decrease of four in the number of staff. There are a number of changes in the gradings of these posts under the control of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. For example, two assistant registrar’s posts have been upgraded to deputy registrar. The number of divisional chiefs has been increased from four to six, and there is an additional post for a chief professional officer. But nevertheless we would have expected not a reduction in the staff from 70 to 66, but a fairly substantial increase in the staff of the Registrar of Financial Institutions when one takes into account what has been happening in the financial world over the last few years. The number of banks and the number of financial institutions are growing daily. Every day you pick up the newspaper you read about a new bank. There will not be enough money around soon to go into all these new banks. We are also going through one of these unfortunate periods which one gets from time to time in the economic development of a country where you are having too many, because it is always too many, frauds and defalcations taking place. If one looks at the report of the Department of Justice for the calendar year 1972, there is a very interesting comment under the heading “Handling of Criminal Cases arising from Commercial Practices.”—

This is unfortunately true and therefore the task which is imposed on the Registrar of Financial Institutions is becoming more and more onerous every day. I would therefore have believed that there should have been a substantial increase in the number of staff that he has at his disposal and it is therefore a matter which is causing us some concern. He is involved in a number of very delicate and difficult matters today. I should imagine that he is still very heavily involved in the affairs of the Stock Exchange, for example, following the unfortunate events of last year, specifically the Chweidan case and the Poplak case.

The public is waiting with some sense of anticipation and some anxiety and some urgency for some reaction from the Government to these two issues. It is now nearly four months since the Chweidan affair took place and since that day there have been a number of other failures on the Stock Exchange. There have been one or two statements from the hon. the Minister saying that investigations were taking place by the Stock Exchange Committee and that investigations were taking place by the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions, but since then we have had nothing further. There has been a sort of blanket of silence over the last few months.

The hon. the Minister is well aware of our concern in this matter. We have been concerned ever since the Stock Exchange Amendment Bill was introduced into this House. We have been concerned with what we have regarded as the inadequate protection that is being afforded to the public in the buying of shares, particularly when they are legally committed in terms of the Act to make payment for script before they are given the script which they have purchased. We believe that it is a dangerous situation where the public is enforced by law to part with their funds prior to their receiving from the brokers, the script to which they are entitled. We do not know how many people in either of these failures on the Stock Exchange are involved as a result of complying with the provisions of the Act, but we do know that there is a great deal of concern among the public on this issue.

I think the hon. the Minister did say that he was awaiting reports from the Stock Exchange and from the Registrar of Financial Institutions. We should like to know from him whether these reports have been received and what the position is at the moment and what action the hon. the Minister has taken or what action he contemplates. I do not want to take this matter any further; the hon. the Minister is well aware of our views on this issue.

However, there is one other aspect of it on which I should like some information from him if he could give it to us. I should like to know what was the result of the special audit of stockbrokers that was undertaken a short while ago. From information that appeared in the Press it would seem as if no serious problems came to light as the result of that audit but we would like to have confirmation from the hon. the Minister.

I want now to turn to a completely different item and that is the question of exchange control. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not believe that the time has come to give serious consideration to alleviating the exchange control with which we have been living for so many years. We have a lot of money in the kitty, if I may put it that way. Our reserves are standing very high and very strong. We are at one with the hon. the Minister that we are grateful that this is so, but I believe that the economic development of South Africa can be hindered by the continuation of exchange control. When I visited the Continent two years ago I visited a number of the most prominent banks in Europe thanks to the good offices of the hon. the Minister. One of the things they said to me was, and I am sure they have said this to the hon. the Minister as well, time out of number, “If you people in South Africa would only do away with exchange control, you would find a far greater flow of investment funds from the continent of Europe to South Africa.” The flow has been good, but the time to press something is when you are doing well. If you have a good business and your salesmen are doing well, you advertise more; you get on with the job. We are doing well with the inflow of capital funds into South Africa. However, I believe that we would have a more continuous flow, a readier flow, a flow which would be better for the general economy, if we can alleviate the situation of exchange control. I am not saying that we have to abolish it overnight, but I do want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is giving any consideration to the phasing out of exchange control.

I believe that over a period of time the debits will balance the credits. Though we may suffer for a period of time and find that there is an outflow, I believe we shall get an inflow which will follow that and then you will get a natural balance. I think that is a risk which might be worthwhile going into. I am not going to say that we must take the risk because I am not in possession of all the information that the hon. the Minister has. However, I do believe that on the long term this is an objective which we have to aim at because when you talk to the banking people abroad, it is quite clear that they would invest far greater sums of money in South Africa if they know that these moneys could be repatriated when they want to sell assets or deal in shares without having to go through the somewhat tedious procedures of selling here and selling there, finding arbitrage, etc. If it can be a direct simple procedure of bringing in money and of taking out money, they will be encouraged. I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reactions on this.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to enter into an argument with the hon. member for Parktown in regard to the question of exchange control, but I should nevertheless like to say something about it. He alleges that we can obtain far more funds from abroad and particularly from the continent of Europe if we abolish exchange control. I am not so sure that it will be good for us to have an inflow of large quantities of funds because up till now our Government has always succeeded in obtaining all the funds it needed for sound growth. Of course, there is such a thing as “hot money”, which we do not always want. For that reason I do not agree with the hon. member that it is such a good thing to have a far bigger inflow of money from Europe.

I want to refer briefly to the financial scandals on the Stock Exchange. The hon. member levelled the accusation against the hon. the Minister that he had done nothing in regard to these scandals. I want to give him the assurance that a great deal is being done about this matter. After all, the spot audit carried out by auditors in the offices of all the stockbrokers was one of the consequences of the instruction issued by the hon. the Minister. So it is definitely not a case of the hon. the Minister not having done anything about this matter; he has undoubtedly done a great deal. Although no official statement was issued, all of us are satisfied that no further irregularities have been found by those auditors. We can therefore rest assured and be satisfied that the situation is under control. This then as far as the hon. member for Parktown is concerned.

I am actually rising to record the great satisfaction of this side of the House and, I believe, the public in general with the way in which the hon. the Minister of Finance has handled the question of the pari value of the rand. When our Government devalued the rand by 12,28% on 21st December, 1971, while the U.S.A. dollar was devalued by only 7,89%, the actions of the Government were seriously criticized. At that time the hon. Opposition paid lip service to devaluation, but constantly questioned the actions of the Government for devaluing the rand by a higher percentage than the percentage by which the dollar had been devalued. It was only this difference of slightly more than 4% which served as the spark to unleash a series of chain reactions which caused our balance of payments to increase remarkably over the past year. It was that 4% by which the rand was devalued in excess of the American dollar which caused this whole chain reaction as a result of which the economy finds itself in a particularly sound position today and that the rand is so strong at present. In spite of the criticism levelled by the Opposition at that time, I still believe today that that decision made by the hon. the Minister of Finance, the decision of the Government, was the best decision that has been taken for many years in the financial field in this country. This decision has put us back on the road to large-scale recovery in our financial and economic spheres in this country. For that reason I want to record here this afternoon our great appreciation for the particularly sound handling of this question of the pari value of the rand by the Government.

Of course, this did not end on 21st December, 1971, because in July of the following year the rand started floating with sterling. As a result once more of the sound actions of our Government the hon. the Minister of Finance was in a position to return the rand to a fixed pari value on 24th October, 1972. Consequently the rand stopped floating with sterling. Its pari value was fixed at a level approximately 4% higher than the level at which it started floating with sterling at that stage, although it was 4,202% lower than it was on 21st December, 1971. This enabled us not to devalue with the dollar when the latter was devalued by 10% recently. The final result of this action taken by the Government over the past 16 months is that the rand is very strong today and that our economy has started to show a firm upward swing.

I also want to refer very briefly to the deposit rate control and the policy of the Government concerning the rate of interest. We have had a reduction in the bank rate recently over and above the reduction of ½% we had before. As a result of pressure brought to bear by the Government the commercial banks decided to reduce their lending rates by ½%. All these things will assist to place our economy once more firmly on the road to recovery and growth. Also in this respect I briefly want to pay tribute to our Minister of Finance for the steps he has taken in order to place our economy on such a sound basis. Of course, there is only one problem I foresee now—I have discussed this on a previous occasion and I do not want to elaborate too much on this matter—and that is that as the rates of interest are now decreasing there is one group of the population which is going to be hit very hard.

I am thinking of those people who have to live on their interest. I have appealed to the hon. the Minister on a previous occasion to have this whole matter investigated with a view to possibly granting relief to those people who do not live at the mercy of the State in their old age but who were wise enough to make provision for their old age themselves. They are being hit very hard by the reduction of the rates of interest and simultaneous inflation. I want to repeat my request that the situation be thoroughly investigated otherwise we will be running the risk that our people will start arguing that it is not worth their while saving for their old age, because the Government takes care of those who do not take care of themselves and does not help those who do take care of themselves. For that reason I want to repeat my friendly request for this matter to be thoroughly investigated so that we do not thwart the attempts of the people at saving.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend following the hon. member for Paarl in his continuation of his Second Reading speech, but I would like to say that we on this side of the House can never agree that devaluation is a happy event or an event on which anybody should be congratulated. Devaluation is a sad state of affairs. It is a recognition that our economy has not been strong and that steps had to be taken. As far as the devaluation of December 1971 is concerned, we consider that in all probability the facts were that it was necessary on account of the weakness of the situation at that stage to take the step, but we consider that the degree to which it was taken was excessive. When it comes to the second devaluation of June, 1972 when we followed sterling in its float downwards, we consider that that was a completely unnecessary step to take. As a result of these two devaluations we are now placed in the position where we are experiencing inflation to an extent which we have never experienced before in this country.

I want to say in the time available to me something more about inflation. During the Budget debate inflation was fairly fully debated in regard to its effect on prices, its effect on the cost of living and the difficulties the man in the street suffered as a result of it. I think it was right that those aspects of inflation should have been highlighted in that debate because that is where inflation hurts most, but in this Committee Stage I wish to discuss inflation from a different angle, namely the effect which it has on the person who saves and wants to invest his savings in Government loans, and conversely, the effect inflation can have on the Government’s ability to raise loans from individuals.

Mr. Chairman, for the first time in my memory—I do not know whether it has happened before but I very much doubt it —we are experiencing the phenomenon where the rate of inflation at 8,9% in February is greater than the yield on Government stocks; 8,9% represents the increase in the consumer index in February compared with February of the previous year; 8,9% is the current rate of inflation in South Africa. The figures are however not all that important. My point is that the rate of inflation at present, and for the first time in my memory, is higher than the rate of interest earned on long-term Government stocks. This is a gap that is increasing at the moment and not decreasing because the rate of inflation is going up and the rate of interest on Government stocks is coming down. Put in simple language this means that if all the interest earned on an investment in Government stock were to be added to the capital value of that stock, the value of the loan in real terms is diminishing all the time without the lender receiving any benefit by way of interest. Instead of an individual getting a benefit from lending his money to the State, he is actually suffering a penalty for doing so. The penalty is worse if the lender has to pay income tax on the interest which is paid on that loan. Even if we deal with tax-free loans such as national saving certificates and premium bonds, then, with the present rate of inflation, what the lender gets back is less in real terms than what he lent without having received any benefit from the interest on those loans. In these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, in many cases it is better for a person to spend his savings rather than lend them to the Government, or certainly to invest them in investments which are backed by assets which are likely to appreciate such as land, property, equity shares, paintings, works of art, jewellery, and so forth. The incentive to invest at fixed interest loans such as Government loans where the yield on those loans is less than the rate of inflation is absolutely nil. As long as this lasts, investments in equities and other investments backed by real assets are going to be popular and investments in Government loans or loans at fixed interest rates are going to be unpopular.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.